|10-21-2003, 11:54 PM||#1|
Joined: Feb 2002
From: Probably washing the vette....
NRA - friend or foe?
NRA Attorney: "Your Honor, We are Here Wanting to Register Handguns"
By Angel Shamaya - Keep and Bear Arms.com
KeepAndBearArms.com -- NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook appears not only unprepared to effectively argue a Second Amendment case, but ready to give up the farm - to register handguns and call it "reasonable" - when he gets his day in court. Read the annotated transcript of Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments from court just last week:
D.C. SECOND AMENDMENT FEDERAL COURT HEARING Annotated Transcript of NRA Case Proceedings by Roy Lucas http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp
Here is a short excerpt from Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments last Wednesday, October 8, in a case the NRA calls a "Second Amendment" lawsuit:
THE COURT: THE GOVERNMENT CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
MR. HALBROOK: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.
THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?
MR. HALBROOK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.
[See: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp for the full transcript, with annotations.]
Sarah Brady wants to register handguns, too. Maybe Mr. Halbrook should join her organization to help in their efforts. When you read the full, annotated transcript, the above will be one of many concerns raised.
Arguing a so-called "Second Amendment case" while "wanting to register handguns" is working directly against the rights of those who would never submit to such restrictions under any circumstances. Stephen Halbrook is an NRA-paid attorney, and he filed this lawsuit with their support.
Would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison have gone to court to fight a Second Amendment case merely wanting to register handguns in the home? Of course not. Would they have argued for handgun registration in the middle of a court hearing in which they eagerly agreed that the government can impose "reasonable restrictions"? Not a chance. Doing so suggests that such an overt infringement on our Second Amendment rights is "reasonable," when it most certainly is not. Treasonable, perhaps...
You do not have to register your Bible, or your computer (First Amendment), so why should you register your firearms (Second Amendment)? Answer: you shouldn't. But NRA Management and their unprepared attorney obviously disagree - and they are using members' donations to do just that. Handgun registration is NRA's idea of leading a Second Amendment court challenge. Yet they've been in operation since the late 1800's and have raised billions of dollars to "protect the Second Amendment."
Americans must realize that NRA management's "defense" of Second Amendment rights in court litigation is destructive. Fortunately, the current Second Amendment lawsuit most likely to be heard by the Supreme Court - Silveira v. Lockyer - is beyond NRA management's control.
The Supreme Court is very likely to grant a hearing in the Silveira case soon. And thanks to careful legal research spanning the last year, the case is far better prepared than any Second Amendment litigation the National Rifle Association has ever brought in court - with already-greater judicial success for the Second Amendment than the NRA's well-paid lawyers have ever managed.
Read the certiorari petition now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in that case. The arguments for strict scrutiny far surpass what NRA's attorney weakly suggested to the judge last week: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf
Mr. Halbrook should study the Silveira petition. He could learn a thing or two and certainly improve his arguments by doing so.
Three weeks ago, the Silveira lawsuit was attacked (and misrepresented) by an NRA-funded writer on a well-trafficked website. He told the world that NRA's Stephen Halbrook was the man to send to the Supreme Court to win a Second Amendment victory. Perhaps these gentlemen have a different idea of victory than we do.
With the help of grassroots activists, KeepAndBearArms.com is funding the necessary legal research and writing being used in the Silveira lawsuit (and another Second Amendment lawsuit, to be announced soon). More work is necessary, and it costs money to get it done. We've publicly displayed our books on funds raised and invested bolstering the case. If you'd like to help, please do by clicking here.
Silveira v. Lockyer Status of Fundraising
Silveira Second Amendment Case Needs Immediate Financial Support, and Here's Why
Silveira v. Lockyer Home Page
KeepAndBearArms.com Gun Owners' Home Page
|10-23-2003, 05:53 AM||#2|
Joined: Oct 2003
I saw the registration and the NRA accusation floating around and was more than a little disturbed by it. I asked a friend to do a little research on it (he's in a very good position to answer any question on the NRA) and here is his reply:
"1.) The NRA is NOT a party to, NOR A PLAYER in this proceeding. 2.) The attorney, Steve Halbrook does NOT speak for, represent, nor is an agent for the NRA...he may be subsidized by the NRA and/or previously represented the NRA, but he is NOT associated with the NRA in this case. 3.) These statements were taken from a transcript NOT FROM A TRIAL, but rather a pre-trial hearing held to explain with oral arguements to the judge the strengths and weaknesses in the case before it is heard...there is nothing official about this proceeding. 4.) If the case is heard, and Halbrook loses, nothing is really lost...the NRA is not involved...the case does not set legal precident, because it is only at the initial court level. 5.) What attorneys say during trial are relevent in terms of appeal, but the written decision by the judge is what is on record. Halbrook is free to say whatever he pleases to win his case, and just because he has been employed previously by the NRA, does not mean that the NRA is responsible for his statements.
Angle Shamaya and Roy Lucas who provided the writeup and interpretation wrote those words as if the NRA was involved in this case...The NRA is NOT a party in this proceeding, nor is associated with it...if you were to go back and read all the information provided here, and read the case filing, which I found and did, you will find NO langauge that will show that the NRA is involved as a party with this case...period! A brief glance through the articles give you the impression that the NRA is VERY involved and endorses pro gun registration policies through Halbrook...reread the material and you will find that all association with the NRA is by inference provided by Lucas & Shamaya...Halbrook is NOT an NRA attorney for this case...he represents another party, and it is not ethical to link Halbrook's statements with the NRA, because there is NO evidence that Steve Halbrook speaks for the NRA...only his client which is NOT the NRA. About the best thing I can say for Roy Lucas who interprets the hearing proceedings is that he would probably do better selling encylopedias door-to-door. Angle Shamaya most likely has a grudge against the NRA (if he/she is even pro-gun), and wrote the article to inflame and insight upon casual reading...which it did. "
|10-24-2003, 12:02 AM||#3|
Joined: Oct 2003
Isn't it about time to push this issue once and for all? Or are the risks of losing a Supreme Court ruling much too great? Quite frankly, I would like to know. I don't think it will make too much difference either way, I suppose. The anti-gunners will still be trying to take away the guns if they lose, and all of us won't give up our guns no matter what the Supreme Court says about our right.
Which is why I guess they duck and cover whenever a 2nd amendment issue comes heading their way.