Keep and Bear Arms
Home Members Login/Join About Us News/Editorials Archives Take Action Your Voice Web Services Free Email
You are 1 of 381 active visitors Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Silveira v. Lockyer

Keep and Bear Arms

Silveira v. Lockyer -- Issue Home Page

Latest Ruling in Case

Overview of Silveira v. Lockyer

Silveira v. Lockyer in the News

Help with Funding

Status of Funding

KABA Email List:
Click Here

KABA State Lists:
Click Here

Keep and Bear Arms


Keep and Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms Join Online
Join by Mail
Make a Donation
Magazine Subscriptions

KABA Memorial Fund
Advertise Here
Pro Gun Long Distance
Buy KABA Merchandise
Shop Our Mall Stores


Keep and Bear Arms

Keep and Bear Arms


U.S. Supreme Court "Requests" Response from State of California in Silveira v. Lockyer Lawsuit

September 25, 2003

(Updated Sept. 29 with link to actual order) -- Another interesting turn of events has occurred in the Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment lawsuit. Our legal experts advise that this new development suggests that the Supreme Court will probably be granting certiorari in this case -- that they will most likely be hearing the case for which is the fundraiser.

On September 22, the Court issued a "Request for Response" to the Petition for a Supreme Court hearing of this true Second Amendment case -- a "request" that was sent to California attorney general Bill Lockyer and copied to lead Silveira attorney Gary Gorski. (See U.S. Supreme Court docket for Silveira v. Lockyer.) Why is this intriguing? Why does it suggest that the Justices are seriously considering hearing this case?

Let's quickly review the timeline of events surrounding the appeal of the Silveira case to the Supreme Court:

July 3, 2003: Petition for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2003)
July 30 - Aug 7: Amicus Briefs filed by Pink Pistols, Women Against Gun Control, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Second Amendment Sisters, Inc., National Rifle Association and Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, in that order.
Aug 7, 2003:  Waiver of right of respondent Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California to respond filed.
Aug 20 2003: Petition DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2003.
Sep 22, 2003: Response Requested [from California, who already waived the right to respond]. (Due October 22, 2003)

California waived their right to respond to the Petition, in essence saying "we'll let this play out without saying anything." One week before the Justices were to have their "Conference" on the case, they told California to respond anyway. They are asking California's attorney general, "Hey, do you agree with this opinion by your judge Reinhardt, or not? What is your position on the arguments in this Certiorari Petition. We're taking this seriously. So should you. Take a position. You've got one month to do so."

The Justices could simply have denied the Silveira petition, like they did in Emerson and Bean. But they didn't. By all appearances, they are thinking, seriously, about granting certiorari.

Disclaimer: Of course it's not a done deal until the Supreme Court says they'll hear the case. Another possibility could be that they want to give California a chance to convince them not to hear it. Or that they want to give an appearance of giving the case serious consideration even though they don't plan to hear it. But why go to that much trouble when they don't have to?

The Silveira legal team believes, as they have for quite some time, that this case will be granted a hearing -- and that the case will be won on at least the two fundamental questions presented. If they are correct, history is about to be made.

Use the menu system in the upper left margin of this page to navigate the Silveira-related pages on this website. The case is a true, pure Second Amendment case that requires answers to two fundamental questions about the Second Amendment:

1) Is the Second Amendment a bar against infringements by the States?

2) Does the Second Amendment confer an individual right?

We already know the truth. The answer to both questions is an unequivocal YES. But these questions need to be answered squarely by the Supreme Court (rather than in mere dicta). Unlike the other Second Amendment cases petitioned to the Supreme Court by "gun rights leaders" since 1939, there's no wiggle room to avoid answering those questions; they must be answered if this case is heard. Liberty is on the line. Does the rule of law still apply, or has the federal government nullified the Bill of Rights? We may soon find out. And it's about time.


"The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire (Source:

COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

NOTICE:  The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of is the leading provider of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificate solutions used by enterprises, Web sites, and consumers to conduct secure communications and transactions over the Internet and private networks., Inc. © 1999-2024, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy