Here is an item from WorldNet Daily today that is certainly on point.
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
NRA files brief in high-court gun case
'Silveira v. Lockyer' seen as potential landmark 2nd Amendment ruling
August 15, 2003
By Jon Dougherty
The National Rifle Association has filed a brief in support of what backers are calling a potential landmark gun-rights case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sponsored primarily by KeepAndBearArms.com, or KABA, a pro-gun rights website and organization, the case challenges "the California semi-auto rifle ban on the basis of Second Amendment protection of our individual right to keep and bear arms," according to the group's website.
California lawmakers banned a number of rifles under the Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989, but a decade later, the state also restricted the sale, manufacture, or importation into the state of all semi-automatic rifles having combinations of arbitrarily selected features – such as detachable magazines, folding stocks, flash suppressors and pistol grips.
NRA support, say the suit's backers, was crucial not only to lend credibility but also as a way to boost fundraising for the effort, KABA officials said.
The 28-page NRA amicus brief, filed with the high court Aug. 7, argues that the Second Amendment supersedes state law.
The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"The Second Amendment empowers individual citizens to defend themselves and their property against the acts of criminals, mob violence, and even state-sponsored oppression," says the brief. "Only individual possession of firearms allows for the effective exercise of self-defense against such threats."
Brian Puckett, a spokesman for KABA, told WorldNetDaily that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Second Amendment Sisters, Women Against Gun Control, and even Pink Pistols – a homosexual gun-rights group – have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in support of gun rights.
The NRA brief also quotes 19th Century Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who observed that "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers."
"We are at a critical stage on what may turn out to be the most important Second Amendment case ever filed," said KABA spokesman David Codrea.
Supporters appealed to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that Americans have no individual right to keep and bear arms.
KABA said the suit "seeks to address at least two specific aspects of the Second Amendment, namely: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply, and does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights?"
The case is named after its primary plaintiff, Sean Silveira, and the California attorney general, Democrat Bill Lockyer.
Clinton administration Justice Department officials also held that the Second Amendment was a collective state right, not an individual right, a point laid out in an Aug. 22, 2000, letter by then-Solicitor General Seth Waxman.
However, Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed course in a letter to the NRA shortly after taking office, telling the nation's largest gun-rights organization he believes the Constitution supports an individual's right to own firearms.
So the NRA is on board with this now? Last I heard, they were avoiding it like the plague. If they are willing to throw their entire weight behind this issue, then this is truly something to celebrate.
The NRA is generally pretty astute on what will fly and what won't. They have a history of being very cautious on this front and have earned a well-deserved reputation of being reluctant to take the lead.
IF they have had a change of heart, it might well be because they have reason to believe that this case is a winner. Then again, an opinion as going around that they feel this case will be decided so narrowly, that they can now say they supported it and still have room to get another case before the Supreme Court.
They are VERY frightened of getting a good case before the SC and having the decision made on political grounds. They are very aware of how long it took to get Dred Scott overturned by incrementalism. What they want, lust over, is a good "Bivens" decision, when they do finally go to court.
We do need to get ahead of this with letters and phone calls to our legislators. They are not supposed to have any influence with the Court, but the reality is that they can send signals that an honest, Constitutionaly correct decision is desirable. Those signals won't be sent up the steps unless we pressure our Congressmen and Senators. Even pressure on your State houses will help.
I suspect it will make no difference at all on the new laws proposed nor in the way old laws are enforced. The Feds have a history of ignoring court orders which are not to their liking. California will make some cosmetic changes to their law to "bring it in line with the Court's opinion."
Look at the battles subsequent to the Court's ruling on segration. Nothing changed until enough battles were fought in HONEST courts to turn the tide. We will have a long way to go and the enemy has the high ground and the howitzers. We are going to have to dig trenches uphill for a long time.
However, it will be the start we need to retake our rights. I feel that, once we start to retake THIS one right, The rest will get easier. We have the history of the civil rights movement to guide us, if we will just take our blinders off long enough to use some of their strategies and tactics.
Gird your loins and hike up your socks. We're in a battle we have to win.
I love to see this thing go our way. Every time Californication makes a stupid liberal law that oppresses the law abiding citizens of that state, The Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey follows closely with one just like it.
If the NRA and all the other groups involved can overturn this weapons ban there, then it'll make a strong case to eliminate the assult weapons ban, and magazine capacity law here in Nu Friggin Joisey.
__________________ "I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know." New Jersey Politician's oath of office