Gary Gorski, the counsel who has appealed Silveira vs. Lockyer to the Supreme Court of the U.S. is not happy with the NRA's attempts to take credit for the work he's done.
It seems that the NRA issued a press release that implied they were working on the Silveira case prior to their filing of an Amicus Curiae brief in support of SCOTUS hearing the case. (Here's a saved screenshot of the NRA press release.)
But in fact, the NRA attorney who is credited with fighting for Second Amendment Rights in California had filed an Amicus Curiae brief asking the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the case entirely. For a decent review of the NRA attorney's actions, read this piece by Brian Puckett. In fact, The NRA attorney had stated that the NRA's California affiliate, the CRPA, would most likely file an Amicus Curiae in opposition to Silveira being heard by SCOTUS.
So the $2 question is why did the NRA, through their attorney & the CRPA at first oppose Silveira vs. Lockyer but now support it? I have some theories but I'll ponder them a while longer before I speculate further on the matter.
Incidentally, Mr. Gorski has this press release in which he expresses the opinion that because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delayed a ruling in Nordyke vs. King, that things are looking promising that the Supreme Court will hear Silveira vs. Lockyer.
Donations are still needed & very much appreciated for the Silveira vs. Lockyer appeal to the Supreme Court, so give what you can.
Since I mentioned Mr. Puckett earlier I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend reading Brian Puckett's A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment