Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MicroBalrog on February 12, 2010, 07:40:44 AM
-
The NRA Muscles into McDonald v. Chicago
“Gun nuts” battle “Constitution nuts” at the Supreme Court
Brian Doherty | February 10, 2010
McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court case that will settle whether or not the Second Amendment applies to states and localities, is gearing up to radically challenge Court precedent when it comes to defending rights against state infringement.
Alan Gura, lawyer for the Chicago plaintiffs whose right to effectively defend their lives in their own homes has been abridged by the city's ban on handgun possession, previously won 2008's D.C. v. Heller, the case establishing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess weapons against federal encroachment. Gura is responsible, then, for the rehabilitation and revival of one constitutional amendment already. In McDonald, rather than merely extending the Second’s reach, he is aiming to rehabilitate and revive the 14th Amendment as well.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision in late January to grant 10 of Gura’s 30 minutes of oral argument time to the National Rifle Association (NRA) seems likely to hurt chances that the Court will take the more dramatic route laid before them. The NRA isn't a plaintiff in McDonald (though they were parties in an earlier version heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which combined separate challenges to Chicago’s gun bans), and the organization's intent is to emphasize the more limited and traditional method of incorporating the Second Amendment against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
To sum up a very complicated legal argument quickly, Gura's McDonald briefs do not rely solely on the traditional due process method. He also argued that 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause was more clearly intended to accomplish such incorporation, in terms of both legal logic and history.
An early misstep in 14th Amendment jurisprudence back in 1873 effectively murdered that clause, however, despite the fact that its value to vindicate citizens' rights against government encroachment is vast. The significance of the clause and the Slaughterhouse Cases that killed it were explained in a December Reason column.
If the the Privileges or Immunities Clause is restored to its original meaning—and pretty much all the relevant history from the 14th Amendment’s ratification proves it was meant to do more than just protect certain rights of national citizenship, contrary to the Slaughterhouse majority—American jurisprudence would become much more respectful of both unenumerated and enumerated rights. However, that very possibility makes lots of people who are otherwise rooting for Gura uncomfortable.
As Reason’s Damon Root summed up aptly, “The 14th Amendment was specifically designed and ratified to protect a sweepingly libertarian idea of self-ownership. That idea includes the right to acquire property, run a business, and buy and sell labor without unnecessary or improper interference by the government.”
Thus, if Gura wins on privileges or immunities grounds, it will open up the full richness of the 14th Amendment’s original meaning, which makes the stakes for a victory in McDonald far higher than just preventing states and localities from stopping citizens keeping guns in their homes. It is also worth remembering, as many gun rights advocates grumbled when Heller was decided, that whether the gun right protected by that case goes much beyond the use of commonly owned firearms for self-protection in the home is a matter for future courts to decide. If McDonald is won, on whatever grounds, expect the courts to swell with challenges to the dizzying variety of ways that localities restrict gun rights.
While Gura thinks the expansive power of the Privileges or Immunities Clause is great, lots of people on the right—who otherwise support extending the right to keep and bear arms to the states—don’t. (The NRA also offered an alternative argument based on the Privileges or Immunities Clause in a brief, but its explicit purpose in horning in on the oral arguments is to stress the Due Process Clause.) A representative summation of that sort of worry comes from Ken Klukowski at the conservative web site Townhall.com:
[the] libertarian activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns. Instead, they want to advance a libertarian economic agenda, where federal judges could sit in judgment of state and local laws involving labor, employment, business regulations and other economic issues. Although the Constitution is silent on these matters, these activists want the courts to start declaring constitutional rights against such things, and using the power of the federal judiciary to strike down laws of this sort that the judges don’t like.
Gura fought for his right to argue his case his own way, explaining in a brief to the Court that the NRA’s request relied on “unjustified” speculation that he will somehow fail to argue on due process grounds as well—despite the fact that Gura did make such arguments. Yet Gura failed to convince the Court, and with no explanation the Court gave 10 minutes of Gura’s 30 minutes to the NRA and their (very respected) hired gun, Paul Clement. Clement, in his role as U.S. Solicitor General back in 2008, argued in Heller’s hearings for the Supreme Court to rein in any individual right contained in the Second Amendment at least enough to preserve laws like the federal machine gun ban. As a result, Clement's Second Amendment bonafides are widely questioned.
Gura’s reply brief to Chicago shows a lawyer fully prepared to flay the pretty shoddy arguments advanced by his opponents from Chicago, which include arguing in effect that if we can imagine a civilized society that does not respect a certain right, then states shouldn’t be required to honor it. (Chicago also seems to believe, as Gura sums up wryly, that “ordered liberty” refers to “the government’s liberty to issue orders.”)
To legal scholars such as The Volokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr, who never believed the Supreme Court would seriously consider overturning Slaughterhouse, the Court giving the NRA time is further proof that a McDonald victory—which seems likely given that the Heller majority is still sitting on the bench—will certainly be on the less revolutionary due process grounds. Kerr writes that Gura’s Privileges or Immunities Clause arguments “will be more of a lively intellectual exercise than a likely basis for the Court’s decision.”
Legal scholar Josh Blackman makes an interesting case that, contra Kerr’s belief that the Court will take the less disruptive of precedent route to victory, the Court is on occasion willing to vindicate a plaintiff’s rights in a radical way even when a less radical way is open to them, particularly when lawyers try to force the Court's hand, as in 1989’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The history of conflict between the NRA and Gura dates back to Heller, when the gun rights organization, fearing a loss (or, in some interpretations, fearing a victory where it could not claim credit), attempted to stymie or take over the case for years before finally jumping on board as allies in the closing stretch. Gura is openly peeved that his strategy is being questioned and his time encroached on against his will. He is, he points out, willing and able to argue the due process justification for incorporation. But the reason he dedicates only 7 pages out of 73 to it is that—as he states in his opposition brief to the NRA’s move—he knew Due Process Clause arguments would be more familiar to the justices due to the very fact that they are the more traditional means to win incorporation. (When it comes to wondering who had proven themselves most competent to make a thorough due process argument, Blackman also points out the NRA failed in its brief to note the Glucksberg test, which was used in the 9th Circuit's Nordyke decision that did recognize Second Amendment incorporation on due process grounds.)
As Gura complained in The Washington Post, the NRA is “not bringing anything substantive to the argument. The NRA is principally interested in taking credit and fundraising.”
In that same Post story, the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, who has been sharply critical of the NRA’s encroachment on Gura's arguments, was paraphrased on how the NRA/Gura conflict exemplified “the differing approaches [of] 'gun nuts,' whose sole interest is a protection of Second Amendment rights, [and] 'constitution nuts,' who think the case offers a chance to reassert the importance of the privileges-or-immunities argument.”
Some forces in the gun rights community, such as one of its oldest warriors and scholars, David Hardy, refuse to take sides between the NRA and Gura. Instead, Hardy applauds both arguments and both arguers, and begs the gun rights community to stop encouraging dissension: “They're going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don't need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate. Bottom line: there is no bad way to win a case.”
This is admirably ecumenical, but it elides the larger possibilities at issue in the Privileges or Immunities Clause argument (which is exactly what many in the gun rights world want): that, as Gura writes in his reply brief, “applying constitutional text as plainly intended by the Framers and understood by the ratifying public possesses high intrinsic value. Nowhere is that value higher than when enforcing basic national civil rights standards.” That is the opportunity that could be lost if the NRA’s arguing time means that the Supreme Court wants to incorporate on the old Due Process Clause grounds rather than the truly radical, yet also truly original, Privileges or Immunities Clause grounds.
Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/10/the-nra-muscles-into-mcdonald
Micro Sez:
I had always said this was the main problem with the case: DP vs. P&I, not the personality of the NRA's attorney.
-
Can someone sum this up in 2 or three sentences?
-
Can someone sum this up in 2 or three sentences?
The libertarians are gambling gun rights in order to get a broader judgement against government power. NRA wants to argue the more traditional means of protecting gun rights. Libertarians are pissy that the NRA doesn't want to gamble. (Include attack on NRA as well.)
-
The libertarians are gambling gun rights in order to get a broader judgement against government power. NRA wants to argue the more traditional means of protecting gun rights. Libertarians are pissy that the NRA doesn't want to gamble. (Include attack on NRA as well.)
Thanks.
-
I'll trust Gura over anyone at the NRA, period. The NRA tried to derail Gura in the Heller case. For the reasons listed above.
Other than the shooter safety courses and such, I don't see much benefit that the NRA gives gun owners. Except, like elected critters, wanting my money every election cycle. And wanting more of my money for court cases, that they weren't invited.
-
I'll trust Gura over anyone at the NRA, period. The NRA tried to derail Gura in the Heller case. For the reasons listed above.
Other than the shooter safety courses and such, I don't see much benefit that the NRA gives gun owners. Except, like elected critters, wanting my money every election cycle. And wanting more of my money for court cases, that they weren't invited.
The libertarians are gambling gun rights in order to get a broader judgement against government power. NRA wants to argue the more traditional means of protecting gun rights. Libertarians are pissy that the NRA doesn't want to gamble. (Include attack on NRA as well.)
There we go.
-
Hey. If the NRA had their way, we wouldn't have had Heller. At all.
Whatever floats your boat about the NRA. But not helping, trying to stand in the way, then jumping on when it looks like it's a winner, say a lot about an organization. Gura is a winner. The NRA is out for $$.
-
I am a very firm supporter of RKBA but the NRA hasn't seen any of my money in two years. I think they should change their ways. But if they are getting enough money the way they are doing it then they won't change. It's up to us to change them.
jim
-
The libertarians are gambling gun rights in order to get a broader judgement against government power. NRA wants to argue the more traditional means of protecting gun rights. Libertarians are pissy that the NRA doesn't want to gamble. (Include attack on NRA as well.)
That last bit about gambling is inaccurate. As stated in the article, Gura included the due process incorporation argument in his brief. The SCOTUS does not need a review of that. They know due process incorporation law inside and out. Gura spending more than 7 pages on it would have been a waste of valuable time and effort.
There's no gamble. The due process incorporation avenue is fully open to the SCOTUS without the NRA needing to be heard on the issue.
I hope I'm wrong, but this seems like it's all about having a major interest group get before the Court to support a moderate viewpoint in an effort to marginalize Gura's P&I clause theory. It's pure pandering and intellectual dishonesty, but that would be nothing new for the NRA, for the Court, or for politics in this country.
-
Hey. If the NRA had their way, we wouldn't have had Heller. At all.
Whatever floats your boat about the NRA. But not helping, trying to stand in the way, then jumping on when it looks like it's a winner, say a lot about an organization. Gura is a winner. The NRA is out for $$.
Wow, it's almost like all the explanations about it was a 5-4 decision made by justices that were not on the court when the suit was brought had never been put forth.
We were one justice away from a decision AGAINST our gun rights. But, of course, that wasn't the NRA's concern, they just want more money. :facepalm:
-
Wow, it's almost like all the explanations about it was a 5-4 decision made by justices that were not on the court when the suit was brought had never been put forth.
How many of those judges actually argued that the 2nd wasn't an individual right?
-
How many of those judges actually argued that the 2nd wasn't an individual right?
Ruling it's an individual right, but the government can outlaw any guns they want is rather detrimental, no?
-
Wow, it's almost like all the explanations about it was a 5-4 decision made by justices that were not on the court when the suit was brought had never been put forth.
Again. If the NRA had their way, we would not have even seen a 5-4 decision, a victory in the Heller case. Zip, nada. Nothing wrong with a 5-4 decision. It's a win. Gura has a plan. Heller was a piece of that foundation. Now incorporation is the next piece. But the NRA continues to interject themselves where they are not wanted.
With the make of the current court, I dare say that we will no see many unanimous decisions or even majority 7 or better. I just don't see it happening.
-
Why does Gura think he gets to gamble with our constitutional rights without the rest of us having any say in the process?
I want the NRA involved in this process. I think there should be cooler heads involved in this process, to temper some of Gura's recklessness.
-
The NRA didn't want Heller to go to the Court. So if they had their way way, no Heller. No SC decision stating the 2A is an individual right. The NRA worked against Gura in Heller, at first. Then jumped on the bandwagon after is was a win.
I don't think Gura is reckless. I think the man is right on track. Remember, for over 10 years, the NRA had a majority republican congress that not one pro 2A bill was passed and signed into law. I don't want the NRA decidng what the 2A means. The NRA is ok with the Brady Bill and other "common sense" legislation (gun control). That is not the mindset of a group that understands the 2A.
-
The NRA didn't want Heller to go to the Court. So if they had their way way, no Heller. No SC decision stating the 2A is an individual right. The NRA worked against Gura in Heller, at first. Then jumped on the bandwagon after is was a win.
I don't think Gura is reckless. I think the man is right on track. Remember, for over 10 years, the NRA had a majority republican congress that not one pro 2A bill was passed and signed into law. I don't want the NRA decidng what the 2A means. The NRA is ok with the Brady Bill and other "common sense" legislation (gun control). That is not the mindset of a group that understands the 2A.
Wow so much misinformation.
Point one has been asked and answered. It seems you are unable to comprehend the fact that the judges who ruled in favor of Heller were not on the court when the suit was brought, meaning we would have LOST if some judges had not retired.
Secondly, no gun laws?
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=141
That's off the top of my head. National park carry is another one.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yes.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias: And the roads...
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front: And the wine...
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!
-
Ruling it's an individual right, but the government can outlaw any guns they want is rather detrimental, no?
That's what they ended up ruling, no?
Before Heller was decided, many, many people believed that even such an individual rights ruling as the minority has delivered would be a win for us.
Not a single judge could be found to stand with the collective rights argument.
-
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
The Romans brought the Jews neither public order, nor sanitation, nor irrigation, nor baths. All of these are mentioned in the Old Testament and other sources as existing in the pre-Roman era. Neither had the Romans brought peace. I suggest you shouldn't rely on Monty Python as your guide to history.
Jews had an advanced system of justice before Rome was ever founded.
-
judges who ruled in favor of Heller were not on the court when the suit was brought, meaning we would have LOST if some judges had not retired
I'm glad someone pointed that out.
Subsequently the NRA offered financial help, but Gura declined. Maybe its Gura who doesn't want to share credit.
The NRA tried to derail Gura in the Heller case. For the reasons listed above.
If the NRA had their way, we would not have even seen a 5-4 decision
It's disingenuous to claim that the NRA didn't want a victory in Heller. When you say things like that, it calls into question everything else you say.
-
The Romans brought the Jews neither public order, nor sanitation, nor irrigation, nor baths. All of these are mentioned in the Old Testament and other sources as existing in the pre-Roman era. Neither had the Romans brought peace. I suggest you shouldn't rely on Monty Python as your guide to history.
Jews had an advanced system of justice before Rome was ever founded.
Quite.
However, I believe he wasn't offering the scene as historically accurate, but as an analogy...
-
Quite.
However, I believe he wasn't offering the scene as historically accurate, but as an analogy...
A very correct analogy. :D
-
Thanks mak. I would have thought that was obvious.
Monty Python is useful for sooooo many situations.
-
Monty Python is useful for sooooo many situations.
I think so, but my wife just doesn't agree.
jim
-
That's what they ended up ruling, no?
Before Heller was decided, many, many people believed that even such an individual rights ruling as the minority has delivered would be a win for us.
Not a single judge could be found to stand with the collective rights argument.
If they had a liberal activist majority on the court, they would gladly have written away the individual rights interpretation. There are plenty of Federal judges who already had in the lower circuits. There's no reason they couldn't have been nominated instead.
The dissenting opinions were agreeing with the individual right interpretation in a "yes but..." fashion, just to give themselves intellectual cover.
And as others have mentioned, an "individual right" ruling could still be rendered toothless/dead-letter in terms of the scrutiny standard etc... Either you're pro-RKBA or you aren't. And the liberal justices aren't.
The NRA didn't want Heller to go to the Court. So if they had their way way, no Heller. No SC decision stating the 2A is an individual right. The NRA worked against Gura in Heller, at first. Then jumped on the bandwagon after is was a win.
I don't think Gura is reckless. I think the man is right on track. Remember, for over 10 years, the NRA had a majority republican congress that not one pro 2A bill was passed and signed into law. I don't want the NRA decidng what the 2A means. The NRA is ok with the Brady Bill and other "common sense" legislation (gun control). That is not the mindset of a group that understands the 2A.
The tin-foil "NRA wants gun-control to keep themselves in business"-mantra just... gets... old. Even with more clear-cut victories than what we've had with Heller, anti-gun forces never rest, and there will never be a shortage of work for the NRA.
You can dislike what the NRA did in Heller, but equating reluctance out of fear of losing with outright betrayal is just idiocy.
-
You can dislike what the NRA did in Heller, but equating reluctance out of fear of losing with outright betrayal is just idiocy.
That's what betrayal is, you know.
-
That's what betrayal is, you know.
[tinfoil]
-
[tinfoil]
A reluctance to fight for liberty out of fear of losing? That's... okay now?
-
A reluctance to fight for liberty out of fear of losing? That's... okay now?
Discretion is the better part of valor...
-
A reluctance to fight for liberty out of fear of losing? That's... okay now?
Hardly the same thing. They were waiting for what they thought was the right moment.
-
Hardly the same thing. They were waiting for what they thought was the right moment.
Or simply looking to keep expanding RKBA legislatively, especially at the state-level where things like CCW are decided.
And Micro, and I'll join in and state that your definition of "betrayal" is absolutely off the wall.
So by analogy, if a bunch of generals are in conference, and one is reluctant to commit to a certain battle, because losing would incur unacceptable losses, preferring to pursue other fronts, he's betrayed his nation and should be taken out and shot?
Or, when the other generals out-vote him, and he then does his best to commit to the battle seeing it's going to happen anyway, he's a Johny-come-lately trying to horn in on the limelight?
That's essentially the standard the NRA naysayers are holding them to. I'm not saying anyone HAS to like what the NRA did, but everyone who is alluding that the NRA was reluctant on Heller out of ANY other motive than honest strategic concerns, is just reading facts into evidence that are not there.
There's no one here who isn't happy the Heller case went the way it did, we're all ecstatic. However to go back and criticize the NRA's actions in hindsight of the win, and malign their motives simply is not intellectually honest.
-
Great insight, AJ. :cool:
-
A reluctance to fight for liberty out of fear of losing? That's... okay now?
Well said. I wonder what some of the founders would think???
IMO the NRA acted badly in the Heller case and is up to the same in the upcoming Incorporation case. You can defend it all you want. Does the NRA do good work, sure they do. But come on. Jumping on board when it appears it will be a win, geez. And yes, the NRA needs gun control. It's a symbiotic
relationship. No gun control, the NRA won't be needed as much or in some cases not at all. Sure the safety courses and gun education would continue, but not much more.
Point is, it's not the NRA's case. Nor was Heller. It like doing all the research/work in curing cancer
and at the last minute someone who knew what you were working on jumped onboard right before you rolled out the cure. It's bad taste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[edit]National Rifle Association
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[43] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[44] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[45] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship." [46]
-
One question, what would we have done if we had lost? And there was no level of gun control/banning that was "too extreme" anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[edit]National Rifle Association
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[43] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[44] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[45] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship." [46]
And your own cite proves our point. No one is asking someone else to "like" what the NRA did.
Just to give up the tin-foil and accept the NRA's motives in the situation. Is this so hard?
-
There is no tin-foil. None. My point is the ONLY one in this matter is
the plantiff and by proxy the attorney, Gura. In the Heller case it was Mr Heller. He was the plantiff. He decided what he wanted to do. We were just spectators. Yep the price of failure was high, but that is how our system works. Mr Heller had the nuts and brought the suit, he called the shots via his attorney, Gura. And Gura did an outstanding job.
We, each one of us could defy a state or federal law and hopefully have standing to challenge the constitutionality of said law. But most of us don't have the nuts to do it. We are to afraid that we will upset the status quo. Heller was not.
My point is the NRA did not have a dog in the race. Period.
-
Remember, for over 10 years, the NRA had a majority republican congress that not one pro 2A bill was passed and signed into law.
No tin foil? Maybe it was just a really bad memory? =D
-
Refresh my poor memory. What Pro Gun federal legislation was passed during the Bush years? I can think of only 1, and that was at the end of Bush's term, Park carry. That's it. In 8 years, well more. The Republicans had control of Congress from 94 to 06.
-
Refresh my poor memory. What Pro Gun federal legislation was passed during the Bush years? I can think of only 1, and that was at the end of Bush's term, Park carry. That's it. In 8 years, well more. The Republicans had control of Congress from 94 to 06.
Did you read the rest of the thread?
Wow so much misinformation.
Point one has been asked and answered. It seems you are unable to comprehend the fact that the judges who ruled in favor of Heller were not on the court when the suit was brought, meaning we would have LOST if some judges had not retired.
Secondly, no gun laws?
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=141
That's off the top of my head. National park carry is another one.
-
The lawsuit deal was the first one I thought of.
Before the fall of 2004, a few Republicans were talking about renewing the assault weapon ban. The NRA was putting a lot of pressure on congressmen to make sure that didn't happen. I count that as a win also since there was a year or more there where that was the major focus in D.C. for RKBA.
-
Nope. The make up of the court is an issue, but, again, it was Mr Hellers suit. NOT the NRA's. Period.
The link above details the junk lawsuit crap aganst gun makers. While a good piece of legislation
and it protects gun makers from idiots suing them, just how does it advance anyone's 2A rights? It does not. The republicans along with the NRA could have pushed, real hard for national carry of some sort. Well they did, for cops, but not you and me. The NRA has not done much at all for our 2A rights, advancement of them or trying to repeal any restrictive anti 2A laws.
The main push has been in the State Legislature's. And it's been good. Also advancements have been made with court challenges, like Heller. Without the aid of the NRA, until victory looked certain.
You have your opinion and I think you are wrong. I have my opinion and you think I'm wrong. Let's agree to disagree.
It's still bad taste to crash someone elses party. But the NRA is good at that.
-
Nope. The make up of the court is an issue, but, again, it was Mr Hellers suit. NOT the NRA's. Period.
Ignore the NRA's involvement for a moment and reflect upon the fact that Heller/Gura took a major risk with my rights, a risk that wasn't likely to work out favorably for me. It only paid off because of the unforeseeable change in the court's makeup, factors outside of their control.
They got lucky. Rather, we got lucky in that Gura could have really hosed us up if not for those two new appointees. Can't you understand how the rest of us are reluctant to go there again?
-
Yes. I do understand. It's Heller's rights as well. And his right to bring a suit
Did we change that? Does bringing a suit involving the Bill of Rights now have to pass some sort of collective standing test? Mr Heller thought he was being denied his right. He utilized the system and won. I was not aware he needed public permission to do so.
Did you think we would get a victory with no risk? It sucks, but that is how you advance, change the stats quo.
We will not ever change laws or get to where we would like with regards to the 2A playing it safe. Calculated risks will have to be taken. Not stupid gambles, but well reasoned risks. Like Gura did. And when one does that, someone or some group (NRA) pissing in the punch bowl does not help matters.
If the NRA had approached Gura and asked " What can we do to help?"
and then did it. All would have been fine.
The way the NRA acted it could have been a different story. The NRA could have very well derailed Heller. Meaning no case or a case affirmed that the 2A was a collective right. It was not the NRAs best moment. After reading several interviews with Gura, and hearing him speak, I'm convinced the man has a well reasoned plan. He is not throwing down willy nilly. He knows what he is doing.
-
While a good piece of legislation
and it protects gun makers from idiots suing them, just how does it advance anyone's 2A rights
Easy. Where is your RKBA if you can't buy a gun ?
-
I really don't think that would have happened. The gun makers would have upped the prices to offset the lawsuits. But not being able to buy a gun. A little bit of a stretch*.
*except in CA, IL, MA
-
And it wasn't happening. A tiny percentage of the gun industry was being sued, and, in general, the anti-gun lobby was losing.
-
And it wasn't happening. A tiny percentage of the gun industry was being sued, and, in general, the anti-gun lobby was losing.
Yep, just like with cigarettes. That worked out really well for them, didn't it?
-
Yep, just like with cigarettes. That worked out really well for them, didn't it?
Excetp the anti-gun lawsuits were far less successful.
-
Excetp the anti-gun lawsuits were far less successful.
You're being disingenuous if you can't see that the point of frivolous lawsuits isn't even necessarily to win. Even dragging them into court is a win, especially when you've got governmental entities such as cities, and non-profit groups trying to drag for-profit businesses through the legal wringer.
The anti-gun groups and cities could file cases all they wanted with "free" money (donations and taxes), while the manufacturers and distributors had to dig into their profits to defend.
-
IMO, the danger was less to the manufacturers than it was to the FFL sellers who were being sued.
Personally, I gotta wonder if there should be some limits on tort lawsuits by govt or tax funded entities.
-
You're being disingenuous if you can't see that the point of frivolous lawsuits isn't even necessarily to win. Even dragging them into court is a win, especially when you've got governmental entities such as cities, and non-profit groups trying to drag for-profit businesses through the legal wringer.
The anti-gun groups and cities could file cases all they wanted with "free" money (donations and taxes), while the manufacturers and distributors had to dig into their profits to defend.
No, I mean they were not very successful in their aim of driving the companies out of business.
-
No, I mean they were not very successful in their aim of driving the companies out of business.
Fortunately, with the legislation protecting them, we'll never know. They weren't able to keep at it long enough.
-
No, I mean they were not very successful in their aim of driving the companies out of business.
No thanks to the NRA's lawsuit protection legislation, no sirree...
-
Bet some would have howled if Gura had stepped in and tried to derail or take over the NRAs lawsuit legislation.
And how does the Lawsuit Legislation advance my rkba? And using cigarettes is a lazy excuse last I checked they were still for sale. Now getting a SC to hear a 2A case and actually rule that the 2A is an individual right, that was an advancement of rkba.
-
Bet some would have howled if Gura had stepped in and tried to derail or take over the NRAs lawsuit legislation.
And how does the Lawsuit Legislation advance my rkba? And using cigarettes is a lazy excuse last I checked they were still for sale. Now getting a SC to hear a 2A case and actually rule that the 2A is an individual right, that was an advancement of rkba.
Wow, the Brady Bunch posters have gotten more cagey. Bravo.
-
Wow. If you think I'm part of the Brady Bunch, ignorance or stupidity is your best friend. But please continue to ignore the thread. It seems to escape you that Heller had a RIGHT to bring a suit and he had the expectation of that suit not being molested by outside groups. Same as this current suit. Gura's client has the same rights and expectations. Just because you doing like it or claim it's messing with your rights doesn't mean squat. That's the rub with individual rights. Now the way you and some are argueing "Its playing with my right" that sounds to me that you all would be more comfortable with the Collective Rights model of the Brady Bunch.
-
Guys, you realize the GOA did not endorse the anti-lawsuit laws, right? Are you actually implying the GOA is anti-gun?
-
MB.
The gun lawsuit legislation is a major thread drift. It's a good law, but has nothing to do with the OP
I don't see the GOA or SAS trying to get some of Gura's time in front of the SC. Nor did they try to detail Heller. They did file Amicus briefs. And if the NRA would have stopped at that in Heller and the current case, we wouldn't be talking about this.
-
Guys, you realize the GOA did not endorse the anti-lawsuit laws, right? Are you actually implying the GOA is anti-gun?
OF COURSE the GOA is anti-gun.
It's obvious- their "no compromises" policy effectively ENSURES that no progress will be made on gun rights, meaning that they can keep sucking money out of their patsy members.
-
For anyone doubting the NRA’s power on our behalf:
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/siliconvalley/1805Results.html (http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/siliconvalley/1805Results.html)
The socialists had attached a renewal of the AWB to the first version of the bill to prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry. The NRA then led the charge to kill the bill, with the plan that the lawsuit bill would come up at a later time without the AWB renewal.
Note in particular this quote from Feinstein (speaking of the NRA):
Quote:
"I'm a bit numb ... They had the power to turn around at least 60 votes in the Senate. That's amazing to me."
- Senator Feinstein as quoted in the NY Times 3/3/04
Since then, of course, the gun-liability bill was passed without the AWB renewal provision.
Can your beer do this ?
-
OF COURSE the GOA is anti-gun.
It's obvious- their "no compromises" policy effectively ENSURES that no progress will be made on gun rights, meaning that they can keep sucking money out of their patsy members.
The GOA endorsed several pro-gun bills throughout the last few years. None of them were no-compromise-repeal-everything bills.
-
It's not about if the NRA can or cannot shape legslation. We all know the power of the NRA. It is about the NRA pissing in someone elses party without being invited.
They stuck their noses in on Heller. Attempted to derail the case or shut it down all together. Heller went our way, with no thanks to the NRA. Now they are doing it again. Party crashing.
I'm sure Gura would welcome their help now, and probably on Heller if they would have conducted themselves in a professional manner, instead of back biting.
-
The GOA endorsed several pro-gun bills throughout the last few years. None of them were no-compromise-repeal-everything bills.
LOL... I can "endorse" a bill too. Want to see me do it? :lol:
GOA is all talk and collects dues to let their membership hear them talk. It's the NRA that's pounding the halls at the Capitol. And it's the NRA the Capitol fears.
-
LOL... I can "endorse" a bill too. Want to see me do it? :lol:
I was specifically refuting the claim they only support no-compromise, no-prisoners bills.
GOA is all talk and collects dues to let their membership hear them talk. It's the NRA that's pounding the halls at the Capitol. And it's the NRA the Capitol fears.
Nobody is disputing the NRA's power.
-
Sure the NRA has the power to shape legislation or stop it. Hell, I sure wish they would use their power to force some Pro 2A Bills.
-
The gun lawsuit legislation is a major thread drift. It's a good law, but has nothing to do with the OP
But aren't you the one who initiated the thread drift with this comment in your first post to this thread:
Other than the shooter safety courses and such, I don't see much benefit that the NRA gives gun owners. Except, like elected critters, wanting my money every election cycle. And wanting more of my money for court cases, that they weren't invited.
:police:
-
The GOA endorsed several pro-gun bills throughout the last few years. None of them were no-compromise-repeal-everything bills.
Really? I can't name a single one.
And no, I can't be expected to research and back up my claims, I know they're just a bunch of do-nothing money-grubbers who want to suppress my right to keep and bear arms in order to make a buck.
Greedy bunch of hypocrites.
-
They stuck their noses in on Heller. Attempted to derail the case or shut it down all together. Heller went our way, with no thanks to the NRA.
We. Got. Damn. Lucky.
When Levy and Gura started Heller, the NRA counted noses on the SC and figured that we would probably lose. They figured that Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were solid, Kennedy a maybe and who knows which way O'Conner would go. That's veeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrry thin odds, on which to bet everyone's 2A rights.
Bush II giving us Alito and Roberts, was the "Hail Mary", that got us where we are today. So before you pick up that club to bash the NRA for initially opposing Heller, stop and think about what would have happened if we would have lost Heller. 'Cause it damn well could have happened.
-
Really? I can't name a single one.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-1703
-
If I started the thread drift, I do apologize. But I stand by my statement. We had a republican president and congress. For over 8 years, not one attempt to initiate and push through pro 2A legislation. Sure the AWB sunsetted and gun lawsuits were shut down, but nothing that advanced the RKBA. Until the Heller case. And instead of helping, the NRA tried to shut it down.
It's wasn't my choice, it's wasn't your choice or any collective choice as to when Heller brought HIS suit. It was Heller's choice. His rights were being trampled on and he had the nuts to say "enough". Sure we could have lost. But again, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I would like to see the day that Nationwide carry is bass on Vermont style. No permit. Those of you who are content with the permit system, well your not really exercising a right. Your asking permission to excersise a right. And, pardon the pun, that ain't right.
-
New and improved makattak. Now with 71.3% more snark!
;)
(I don't think they get it.)
-
New and improved makattak. Now with 71.3% more snark!
;)
(I don't think they get it.)
I got the attempt at sarcasm, but I decided it was useful to reply with a factual link anyway.
-
For over 8 years, not one attempt to initiate and push through pro 2A legislation. Sure the AWB sunsetted and gun lawsuits were shut down, but nothing that advanced the RKBA.
Well ... since you brought it up again ...
The AWB and gun lawsuits had everything to do with RKBA. Also, consider the NRA sued San Francisco to get their gun ban overturned, sued Louisiana to get guns returned after Katrina, and sued Seattle to overturn the mayor's edict of no guns on city property.
And it's not just about getting pro-RKBA legislation passed, it's also about getting anti-RKBA legislation squashed, or at least watered down when they don't have the votes to get it squashed.
-
And it's not just about getting pro-RKBA legislation passed, it's also about getting anti-RKBA legislation squashed, or at least watered down when they don't have the votes to get it squashed.
I realize this. But it seems that keeping the status quo seems to be the goal, with the NRA and some gun owners. Pushing for pro 2A Legislation is the best course. See, if Pro 2A Legislation had been a goal, and had passed, we might not have needed to "get back" gun owners property back after a disaster. One could argue, if we had some really strong Pro 2A Laws, peoples guns in LA would not have been confiscated in the first place.
I dont know about you, but the status quo is not acceptable to me. I dont like jumping through hoops to be able to exercise a basic right. If you do, hey, whatever floats your boat. But it seems you just dont want to rock the boat and are willing to accept having to ask permission to carry a gun.
Back to the thread. Its still bad form for the NRA, or any other group to barge in like a bull in a china closet and stomp on someone else's party. We can debate what the NRA could do, has done or should do until the end of time. Still does not change that fact.
-
I realize this. But it seems that keeping the status quo seems to be the goal, with the NRA and some gun owners. Pushing for pro 2A Legislation is the best course. See, if Pro 2A Legislation had been a goal, and had passed, we might not have needed to "get back" gun owners property back after a disaster. One could argue, if we had some really strong Pro 2A Laws, peoples guns in LA would not have been confiscated in the first place.
That's ridiculous. We already had the laws in place, and SF, Louisiana, and Seattle broke the laws. That's how the NRA was able to get the laws overturned, the new laws were in violation of existing laws. What "pro-RKBA laws" do you have in mind ? Instead of, "cities cannot make gun laws more restrictive than the state" you want "cities cannot make gun laws more restrictive than the state, and we really really mean it." ?
I dont like jumping through hoops to be able to exercise a basic right. If you do, hey, whatever floats your boat. But it seems you just dont want to rock the boat and are willing to accept having to ask permission to carry a gun.
:facepalm: Point out where I said anything like that. :mad:
-
There are gun owners who do their share to help the RKBA cause, and those that don’t.
Some who do belong to organizations that fight for RKBA, such as the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, various state organizations, etc.
Some gun owners don’t belong to any of these groups. That’s okay, I guess, maybe they’re pro-active in other ways, such as taking new shooters to the range frequently.
Some gun owners don’t really do anything except criticize the ones who are doing something. Many of the folks who criticize the NRA aren’t members of the NRA, they don’t contribute to the NRA, they only criticize the NRA. Now you have a situation where some folks, like NRA members, are doing all the heavy lifting, the real work of making things better. And other folks are just couch potatoes sitting on the sofa eating popcorn and screaming at the NRA to work harder.
Do you see yourself in any of these categories ?
-
Do you see yourself in any of these categories ?
No.
I am a member of my State rifle and pistol Assoc. My state CCW Assoc. The GOA, Second Amendment Foundation. To name a few. I left the NRA due to their actions in the Heller case. Which by the way is the intent of this thread. The actions of the NRA in the Incorporation case.
So, happy now. I believe that there is a right and wrong way of doing things. And in Heller, and the current case, the NRA is in the wrong. Dont care how you justify it to the contrary. Now, since we know what each other does for the 2A, groups we each claim to belong to, what next? Shooting spitballs at each other? Water cannons at 10ft?
-
It's wasn't my choice, it's wasn't your choice or any collective choice as to when Heller brought HIS suit. It was Heller's choice.
Ummm, nope. Levy and Gura went out looking for plaintiffs, not Heller, et al. looking for lawyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[4] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of age, race, and economic background. They eventually picked Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon, and Dick Heller. Before the case, Levy knew only Tom Palmer, a colleague from the Cato Institute; none of the six knew each other.
-
Still. Without Heller there would not have been a suit. No matter who vetted who. STILL the issue is the NRA stepping in without an invite.
-
Which by the way is the intent of this thread
So why do you keep deviating from the topic with slams about the NRA's productivity ?
The sequence that keeps repeating is that you try and squeeze in gratuitous insults to the NRA, and then as soon as you get called on it you whine about "thread drift". ;/
My guess is your next strategy will be to try and get the thread closed to try and escape your mess.
-
Umm, no. You keep crying that some don't like the NRA, like me, for reasons stated. The thread has drifted. I was a part of that. Not trying to get anything locked down so I can escape.
I believe in earlier posts I agreed that some of the stuff the NRA does is good and needed. I also said I wished the NRA would pony up and press real hard for more pro 2A legislation.
Now. I don't like the NRA, again, for how they conducted themselves during Heller. Then OP was about the NRA being given 10 minutes of Gura's time. IMO the NRA should bow out. Again, it's party crashing, and the NRA is not doing themselves any favors by doing this. I have not insulted the NRA. I have given my opinion on the NRA. Until Heller, I had been an NRA member for almost 2 decades. If you like the NRA, by all means keep sending that check. But set down the kool aid. The NRA is far from being the organization you have claimed it to be.
-
I am a member of my State rifle and pistol Assoc. My state CCW Assoc. The GOA, Second Amendment Foundation.
Is that right ? ;)
Could you remind me again what pro-RKBA legislation those groups got passed during the eight years of Republicans in control ? I forgot already.
-
Actually my state organizations are actively pushing for open carry, and debating on following Montana's lead with firearms made in state. Progress isn't maintaining the status quo. Progress is moving forward.
As far as GOA and SAF, nothing much, except for highlighting good legislation and reporting on critters who support or are against it. And they don't try to butt into other folks lawsuits. You should read up on the history of the NRA, from it's start to the 34 NFA act through to the 68 Gun Control Act. Some interesting reading.
I Believe I never claimed other organizations were better or did better than the NRA. Just that other Orgs, to my knowledge, haven't tried to derail or shut down lawsuits.
-
But you keep complaining about the NRA's so-called lack of progress in terms of the amount of pro-RKBA legislation pushed through during the Republican control. Yet, you admit that your organizations have done much less during that time compared to the NRA? What's the point of bringing up the NRA's performance during the Republican control, when we've already figured out that they're they've been by far the most effective organization during that time frame ?
-
But they have not. The areas that have made progress
have been the states, with state 2A organizations. Do you really think the NRA would get behind a Vermont style of carry? Hell no. Because to get your permit, most have to go to a class and qualify on the range. Most of those instrctors are "NRA Certified". The NRA does great with hunter safety and firearms safety n general. But don't fool yourself. If a movement ever started to do away with a CCW permit, I can guarantee you that the NRA will not be behind it.
SB. I will be emailing you with some interesting reading about the NRA.
If you want to continue this, let's keep on or take it to PM. For now. Need to sign off. I'm
hospital bound. Been waitng on my nephew to make an appearance into the world, and he decided it was
tonight.
-
But we're talking about progress on a national level. What progress have your organizations made that compares anywhere near what the NRA has done ?
-
Don't send me "reading material". I've got plenty of my own already. I don't need another person to tell me, "Gee, if you'd only read everything I've read, and nothing else, and take what I've read as gospel, you'd have the same opinion as me!" No doubt.
-
Ok. I won't. And I was talking about a lack of forward progress on a national level with the NRA.
You asked me to email you activities of groups I belong to. No big deal. But you don't want anything about the NRA that could be potentially negatve. Are you afraid you'll learn something.
-
You should read up on the history of the NRA, from it's start to the 34 NFA act through to the 68 Gun Control Act. Some interesting reading.
Ah yes, we know. The NRA did nothing about either and infact when asked by congress about the 34 NFA act, basically said "We don't care". But then again neither did the GOA, SAF or any of the other Pro-2A organizations. Oh, that's right, they didn't exist. In fact until the late 60's early '70's, there was no need or reason to have pro-2A groups as nothing threatened the 2A either in Congress or in the courts. See that's the problem with that history. Until that time all the NRA did was education, training and run matches. There was no political arm or interest. They weren't involved in politics or legal action, because there was no need or reason to. So you're looking backwards through history using today's lens.
Oh, about the "NRA Certified" comment. Even if every state would get Vermont carry, there's still a need for basic firearms training classes (Handgun, Rifle, Pistol, Reloading, etc) that have nothing to do with CCW. So yes, the NRA does and would support getting rid of CCW permits.
-
The NRA did nothing about either and infact when asked by congress about the [/b]34 NFA act,[/b] basically said "We don't care". But then again neither did the GOA, SAF or any of the other Pro-2A organizations. Oh, that's right, they didn't exist. In fact until the late 60's early '70's, there was no need or reason to have pro-2A groups as nothing threatened the 2A either in Congress or in the courts.
I see a contradiction.
-
I see a contradiction.
Other then the 34 NFA, there was no real push for Gun Control either in Congress, the States or the Courts. The last 2A case to make to the USSC prior to Heller was Miller and there we had a ex-con who happened to be dead, so his lawyer didn't bother to go the USSC to argue his case. After the 34 NFA there was no other gun control pushes until the late '60's. Again the NRA wasn't about politics then. The NRA was about education and running matches.
-
Ah yes, we know. The NRA did nothing about either and infact when asked by congress about the 34 NFA act, basically said "We don't care". But then again neither did the GOA, SAF or any of the other Pro-2A organizations. Oh, that's right, they didn't exist. In fact until the late 60's early '70's, there was no need or reason to have pro-2A groups as nothing threatened the 2A either in Congress or in the courts. See that's the problem with that history. Until that time all the NRA did was education, training and run matches. There was no political arm or interest. They weren't involved in politics or legal action, because there was no need or reason to. So you're looking backwards through history using today's lens.
Oh, about the "NRA Certified" comment. Even if every state would get Vermont carry, there's still a need for basic firearms training classes (Handgun, Rifle, Pistol, Reloading, etc) that have nothing to do with CCW. So yes, the NRA does and would support getting rid of CCW permits.
Very good points. And yet, some folks will make all sorts of contrived and nonsense statements about the NRA to try and justify their lack of participation in the fight for RKBA.
$35 pays a years dues:
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp)
-
i have paid for 5 years worth of NRA dues in the last year,(3 years for me and 2 for my dad =D) i haven't paid more than 25 a year. :angel: