“Gun nuts” battle “Constitution nuts” at the Supreme Court

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[makattak]

That's what betrayal is, you know.

 

[MicroBalrog]

A reluctance to fight for liberty out of fear of losing? That's... okay now?

[makattak]

A reluctance to fight for liberty out of fear of losing? That's... okay now?

Discretion is the better part of valor...

[Silver Bullet]

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.

[AJ Dual]

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.

[Silver Bullet]

Great insight, AJ.   

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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]

[AJ Dual]

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?

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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.

[MechAg94]

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?   

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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?

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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.

[Silver Bullet]

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 ?

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

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 

[MicroBalrog]

And it wasn't happening. A tiny percentage of the gun industry was being sued, and, in general, the anti-gun lobby was losing.

[makattak]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

Yep, just like with cigarettes. That worked out really well for them, didn't it?

Excetp the anti-gun lawsuits were far less successful.

[AJ Dual]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[MicroBalrog]

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.