The NRA and PARKER


PDA






mack
April 4, 2007, 02:58 PM
This was mentioned in another thread but you have to read three pages to get to it, and since this is new it seems to deserve its own thread. The link is to a letter by Robert Levy - atty in the Parker Case and it explains his concerns about the NRA's recent actions that seem designed to undermine that case.


http://www.examiner.com/a-653443~Robert_A__Levy__Should_Congress_or_the_courts_decide_D_C__gun_ban_s_fate_.html

If this link doesn't work go to KABA and it is listed under today’s (4/4/07) news links.


I'm sorry; I have always supported the NRA and defended them against attacks by both anti-gun activists and second amendment purists. But for me this goes beyond the pale.

The NRA has asked its members (of which I am one) to support the legislation that would repeal the DC gun laws and thus void Parker as it would make the case moot - and yet say publicly that they support the Parker case. That is either rank ignorance or disingenuousness at best. As I don't credit the NRA leadership as being idiots, it would seem to be the later.

I understand the reticence of some and their fear of losing the case. But there is no honor in saying you support, something as the NRA has said they do the Parker case, and then working to undermine it. If the NRA does not support the Parker case then they need to say so and state their reasons rather than to pretend that they support it in order to mollify that percentage of their members that do support it.

While I understand the fear that some have about losing this case, it is also true that freedom was not won, nor has it ever been kept without taking a risk. Besides if one has not noticed the Supreme Court does not have the final say in this matter no matter what they rule. Government cannot alienate an inalienable right - they can merely recognize it or refuse to recognize it.

If you enjoyed reading about "The NRA and PARKER" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbt2001
April 4, 2007, 03:39 PM
I support what the NRA is doing.

Don't forget that the lawyer for Parker is wanting MONEY, FAME and REFERRELS. This case has and will continue to bring him that. What the NRA is doing threatens HIM and not RKBA supporters.

While I understand the fear that some have about losing this case, it is also true that freedom was not won, nor has it ever been kept without taking a risk. Besides if one has not noticed the Supreme Court does not have the final say in this matter no matter what they rule. Government cannot alienate an inalienable right - they can merely recognize it or refuse to recognize it.

The NRA has gotten us this far. We have concealed carry in virtually all the states, and the gun laws are getting better in many of them. We seem to be winning the gun control debate, I see more and more people thinking gun control is a waste of time...

Don't let what some lawyer says persuade you not to keep sticking with the broader movement.

BTW, if you read some of the opinions on what winning the case may mean, then you would understand that what it gives with one hand (individual rights) it takes away from the other (even almost draconian gun control measures are legit as long as it isn't a TOTAL FULL BAN or something).

LAR-15
April 4, 2007, 03:43 PM
However the DC handgun ban is repealed, I don't care.

Just repeal it already.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 4, 2007, 04:16 PM
Don't forget that the lawyer for Parker is wanting MONEY, FAME and REFERRELS. This case has and will continue to bring him that. What the NRA is doing threatens HIM and not RKBA supporters.

I think that is way unfair. First, there are multiple lawyers working on the Parker case. One of them, Alan Gura, is working on several pro-Second Amendment cases for SAF and certainly doesn't need the money. In fact, Gura waived a substantial amount of the fees for Parker. The primary lawyer for Parker is Robert Levy, who funded the case out of his own pocket and went back to law school when he was 58 to specifically promote cases he felt were important to liberty.

If you have some evidence that either of these men are in it for the money, I would appreciate you sharing it since all the evidence I have seen supports that they are doing this because the believe it is the right thing to do.

The NRA has been wrong plenty of times and have been wrong on litigation more often than not. To use one example, the NRA reportedly supported FOPA in 1986 despite the poison pill because they felt they could get the ban overturned. Instead they supported cases that ended up establishing precedent upholding the ban in almost every circuit in the land.

As for what winning Parker might mean, it is impossible to say since none of us are able to see in the future and read the majority decision. You also seem to miss that Parker can't "take" anything away. Right now you have NO court supported right to own a firearm unless you live in the Fifth Circuit or the D.C. Circuit. The only thing protecting your right is our political power in Congress... you need look no further than Massachusetts, California and New York for evidence of this. Any individual rights decision at the SCOTUS level, even a narrow one, means that there is a limit to what Congress can do. Right now, the only things limiting Congress are fear of the voters.

I think we need to get behind Parker and I will not support legislation that moots it. I will definitely be vocal with my dissatisfaction with the mixed message the NRA is sending here. I don't intend to quit as a member; but you can bet I will be sending more money to groups like SAF as a result and I will definitely chew on the NRAs ear about this.

jnojr
April 4, 2007, 04:20 PM
I support what the NRA is doing.

Don't forget that the lawyer for Parker is wanting MONEY, FAME and REFERRELS. This case has and will continue to bring him that. What the NRA is doing threatens HIM and not RKBA supporters.

Absolutely, totally, unequivocally not true.

The lawyer who's pushing the Parker case is funding it out of his own pocket.

The NRA is scared that SCOTUS might rule against the plaintiffs in Parker, which is a valid concern. They might. But if they're going to, shouldn't we find out sooner instead of later? before there are a few more "assault weapon" bans and taxes and restrictions and regulations? Shouldn't we find out while there are still patriotic, armed, angry Americans, and before we're all disarmed sheep, and the court decision is just confirming what everyone already knows?

Igloodude
April 4, 2007, 04:31 PM
I understand why the NRA would try to moot it, I just don't happen to agree with them. I'm okay with that. What I don't understand (and am not okay with) is their claiming to support Parker while simultaneously attempting to moot it.

Jim K
April 4, 2007, 04:41 PM
The NRA was not a party to Parker, only an "amicus curiae." Their view is that if the DC law can be repealed (or overruled by Congress), it will be void and the issue, so far as DC is concerned, will be moot. But if SCOTUS rules against us, it will be a great triumph for gun control and we can expect to be inundated by thousands of anti-gun bills, many of which will become law.

The other side is that if SCOTUS upholds Parker, then only the DC law is nullified. Similar laws, like Chicago's will have to be taken to court one by one, and the whole process begun again to show that their law is also unconstitutional. And what about laws in areas like NYC, where handguns are not banned, but are made nearly impossible to obtain except by Mafia gangsters and the wealthy elite?

Jim

wdlsguy
April 4, 2007, 04:46 PM
The other side is that if SCOTUS upholds Parker, then only the DC law is nullified.
Not necessarily.

Similar laws, like Chicago's will have to be taken to court one by one, and the whole process begun again to show that their law is also unconstitutional.
It would be a whole lot easier to do with a U.S. Supreme Court decision on your side though.

October
April 4, 2007, 05:27 PM
I support what the NRA is doing.

Do you mean you are in favor of the NRA’s tactics of disingenuous support for Parker, or you are for an all-out effort to undermine Parker?

Kindrox
April 4, 2007, 05:29 PM
On gun bans and the like, if the SCOTUS decision was correctly rendered, I have to imagine you simply sue in the proper federal court, SCOTUS ruling is binding, you win. Its on the finer points of what regulations are and are not allowed that the courts might be kept busy.

But this would be on the finer points of removing regulations. Anti's still could not sue to impose regulations. Anti's impose regulations via passing laws, not court.

So the outcome could onlyl be positive. Things are as bad as politically possible right now and can only get better with Parker upheld.

If we assume Parker would not be upheld, when would be a better time to fight? As some point the democrates are going to pass some serious gun control legistlation at the federal level, which is likely to be done in stages we cannot overturn at the federal level, so the fight will come to us anyway. This is the best case I can see for getting the courts to recognize the 2nd amendment. Once recogized, its a whole different ballgame.

HarryCalahan1
April 4, 2007, 06:21 PM
I disagree that it's better to find out sooner than later! A bad SCOTUS decision will hurt us possibly BEYOND RECOVERY because it will aid the other side in their bans by giving them more ammunition!:uhoh:

That notion is a pure Libertarian fantasy. I'm sorry but you guys really don't understand how Court decisions can set PRECEDENTS-MAYBE PRECEDENTS YOU DON'T WANT SET!:what:

A BAD Precedent ruling in a SCOTUS that is stacked unfavorably to us will give us no room to maneuver. YOU PICK YOUR FIGHTS. How many "armed patriots" will actually be prepared to fight??:confused: I can tell you that if the BATFE, FBI, and ARMED FORCES get involved we would need the Army on the side of the people to win.

Additionally, don't forget the unconstitutional "MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT".:uhoh: If you're declared a "Domestic Terrorist" you can't challenge your Incarceration, and will be tried by a Military kangaroo court with a "Military JAG" style lawyer. How well do you think your rights will be upheld in a "Military Court" of expedience? GEORGE W. BUSH is a scumbag traitor and the Military Commissions act and suspension of Habeus Corpus both must be overturned.:mad:

An all-or-nothing fight could very very easily leave us with nothing. The NRA doesn't want to chance this and I don't blame them. They're trying to hedge OUR BETS and leave all-out fights for a better day when WE HAVE THE EDGE.

You guys need to leave the Libertarian Melodrama, and fantasies at home. If we lose in a Major Precedent that could be used by the anti-gunners we could suffer a string of setbacks that could hit us VERY HARD and affect things for the next 20 years.

IT TOOK 10 YEARS FOR THE CLINTON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN TO GO AWAY. A SCOTUS decision isn't about JUST FINDING OUT NOW it will have a positive or negative PRECEDENT and thereby an impact on the entire battle-and the BRADY CAMPAIGN knows this! I would bet on Sam Alito but not necessarily on John Roberts with his "Flexibility" views on the Constitution. If we could have gotten a Chief Justice Scalia or Pickering, along with Alito and at least one more Arch-Conservative before we lost the Senate to the worst Democratic congress yet then i might agree with you.

You guys are WAY, WAY, WAY, OFF BASE. Think strategy and tactics and use your heads about this thing. This fight isn't going to be won with a few bold strokes. It will be a "Guerilla War" that if won will be hard faught for every inch of ground. It ain't gonna be done quick or easy, and decisiveness may only be achieved in small increments. Look how long it took to get the "Shall-Issue" Right-To-Carry Laws.

I know you guys all mean well and I'M SORRY TO GO OFF LIKE THIS BUT YOU GUYS BETTER START WISING UP.;)

ClonaKilty
April 4, 2007, 06:45 PM
The other side is that if SCOTUS upholds Parker, then only the DC law is nullified. Similar laws, like Chicago's will have to be taken to court one by one, and the whole process begun again to show that their law is also unconstitutional. And what about laws in areas like NYC, where handguns are not banned, but are made nearly impossible to obtain except by Mafia gangsters and the wealthy elite?

That's true, every district would have to be taken to court, one by one. This is exactly how Jim Crow and "separate but equal" was overturned, by suing local boards of education, culminating in Brown v. Board of Education. And then when some boards of education refused to comply, they were forced to.

As I understand it, the Brown model is the strategy that the Cato Institute and the attorneys to Parker are following, because it has proven to have worked in the past.

And remember: in Brown, SCOTUS was asked to overturn a previous SCOTUS decison -- arguably a taller order than asking them to uphold Parker.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 4, 2007, 06:45 PM
A bad SCOTUS decision will hurt us possibly BEYOND RECOVERY because it will aid the other side in their bans by giving them more ammunition!

Are they waiting for a SCOTUS decision to propose ridiculous bans? It doesn't look like it to me. It looks like even now they are trying to pass bans that are huge in their scope (see H.R. 1022)

A BAD Precedent ruling in a SCOTUS that is stacked unfavorably to us will give us no room to maneuver.

Tell me how a SCOTUS ruling upholding a collective rights decision is going to reduce our "room to maneuver" when only two circuits currently consider the Second Amendment an individual right? Since 1934, only one federal gun law has been overturned - the one at issue in Parker. So we should throw that one decision away because if we don't, we might not get any gun laws overturned?

YOU PICK YOUR FIGHTS.

Picking your fights implies that you do intend to fight at some time. If not now, then when in the future do you suggest would be a more opportune time? What makes you think that future will be more favorable to RKBA?

Additionally, don't forget the unconstitutional "MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT". If you're declared a "Domestic Terrorist" you can't challenge your Incarceration, and will be tried by a Military kangaroo court with a "Military JAG" style lawyer.

This is off-topic for this thread, so please limit the discussion to the NRA and Parker.

An all-or-nothing fight could very very easily leave us with nothing. The NRA doesn't want to chance this and I don't blame them. They're trying to hedge OUR BETS and leave all-out fights for a better day when WE HAVE THE EDGE.

1. When is that day?
2. What do we have right now and how is that better than nothing?
3. What advantage do we gain from having no Supreme Court decision; but also not having any federal firearms laws overturned ever?

You guys need to leave the Libertarian Melodrama, and fantasies at home. If we lose in a Major Precedent that could be used by the anti-gunners we could suffer a string of setbacks that could hit us VERY HARD and affect things for the next 20 years.

Look how long it took to get the "Shall-Issue" Right-To-Carry Laws.

About 20 years. We have been waiting for a clarification of Miller since 1939.

I know you guys all mean well and I'M SORRY TO GO OFF LIKE THIS BUT YOU GUYS BETTER START WISING UP.

Well, how about this. I'll ignore my gut reaction to your comments and not respond as if I know everything in the world about this subject. In turn, you grant me the same consideration and consider that there may be well-qualified individuals here who disagree with your interpretation and analysis of this issue and that those disagreements are not based on "melodrama" or "fantasy" but a fairly reasoned assessment. Sound fair?

mbt2001
April 4, 2007, 07:19 PM
I support what the NRA is doing.

Do you mean you are in favor of the NRA’s tactics of disingenuous support for Parker, or you are for an all-out effort to undermine Parker?

I support trying to use congress now that we have a favorable decision from the court and use the possibility that SCOTUS will agree with the decision as leverage.

Further to that, I am a member of SAF and others... Anyway, what is wrong with the NRA working on a back door or a plan b? Seriously, this is exactly the way that Gun owners / Gun lobby need to attack issues. We have a huge political lobby with several different groups attacking several different areas.

Alpha Team, Bravo Team, Charlie Team...

I guess I am tired of the NRA being everyones whipping boy. The media, the brady's, the anti's, my bloody mother in laws....

My lawyer comments were out of line... :(

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 07:24 PM
Good luck getting any action from the congress that is pro RKBA. We will be lucky if we don't have AWB II next year.

ptmmatssc
April 4, 2007, 07:29 PM
I'm all for pushing ahead with Parker. While we wait for a "perfect" case at a "perfect" time , bills are being introduced to take away more of our gun rights . For instance , here in maine a bill was introduced that would require a gun lock on any pistol within your home unless you are carrying it . During the hearing I attended the issue was brought up about a " nightstand" gun and it still would need a trigger lock . Is that progress? i think this is as good a case as your going to get for this . Should we wait until ALL our rights are gone or do something now? People talk of all the states that have CCW laws now , but neglect to mention all the additional laws that have been added to the books that are anti gun . Are we taking a chance with this case? Maybe , but better to do it now with a good solid case rather than wait for something that may never come.

mbt2001
April 4, 2007, 07:50 PM
The problem in your case isn't Guns. It is legislative rape. Every year anti's try to pass the Assualt Weapons Ban or something like it. One year, almost in a fluke, it gets through....

Here in Houston we voted down a new stadium twice and the light rail 3 times. Well, in one year, they were both on the ballet AGAIN and they passed. Game over. You can spend your lifetime supporting something only to have dumbies come in and vote and it's all over.

We have to oppose every day. They only have to catch us off guard once.

sux, but don't know how to change it.

pcosmar
April 4, 2007, 07:57 PM
I believe that the NRA does some good, But they are a political entity.
I have a question for you to think about.
What would happen to the NRA if,
Gun laws are found to be unconstitutional.
All restriction of the 2nd ends.
We Win.
?????

Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?
Is it in their best interest to win the war? Or to keep the battle going?

Sorry but my mind always works on the "what ifs".

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 08:01 PM
Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?
Is it in their best interest to win the war? Or to keep the battle going?

The NRA has been around since 1871, long before we had any substantial gun control in the US. I am sure they will find a way to continue.

F4GIB
April 4, 2007, 08:46 PM
What's the SAS motto?

Who dares, wins.


NRA cannot control every desperate public defender in America.
There will never be a Supreme Court with 9 pro-gun votes.
So the ultimate outcome is out of NRA's control no matter what.

Bruce H
April 4, 2007, 09:06 PM
I want a SCOTUS ruling on the second very soon. Parker isn't a bad choice. Lets get them to commit themselves so we can either say about time or know who to kill that can't understand the constitution. We don't need to put up with the antics of Carloyn Mcarthy every term.

Brett Bellmore
April 4, 2007, 09:29 PM
I don't mind if the NRA tries to keep Parker from reaching the Supreme court. It's not an irrational position to take, and there's room for disagreement within the pro-gun community.

I really, REALLY mind that they're trying to do it dishonestly. That's the issue here: You're not going to see an editorial in the Rifleman explaining why we have to keep cases like Parker from reaching the Supreme court. Because the NRA doesn't trust it's members to agree with it's strategy.

So they issue press releases that would almost have you thinking that Parker was their idea, they don't tell the members they tried to get Gura to abandon the litigation, and then tried to sabotoge it. And they don't tell members that they're, after all these years, and in a more hostile Congress than we've had in years, suddenly obsessed with repealing D.C.'s gun control because it would moot Parker.

I expect the other side to lie to me. It royally pisses me off when my side lies to me.

HarryCalahan1
April 4, 2007, 11:16 PM
Bartholomew I don't for a minute doubt your sincerity and you have my respect, but believe me it could be MUCH WORSE if a NATIONWIDE ENGLAND/AUSTRALIA-STYLE HANDGUN/RIFLE/SHOTGUN BAN is given an emboldened push by a bad SCOTUS PRECEDENT.

It is not that bad yet and a better day would be a U.S. Supreme Court with a couple more solid progunners. The real question is will the U.S. Supreme Court do it's job and honor the Oath they take (A binding contract with the people!) to uphold the Constitution?:confused:

The thing is, sooner or later if we don't start making some major gains at the National/Federal Level I think we are going to get hit hard. I just don't want to see this happen prematurely by a bad precedent.:(

antsi
April 4, 2007, 11:46 PM
------quote----------
Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?
Is it in their best interest to win the war? Or to keep the battle going?
----------------------

People are always making this insinuation on gun boards - that the NRA is deliberately trying not to win the political battles in order to prolong its own existence.

There is no basis for this accusation, and even a passing familiarity with the organization of the NRA makes it obvious how ludicrous this is.

The NRA is an enormous organization and political activism is only a tiny fraction of its operations. All the other activities - publications, videos, instructional courses, hunter support, law enforcement support, range safety, all the thousands of different kinds of competitions, and all the hundreds of local and regional affiliated organizations would absolutely flourish in the absence of an anti-gun movement.

Besides, this same argument can be applied to any occupation. By the same logic, computer programmers deliberately introduce bugs into the programs to generate future business for upgrades. Doctors and nurses deliberately spread disease. Firemen go out at night setting fires. All these people would be put out of business if they were 100% successful in their jobs, and the same is true for just about any kind of human endeavor.

You may disagree with the NRA's strategy, but there is no ground to attribute conspiracy theory motives. Such insinuations do nothing to help the cause. Besides not making the slightest bit of sense.

Kindrox
April 5, 2007, 12:03 AM
Bartholomew I don't for a minute doubt your sincerity and you have my respect, but believe me it could be MUCH WORSE if a NATIONWIDE ENGLAND/AUSTRALIA-STYLE HANDGUN/RIFLE/SHOTGUN BAN is given an emboldened push by a bad SCOTUS PRECEDENT.

I don’t know what the anti-Parker people are smoking. Yeah we have fought our way through the states with CHL and the like, but all the state gains can be lost in one second with one federal law. And AWB was already passed once. It passed legal challange. The next one will too.

The anti’s aren’t waiting around to get empowered. They know what they want and they have the people in office to carry it out. Yeah they might bid their time till after the next presidential election, or maybe not. Either way they are hell bent on boxing with laws we cannot challenge. What are you going to do in 5-15 years if the following laws are passed at the federal level:

All of AWB I plus banning more like HR1022
All states back to may issue CHL or CHL revoked all together
Full gun registration
Big transfer fees to buy “assault weapons”
Big ammo tax
Gun locks on guns at all times
No importation of any guns/ammo
No sunset of any of it

Then will you fight? With what? The democrats are smart, they will make ways for it to be technically possible to own a gun, i.e. just a little less regulation than what D.C. has now, but more than enough to effectively kill the RKBA. And just enough to keep you from having standing to sue or being 100% denied owning any kind of gun.

This crap is already headed our way. Is this the ‘split’ over Parker? Do some people on the board think gun rights are in vogue at the federal level? If so, please share why you think this.

camacho
April 5, 2007, 12:21 AM
I believe that the NRA does some good, But they are a political entity.

No, they are not. The rest of the gun organization mentioned in this forum are strictly political but not the NRA. I suggest you peruse their website and educate yourself what exactly they do. The political wing of NRA is just of the many things they do.


Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?
You bet!

Come on folks, let's stop being cynical about the NRA and the alleged conspiracy not to win the war but continue the battle. It is simply not true and very naive notion.


As to the issue of Parker and the Supreme Court, I would like to read a scholarly analysis on the situation and the pros and cons of reaching the SCOTUS. I am still not convinced (but I am listening) if it can not get any worse. I did a search on the issue but could not read anything that dealt with the constitutional implications of Parker reaching the highest court. What Levy wrote in the piece that was posted did not address the issue of what happens if the Court goes with the collective rights doctrine. Moreover the notion that "the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens." is true but has nothing to do with jurisprudence. The Court cares about only and purely about legal issues not about who the plaintiffs are. For those who want to do a legal research: go ahead, you will be surprised how many cases were ruled in favor of unsavory characters. We would not have Miranda rights if it was like that. Actually, I can believe Levy said that, he knows better.

oldfart
April 5, 2007, 12:35 AM
:cuss:

I try to write a bit once in awhile but I usually find that someone else has already said what I want and usually done a better job of it than I could. So I tend to quote those erudite fellows who are or were better wordsmiths than I can ever hope to be.
The following quote is one we're all familiar with. Patrick Henry was trying to drum up support for a revolution. We here are trying to drum up support for a court case. Many of his comments fit our situation nearly as well as the situation they were intended for.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British soldier shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Many here and elsewhere seem to want to wait until we have a clear majority of conservative judges on the Supreme Court. When will that be? "Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, . . ."

He then launches into a discourse about actual war, a scenario we probably will never have to face. But then he points out that the only choices they had (and we have) are freedom and slavery. Those choices are as real today as they were in 1776.

Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!
We need to fight this now with the tools we have rather than cower and wait for the Democratic Congress to "save" us.

He finally ended up with the real meat of his speech, something that is as appropriate today in this small theater as it was then on the world stage.

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

I am a member of the NRA just as I am a citizen of this once great country. I do not believe that the groups that run either of those organizations is infallible. Our governmewnt once told us we had to go to war because our navy had been attacked in the Tonkin Gulf. We now know our govenment lied, just as they have lied about other things. If the NRA wants anything more than my membership dues they need to be more forthcoming about just what they do or do not support. From what I have been able to ascertain so far, they're lying to me and I will not support that!

F4GIB
April 5, 2007, 12:41 AM
I really, REALLY mind that they're trying to do it dishonestly. That's the issue here: You're not going to see an editorial in the Rifleman explaining why we have to keep cases like Parker from reaching the Supreme court. Because the NRA doesn't trust it's members to agree with it's strategy.

It's worse, NRA knows that it's members want a court decision.

From www.instapundit.com:
MORE ON PARKER: Bob Levy sends this as a follow up to an earlier post:

Let me briefly recap the pro-cert argument for Parker, and make a couple of other points:

First, black-letter law is pretty clear. Parker will be vacated -- either by the Circuit or the Supremes -- if a mootness event (e.g., passage of the DC Personal Protection Act) occurs anytime between now and the date that the Supremes either deny cert or issue their opinion. In other words, if the bill passes, Parker is almost certainly history, with no precedential value anywhere.

Second, the time is ripe for SCOTUS review: (1) The Court's makeup is better than it has been and better than it's going to be. (2) The other side has more to lose (47 states) than we do (3). (3) Congress and state legislatures can trump the Court if necessary. (4) An adverse decision on the merits is unlikely, especially during an election year. (5) If the Court is so inclined, it has ways to reverse Parker without reaching the merits (e.g., standing, DC statehood). (6) A bad case will ultimately go up if Parker doesn't. Public Defenders continue to challenge felon-in-possession charges on 2d Amendment grounds. Sooner or later, a bad Court is going to grab one of those cases. (7) Silberman's opinion is great, and so are the underlying facts of our case. (8) Incorporation isn't an issue. (9) DOJ will likely change its view of the 2d Amendment under a liberal AG.

The NRA [LaPierre, Froman and Cox] has stated to me and others that cert is desirable. Sen. Hutchison's press release says she agrees. The other major gun groups, Gun Owners of America & Second Amendment Foundation, also agree. That's the "official" position of insiders who are supposed to have the best crystal ball regarding the Supremes.

Nobody at the NRA has provided a credible answer to this simple question: Why is the NRA pushing the DC Personal Protection Act? If the NRA were to say, "You're going to lose, so we want to kill the litigation," I would understand that argument -- although I would dispute the premise. Instead, we're hearing that the NRA wants the Supremes to review Parker. There's a disconnect somewhere.

******************************************************
Actions speak louder than words.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 5, 2007, 12:46 AM
Bartholomew I don't for a minute doubt your sincerity and you have my respect

Well unfortunately, I do doubt your sincerity and I can't really return the respect seeing as you have been banned twice previously here.

In any case, you keep mentioning bad precedent without seeming to grasp that most of the country already lives under the bad precedent you have mentiond.

It is not that bad yet and a better day would be a U.S. Supreme Court with a couple more solid progunners.

And what chain of events do you see happening in the next 20 years to put a couple of more solid progunners on the Court? Time works both ways... some people seem to assume that only antis will die off and we will get to replace them; but I would point out that the last two Justices to leave the Court were both on the conservative side. The next Justice to leave could just as easily be Scalia as Stevens (though the liberal Justices are generally older as a group).

qdemn7
April 5, 2007, 01:06 AM
Very simple, I support what Levy is doing and oppose what the NRA is doing. The NRA could have done what Levy did years ago, if they had used their heads, only they didn't. Now they're jealous the NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) and are attemtping to undermine Parker, so THEY can claim victory and thus the $$$ that go with that.

Let's quite farting around and let SCOTUS decide, by God. If we win they we can shove that right down the Antis throat and make them choke on it. If we lose, then we're not much worse off than we are right now.

ksnecktieman
April 5, 2007, 02:24 AM
FIRST, to oldfart,,, please hang on, and continue your nra membership a little bit longer, if you were a politician, and some group could say we have four million members we will tell how to vote,,,, what would you do, as that politician?


To HARRYCALAHAN? I think we need a decision. I think we need our politicians to stand and declare their intentions. I think we need the supreme court to stand and declare their intentions. I think now is the time. NOW, not later.

And a bit of trivia for you, HARRY, for confirmation? What primer did he have in his pistol, when he said "Do you feel lucky, Punk?"

Bartholomew Roberts
April 5, 2007, 11:01 AM
The NRA could have done what Levy did years ago, if they had used their heads, only they didn't.

To be fair to the NRA, they probably couldn't have. The Supreme Court was a lot less conservative years ago, even if they could have gotten it through the lower courts, their chances weren't great. As I mentioned earlier, the NRA did support some of the litigation attempting to overturn the 1986 machinegun ban and almost all of those attempts not only failed; but left some bad precedent as well.

You can't really blame the NRA for being skittish here. A good outcome for us is by no means a sure thing and we haven't had great luck in the past with litigation. The question though seems to be whether it is going to get better anytime soon? We have six justices born in the 1930s - Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Scalia. As you can see, the odds greatly favor one of the more liberal justices being the next one to step down; however, what type of administration will be appointing their replacements?

This case will be heard around Summer 2008 if it goes to the Supreme Court. If we take a pass on Parker hoping to win a later case, we had better put a pro-Second President and Senate in office in 2008. Right now, it looks like the chances of that are marginal at best.

Another big advantage of having Parker go forward is that we have a giant national debate on the individual/collective rights issue right before a Presidential election. 74% of Americans (including some who believe in an outright ban on guns) believe the Second Amendment supports an individual right according to polling done by gun control groups. Both parties will be courting the gun vote for that election and it will give us a great chance to leverage our power at the polls.

ozwyn
April 5, 2007, 11:45 AM
Parker needs to go to the Supreme court for gun owners nationwide.

The dc bill should also be supported.

The NRA has to figure out how to manage both, and score victories on both. Simple as that.

And yes, that's a tough job. But it is about time to start turning signs of hope into real progress.

mack
April 5, 2007, 11:56 AM
A few points I find interesting on this thread.

One those who say they support the NRA in this matter never seem to address the primary point that the NRA is saying one thing to its members and then doing another. So I ask directly - If you say you support the NRA, do you support them lying to their members about their support of Parker?

If you don't support the Parker case because it isn't time yet - one, when will be the right time, and two, when is the right time to ask the government permission to exercise ones' inalienable rights?

At least one poster clearly doesn't understand that the passage of a DC repeal will void the Parker decision as precedent, rendering it moot.

If you say the NRA has done good and we are winning - I will acknowledge that the NRA has won some victories - but it can all go away with one Democrat or one liberal Republican President and the current Senate and House. Also if you think things are so good then try living in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, or Hawaii...to name a few - about half the population live in such states and they hardly enjoy the rights that the rest of the country does. No significant political victories rolling back gun laws are going to happen in those states in the next fifty years. You may be satisfied with your ability to exercise your rights today, but what about your fellow gun owners, should we just shut up and wait for some better future that may come some day when today we face more and more restrictions and bans on our right to keep and bear arms?

The Parker case gives hope, a chance in our lifetime to see the right to keep and bear arms become a right recognized by the government and honored as is the right to free speech. Instead we see the NRA taking active steps to sabotage that possibility and then lying about their actions.

Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

The Drew
April 5, 2007, 12:10 PM
Clearly we have NO constitutional right to keep and bear in the minds of our politicians. AWB, DC ban, draconian registration schemes in NJ and Ill, all point to this being the case.

There is NOTHING stopping all these worst case scenarios from going into law RIGHT NOW. Without a negative ruling from Parker at SCOTUS. All that keeps them from going into law now are legislators and executives who are pro gun.

If Parker goes to SCOTUS and is overturned, we really lose nothing. The anti's still would have to be elected, and would still have to convince the pro gun guys that gun control is a good idea... There wouldn't be any fewer pro gun forces out there, in fact, they may be more. It may be seen as a rallying cry for gun owners to stand up and be heard finally and amend the constitution to clarify an individual right to keep and bear arms.

If parker is upheld. Then a precedent is set for a whole slew of challenges based on individual right to keep and bear arms.

I see no downside. If we lose, it is no different from today where the 2nd amendment is totally ignored or dismissed by anti's.

NC-Mike
April 5, 2007, 12:30 PM
The NRA is scared that SCOTUS might rule against the plaintiffs in Parker, which is a valid concern. They might. But if they're going to, shouldn't we find out sooner instead of later? before there are a few more "assault weapon" bans and taxes and restrictions and regulations? Shouldn't we find out while there are still patriotic, armed, angry Americans, and before we're all disarmed sheep, and the court decision is just confirming what everyone already knows?


Does anyone believe the SC will get any better than it is right now for a SA case? The time is right, the time is now. With all this non-sense about fighting terrorists over there, instead of over here and the very real possibility of a Democrat elected President, I see nothing but a long hard road in front of us. In the next few years, our rights will continue to be assaulted and marginalized by the MSM and liberals like no other time in history.

oldfart
April 5, 2007, 01:25 PM
I believe I made my views on this question plain in my earlier post and I'm glad to see there are others who feel as I do.
Two days ago I renewed my NRA membership. To be brutally honest, I maintain my membership because it's required by my club, so I really consider it a part of my club dues. But while I was on line with them, I took the time to send an e-mail about this whole mess. I think it might be a good idea if everyone here were to do something similar. Until we tell them, they have no way to know what we think about the way they're doing their jobs. Don't be afraid to put a bit of pressure on them either; tell 'em you might drop your membership if they continue the way they are now. Whether or not you actually plan to drop your membership is another subject, but they don't need to know that.

LAR-15
April 5, 2007, 01:28 PM
We need to wait until Stevens dies.

Simple as that.

NC-Mike
April 5, 2007, 01:57 PM
And what if he dies or better yet steps down under a Democratic?
(not wishing death on any SC Justice)


Waiting is a risk unto itself and the main premise of the argument to get this case before the SC now. We know what's there now, we have no idea what's going to be there tomorrow.

jpk1md
April 5, 2007, 02:12 PM
Levy and CATO are our best vehicle to solving the biggest issue here and now/once and for all.

The biggest issue is the Individual/Collective Argument and is one that was clarified in the Parker Case and needs to be solidified by SCOTUS.

Second is the degree to which 2A Rights can be regulated by the States. Clearly the courts have said that the 2A can be Regulated in a fashion consistent with the 1A (ie you cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre).

I for one Support Levy and Cato and Oppose the NRA on this particular issue.

Now is the best opportunity that we are going to get in our lifetimes wrt SCOTUS and the composition of SCOTUS.

We are fighting against a MUCH more left leaning Congress and a strong possibility that an anti 2A radical left wing Democrat like Obama or Billary will get into office in 2008 and should that happen in combination with the possibility that the Dems maintain a majority in both houses of Congress then there is a good chance that we will see some pretty draconian laws along with the appointment of some VERY LIBERAL Supreme Court Appointments......those are LIFE Positions folks.....

The thought of the Dems controlling the Exec and Leg Branches is chilling wrt 2A, Illegal Immigration, Education not to mention taxes and the deficit.

Now is the best time to push the issue.....back off NRA and let Levy and Cato take this one.

antsi
April 5, 2007, 03:14 PM
-----quote-----
once and for all
---------------

I wish them every success with their legal battle, but even if they are successful it won't be total victory "once and for all."

It would be nice to get a good SCOTUS precedent, but only to the extent that such a precedent would be helpful in future legal battles.

The magic wand solution - "poof" and all the gun laws disappear overnight - is not on the table here.

mack
April 5, 2007, 03:49 PM
antsi wrote - "The magic wand solution - "poof" and all the gun laws disappear overnight - is not on the table here."

I would agree, and I don't see people here suggesting that would happen as a result of a positive outcome. A victory would only establish a basis for years of continuing work to define the right. But it would be a start.

Besides the issues at debate are the NRA's duplicitous representation that they support Parker, while actively working to derail it, (including trying to enlist their membership in the effort to derail Parker without telling them that the NRA's plea to have them call to ask their senator or representative to support legislation to repeal the DC gun laws will void the Parker case and erase the precedent that it sets). And, the issue of either supporting Parker now or waiting for some unspecified length of time for some unspecified court case, for some perfect pro-second amendment Supreme Court, at some unknown future date, as the risk of doing something now is too great.

Maybe the NRA is right to want to wait. I don't believe they are, but one can never be certain. But that is the point isn't it - one can and never will be certain that the court will ever recognize the rkba. We have a chance for the first time since Miller in 1939 to put a good case in front of the court and the NRA decides to try to torpedo it - while lying about it and trying to get their members to unknowingly aid in the deed.

The whole thing, especially being an NRA life member, makes me sick to my stomach. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Dave Workman
April 5, 2007, 10:00 PM
Who was it said, 'If they mean to have a war, let it start here" ????

I have purposely stayed in the background of this debate, primarily because I have to write about this case.

It occurs to me that the Parker case DOES offer us the best opportunity to get this great question resolved once and for all.

We have wandered through the fog long enough. It is clearly time for SCOTUS review of a solid 2A case. I believe that case is Parker.

Of course it's not a sure thing. Life isn't a "sure thing." Life is about risk. About taking a chance. About making mistakes, and about learning from them. Didn't your grandfather ever tell you that? Your father?

You think in their day they could have built this country, brought it out of the Great Depression, won WWI and WWII if they sat back and waited for the "sure thing?" They'd still be waiting.

To those who contend "We cannot take the risk" I guess the only meaningful response is:

Tell it to Columbus. Tell it to the Pilgrims.

Tell that to the people who stood on Breed's Hill in '75, at Lexington and Concord.

Tell it to Roger's Rangers, Sam Houston, the 101st and 82nd Airborne, the guys who went to the Moon, the pioneers, the cowboys, Lewis and Clark, Woodward & Bernstein...anybody who ever risked it all, not knowing what was around the next bend in the river, or over the next horizon, or coming with the next sunrise.

I am reminded of something told me long ago by someone a great deal wiser than I will ever be. It goes something like this:

If you never lose, if you never make a mistake...then you will have lived your entire life and done NOTHING.

Doing nothing is not a fit occupation.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 5, 2007, 11:37 PM
Parker isn't the only case and maybe not even the best case; but it is one of the few good cases out there and certainly the best one to be heard anytime soon. Considering the litigation that will follow any individual rights ruling, we can't afford to be throwing away any good cases; but if Parker doesn't get cert or doesn't progress, it isn't the end of the road by a long shot.

scbair
April 6, 2007, 12:26 PM
I am truly disappointed. I just received a fundraising letter from NRA-ILA; my response:

"Dear Mr. Cox:

"As much as it pains me, I must advise you that I, a long-time NRA member and supporter, am deeply disappointed in recent actions by the NRA that I believe will negatively impact the battle for our right to keep and bear arms, as validated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The timing and nature of recent attempts to enact the D.C. Personal Protection Act are suspicious, to say the least.

"I had heard rumors to the effect that the NRA would actually circumvent, if possible, any definitive actions to safeguard the Second Amendment protections, in order to maintain its stream of contributions, but I refused to accept them. Online research and discussions with other supporters of our right to keep and bear arms have changed my mind (one example, an article in The Examiner, is attached).

"I believe our cause would be much better served by having Parker v. District of Columbia proceed through the courts. It is a solid, well-reasoned case, based on “good” circumstances (sympathetic plaintiff, etc.), and a favorable ruling would have tremendous positive impact. If the NRA, via the efforts of U.S. Representatives Moss and Souder and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, is successful in the passage of the D.C. Personal Protection Act, the Parker case would become totally irrelevant, and the Act would have far less impact.

"For more than thirty years, I have investigated fraud and abuse, as well as other criminal and civil matters. This sudden pressure brought by the NRA onto some sympathetic legislators fails the “smell test.” I recently received an annual incentive bonus, and had set a portion aside to financially support the NRA ILA. Based on these developments, I am unable to do so, in good conscience."


Dunno if I'll receive a response, but maybe if a lot of members respond along these lines . . .

BTW, I did affix a postage stamp; ain't right to chastise someone on their own nickel!;)

antsi
April 6, 2007, 04:20 PM
---quote----
I would agree, and I don't see people here suggesting that would happen as a result of a positive outcome. A victory would only establish a basis for years of continuing work to define the right. But it would be a start.
------------

I do seem to see a lot of rhetoric suggesting people on this board believe that Parker could provide a definitive solution to RKBA. Language like "once and for all" seems to imply people are looking for a decision which will end all debate over gun laws and protect RKBA for all eternity.

Perhaps I am reading too much into people's enthusiasm, but I do think there are some very unrealistic expectations flying around.

Titan6
April 6, 2007, 06:03 PM
I do seem to see a lot of rhetoric suggesting people on this board believe that Parker could provide a definitive solution to RKBA. Language like "once and for all" seems to imply people are looking for a decision which will end all debate over gun laws and protect RKBA for all eternity.

Perhaps I am reading too much into people's enthusiasm, but I do think there are some very unrealistic expectations flying around.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

It will never be over. Not anyone's life time. Dosen't matter what the courts say or the law says it will never end. Even if we lose it will not end.

jpk1md
April 6, 2007, 06:20 PM
Nothing short of a actual invasion of the continental US by an obviously armed foreign force that would essentially require individual citizens to bear arms to protect the US is going to take the heat off this issue in our lifetimes.

If you enjoyed reading about "The NRA and PARKER" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!