alan
July 5, 2003, 12:33 PM
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33413
will there ever be a case worthy of NRA"s support??
If you enjoyed reading about "will there ever be a case worthy of NRA"s support??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Graystar
July 5, 2003, 12:42 PM
The NRA isn't waiting for a case. They are waiting for a court.
Shooter 2.5
July 5, 2003, 02:24 PM
Graystar,
You hit the nail on the head with that one.
You hit the nail on the head with that one.
alan
July 5, 2003, 04:05 PM
Graystar:
What do you think the possibilities might be of NRA getting a USSC that suits it's fancy, whatever that might actually be?
By the way, for whatever it might be worth, I've been a Life Member of the NRA since 1973.
What do you think the possibilities might be of NRA getting a USSC that suits it's fancy, whatever that might actually be?
By the way, for whatever it might be worth, I've been a Life Member of the NRA since 1973.
Graystar
July 5, 2003, 09:30 PM
What do you think the possibilities might be of NRA getting a USSC that suits it's fancy, whatever that might actually be? Possibly never. Since those guys are there for life, you can't predict which party will be in power when one of them retires, so the "favorability" of the next judge is always a craps shoot. One year you get one and the next year you lose one and you're right back where you started.
Personally I'd bank on a sound construction of law, rather than depend on who's sitting on the bench.
Personally I'd bank on a sound construction of law, rather than depend on who's sitting on the bench.
Jeeper
July 5, 2003, 09:41 PM
They have filed a case in DC which is similar to CATO's case. They are trying to get them merged right now.
Graystar
July 5, 2003, 09:57 PM
They have filed a case in DC which is similar to CATO's case. They are trying to get them merged right now. Yes that's right and CATO wants nothing to do with them! Too funny...
alan
July 5, 2003, 10:56 PM
Jeeper:
Re CATO and NRA, the latter joining the former, with regrets, were I CATO, I believe that I would try real hard to hold NRA at a very long arms length.
Re CATO and NRA, the latter joining the former, with regrets, were I CATO, I believe that I would try real hard to hold NRA at a very long arms length.
Jim March
July 6, 2003, 02:09 AM
As I understand the situation:
The first suit wasn't a "Cato suit", it was run by a couple of guys who also did work for Cato. They set up a very simple, very clean little "pure RKBA suit" that only sued officials in the DC city goverment. Luck of the draw, they got a good Judge in the random pick.
A few weeks later, NRA sues. They do a big hairy complex sucker, all kinds of causes of action beyond "straight-up RKBA", and they sue everybody in sight including Ashcroft...ensuring maximum opposition. They draw an absolute poopoohead of a judge.
NRA then petitioned to have the cases merged. That would put the combined case in front of the BAD judge.
The Cato-connected guys were just furious.
The first suit wasn't a "Cato suit", it was run by a couple of guys who also did work for Cato. They set up a very simple, very clean little "pure RKBA suit" that only sued officials in the DC city goverment. Luck of the draw, they got a good Judge in the random pick.
A few weeks later, NRA sues. They do a big hairy complex sucker, all kinds of causes of action beyond "straight-up RKBA", and they sue everybody in sight including Ashcroft...ensuring maximum opposition. They draw an absolute poopoohead of a judge.
NRA then petitioned to have the cases merged. That would put the combined case in front of the BAD judge.
The Cato-connected guys were just furious.
alan
July 6, 2003, 06:12 PM
Jim March:
According to what I've read, your analysis is correct. The gentlemen who originated the suit did so on their own, though one or more of the attorneys works for ACTO. The suit was NOT brought by CATO.
It might well be that the NRA suffers from, as have others in the past, what has been described as The NIH Syndrome. NIH meaning Not Invented Here.
Of course, one could be so crass as to inquire as to why it wasn't invented "here", but that is obviously another matter. It does appear as if NRA's action, or antics might bring about a "bad ending" to what is sometimes incorrectly known as "the CATO suit". If this happens, NRA will really have "shot itself in the foot".
According to what I've read, your analysis is correct. The gentlemen who originated the suit did so on their own, though one or more of the attorneys works for ACTO. The suit was NOT brought by CATO.
It might well be that the NRA suffers from, as have others in the past, what has been described as The NIH Syndrome. NIH meaning Not Invented Here.
Of course, one could be so crass as to inquire as to why it wasn't invented "here", but that is obviously another matter. It does appear as if NRA's action, or antics might bring about a "bad ending" to what is sometimes incorrectly known as "the CATO suit". If this happens, NRA will really have "shot itself in the foot".
Jeeper
July 6, 2003, 06:25 PM
Bob Levy, the lead council for CATO on this case spoke with my gun club about the case. According to him the NRA case could be settled without holding that there was any RKBA. The NRA doesnt want the CATO case to go all the way up because of "the current court" supposedly. The CATO case could be a good stepping ground because it doesnt need to address the incorperation issue that a case outside DC would have to. THis makes it preferable since that is one issue that is not against them. Bob actually thinks incorperation might be one of the biggest issues overall for other cases.
alan
July 7, 2003, 12:20 AM
Jeeper:
In your post, you mentioned "incorperation Issue" might that be incorporation?
In any event, it seems that I've heard/seen the phrase before. Unfortunately I cannot quite remember what it ment. Could you clarify please?
In your post, you mentioned "incorperation Issue" might that be incorporation?
In any event, it seems that I've heard/seen the phrase before. Unfortunately I cannot quite remember what it ment. Could you clarify please?
geekWithA.45
July 8, 2003, 12:31 AM
The NRA isn't waiting for a case. They are waiting for a court.
They've been waiting for a court since they got involved with politics in the....what was it, mid 60's?
So, here we are, half a generation later, still waiting. I know people who have been born and died in the last 30 years, and folks I don't personally know have died because their RKBA is no longer respected or upheld.
Shall we wait another half generation?
What the hell, let's just wait till RKBA is forgotten, and bull???? like this:
Diane Edbril, Legislative Director of CeaseFire PA said: "Despite efforts by pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association to convince Americans otherwise, this amendment refers only to the states' ability to establish and maintain official militias such as the National Guard. It has never been interpreted by the courts to confer broad individual rights to gun ownership. See US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
becomes the entrenched, accepted normative explanation of 2a. After all, it'll only be a matter of time, after lies are repeated over and over and over.
:fire: :fire: :fire:
They've been waiting for a court since they got involved with politics in the....what was it, mid 60's?
So, here we are, half a generation later, still waiting. I know people who have been born and died in the last 30 years, and folks I don't personally know have died because their RKBA is no longer respected or upheld.
Shall we wait another half generation?
What the hell, let's just wait till RKBA is forgotten, and bull???? like this:
Diane Edbril, Legislative Director of CeaseFire PA said: "Despite efforts by pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association to convince Americans otherwise, this amendment refers only to the states' ability to establish and maintain official militias such as the National Guard. It has never been interpreted by the courts to confer broad individual rights to gun ownership. See US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
becomes the entrenched, accepted normative explanation of 2a. After all, it'll only be a matter of time, after lies are repeated over and over and over.
:fire: :fire: :fire:
F4GIB
July 8, 2003, 12:41 AM
No.
They are terrified of losing. Gay sexual rights notwithstanding, constitutional law decisions are supposed to be forever (or until an amendment is adopted).
They are terrified of losing. Gay sexual rights notwithstanding, constitutional law decisions are supposed to be forever (or until an amendment is adopted).
alan
July 8, 2003, 12:55 AM
geekWitha45:
You posted, in part, the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Edbril, Legislative Director of CeaseFire PA said: "Despite efforts by pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association to convince Americans otherwise, this amendment refers only to the states' ability to establish and maintain official militias such as the National Guard. It has never been interpreted by the courts to confer broad individual rights to gun ownership. See US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly Ms. Edbril aught to read Miller again, this time with more effort directed toward understanding what it really said, which is not what she seemingly would like it to say. Of course, the foregoing assumes that she has read Miller at all, perhaps an unlikely event, with a view to the conclusions she draws.
For instance, if as she claims, the Second Amendment only refers to the ability of the states to do something, then how come, respecting use of the term "the people", where everywhere else it appears in The Constitution, the term refers to individuals, in The Second Amendment, it acquires an entirely different, collective rather than individual meaning? Strange, the permutations of language, especially in the hands of some.
You posted, in part, the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Edbril, Legislative Director of CeaseFire PA said: "Despite efforts by pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association to convince Americans otherwise, this amendment refers only to the states' ability to establish and maintain official militias such as the National Guard. It has never been interpreted by the courts to confer broad individual rights to gun ownership. See US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly Ms. Edbril aught to read Miller again, this time with more effort directed toward understanding what it really said, which is not what she seemingly would like it to say. Of course, the foregoing assumes that she has read Miller at all, perhaps an unlikely event, with a view to the conclusions she draws.
For instance, if as she claims, the Second Amendment only refers to the ability of the states to do something, then how come, respecting use of the term "the people", where everywhere else it appears in The Constitution, the term refers to individuals, in The Second Amendment, it acquires an entirely different, collective rather than individual meaning? Strange, the permutations of language, especially in the hands of some.
Shaggy
July 8, 2003, 01:59 AM
After the rulings that just came out of this court on affirmative action and sodomy......you think the NRA is wrong to wait for the right people? I SURE DON"T. We're only talking about a judge or two which IS going to happen in the next 5 years.
If they actually hear the Silvera case, no gun owner is going to like what they say. It's 5-4 or even 6-3 against us right now. And I don't care what's in the briefs or how well they are done or how right and constitutional they are.....and neither do the 5-6 activists on the court. They hate guns, they know they are right and that will be the end of that.
If they actually hear the Silvera case, no gun owner is going to like what they say. It's 5-4 or even 6-3 against us right now. And I don't care what's in the briefs or how well they are done or how right and constitutional they are.....and neither do the 5-6 activists on the court. They hate guns, they know they are right and that will be the end of that.
Shaggy
July 8, 2003, 02:01 AM
They've been waiting for a court since they got involved with politics in the....what was it, mid 60's?
Yes in the 60's when Kennedy stacked the court with liberals on top of the liberals FDR stacked the court with in the 30's.
Yes in the 60's when Kennedy stacked the court with liberals on top of the liberals FDR stacked the court with in the 30's.
geekWithA.45
July 8, 2003, 12:40 PM
Alan: I've read Miller. To make it mean what she says it means is to torture it beyond recognition.
After all, there's only a difference of the position of one word between
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
and
A well regulated Militia, NOT being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL be infringed.
But hey, when you revise history, math, and the meanings of words, everything's fair game, right?
After all, there's only a difference of the position of one word between
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
and
A well regulated Militia, NOT being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL be infringed.
But hey, when you revise history, math, and the meanings of words, everything's fair game, right?
Jeeper
July 8, 2003, 04:03 PM
Jeeper:
In your post, you mentioned "incorperation Issue" might that be incorporation?
In any event, it seems that I've heard/seen the phrase before. Unfortunately I cannot quite remember what it ment. Could you clarify please?
Me spellz veery gud!
Incoporation is the idea that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal gov. This is basically how it always was really until the 50-60s. THen a series of cases held that a lot of the BoR were "incorporated" through the 14th ammendment to actually apply to the states. Some of the original 10 arent held to be aginst the states including the 7th(Jury trial). The 2nd amend has never been held to be incorporated to the states. if this is held then the states dont have to listen to any ruling about the 2nd. That is why DC is nice because it is dictated by federal law. If a DC case could win without the incorporation issue being addressed then we could also probably use equal protection to get it extended. DC is a good place for the first case to be since it is a total ban and there is only federal law.
In your post, you mentioned "incorperation Issue" might that be incorporation?
In any event, it seems that I've heard/seen the phrase before. Unfortunately I cannot quite remember what it ment. Could you clarify please?
Me spellz veery gud!
Incoporation is the idea that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal gov. This is basically how it always was really until the 50-60s. THen a series of cases held that a lot of the BoR were "incorporated" through the 14th ammendment to actually apply to the states. Some of the original 10 arent held to be aginst the states including the 7th(Jury trial). The 2nd amend has never been held to be incorporated to the states. if this is held then the states dont have to listen to any ruling about the 2nd. That is why DC is nice because it is dictated by federal law. If a DC case could win without the incorporation issue being addressed then we could also probably use equal protection to get it extended. DC is a good place for the first case to be since it is a total ban and there is only federal law.
alan
July 8, 2003, 05:14 PM
Jeeper:
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the clarification.
If you enjoyed reading about "will there ever be a case worthy of NRA"s support??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.