Scholar says Hatch, NRA 'sabotage' suit to end D.C. gun ban


PDA






WAGCEVP
July 24, 2003, 10:05 PM
Scholar says Hatch, NRA 'sabotage' suit to end D.C. gun ban
www.washingtontimes.com

By Frank J. Murray
Published July 22, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cato Institute scholar Robert A. Levy yesterday accused the National Rifle Association of conspiring with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch to "sabotage" his lawsuit to overturn the District's draconian gun ban.
The traditional allies found themselves on a war footing over tactics in the campaign to win Supreme Court sanction that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to own firearms.
After simmering since the Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia lawsuit was filed in February, the dispute boiled over when the Utah Republican and 19 co-sponsors filed a bill last week that would end Mr. Levy's lawsuit by accomplishing what his complaint asked — nullifying the District's 1976 law imposing some of the nation's toughest gun laws.
When asked why he would not welcome laxer gun-control laws, even if it made his case moot, Mr. Levy said a Supreme Court constitutional ruling would be much more important than a narrow law applying only to the District.
"I'm saying the court should address the Second Amendment issue. There's nothing else in the case," Mr. Levy said. "Hatch's bill is a Band-Aid. It doesn't do a thing for anyone outside Washington, and could be repealed at any time. ... This just basically undermines our whole case."
The bill also would write into law the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees that individuals "including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training" may keep and bear arms.
"It is time to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow Americans in the rest of the country," Mr. Hatch said.
"The facts suggest that Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment," a frustrated Mr. Levy said yesterday in an interview about his lawsuit that accused the District of unconstitutionally outlawing most handgun ownership.
He said the NRA recognizes the validity of his case, but harbors qualms about whether the current nine justices would agree, and wants to control any such appeals.
"If a good case doesn't go up, a bad case is going to go up. This is a case of a black female living in SE Washington who's been told by a drug dealer that she's going to die, and wants a gun in her home," Mr. Levy said.
Anti-gun lawyer Mathew Nosanchuk of the Violence Policy Center opposes what the Hatch bill would accomplish, but relishes his opponents' discomfort.
"Basically, the NRA has for a long time done everything it can to avoid having the Second Amendment come before the justices. I think they weren't, and aren't, confident of the outcome," Mr. Nosanchuk said.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam professed puzzlement over what he called "lawyers with huge egos trying to clash."
"The Cato Institute seems to feel we have some kind of hidden agenda," Mr. Arulanandam said of Mr. Levy's charge that the nation's leading pro-gun organization would not want to clarify Second Amendment rights.
Stephen Halbrook, a veteran NRA adviser and gun-law specialist, was unavailable to discuss Mr. Levy's charge of ethical violations for serving as a paid researcher for the Parker lawsuit and then becoming lead counsel in a "copycat case" for the NRA.
"I think the NRA has behaved abysmally here and Steve Halbrook is their hired gun," Mr. Levy said.
Mr. Halbrook has said his position raises no ethical issues because he does not take a position adverse to Mr. Levy's lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan ruled against the NRA lawyer's request to join the cases for trial.
Mr. Arulanandam would not confirm that the NRA asked Mr. Hatch to file his bill, but said the organization supports the measure, which would virtually nullify the 1976 law.
"We think it's a tremendous step forward as far as ensuring the rights of law-abiding D.C. residents to own a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their homes," he said.
Margarita Tapia, press secretary for the Senate Judiciary Committee, backed away from committing Mr. Hatch to either side in the legal battle.
"Senator Hatch believes there is an individual and fundamental right to bear arms. The citizens of D.C. have had those rights trampled upon for far too long and there is no reason why litigation and legislation cannot be pursued simultaneously," she said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scholar says Hatch, NRA 'sabotage' suit to end D.C. gun ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
H Romberg
July 25, 2003, 10:50 AM
Ya know, March of Dimes almost folded when Polio was cured. Having the signature issue decided in either way is the kiss of death for most activist organizations. If I were running the NRA, I'd be scared poop-less of having it actually go before the SC. Much more safe and lucrative to keep "fighting the good fight", than to see the thing decided.

Waitone
July 25, 2003, 12:39 PM
Yep, the NRA is attempting to derail the CATo suit.

Reason is quite simpleminded. . . . . .why endanger the second amendment to a court that no longer feels constrained by law. The last set of court renderings should give anyone pause.

As someone on the THR said, the NRA isn't waiting for a perfect suit. The NRA is waiting for the right court.

If I was king I would keep any decision of consequence away from this court.

BigG
July 25, 2003, 02:47 PM
If I may add a comment; This is the exact reason govt never fixes a problem. If it fixes a problem, you don't need them any more and it can be disbanded. Self preservation is among the first considerations of any organization (or organism).

Shooter 2.5
July 25, 2003, 05:24 PM
Anyone who thinks the NRA would disappear after a favorable court ruling is nuts.

There are some cities that have only one or two gun ranges. Can you imagine if the Second Amendment is upheld and everyone in Chicago starts buying guns and going to newly created gun ranges for competitions?

The NRA would be larger than ever. It would be the lone issue groups like the Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation who would disappear.

longeyes
July 25, 2003, 06:04 PM
As Waitone suggests, timing is everything. The trend of recent
decisions by SCOTUS is not promising. We need some changes on
the roster. And patience.

Jim March
July 25, 2003, 06:12 PM
"Disappear", possibly not. "Shift towards OTHER civil rights violations going on", almost certainly. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I've decided to focus on gun rights because without that, we're screwed forever every other way. But there are tax issues, property rights issues (eminent domain, fraudulent use of the endangered species act) and just an unlimited number of other "freedom issues" to get involved in.

So while a group like SAF might shift focus after a REALLY big win at the USSC, "disappear", no.

(Not counting the fact that it's probably going to require multiple USSC visits to get it all sorted out - the classic example is how the Jehovah's Witnesses went from being a banned organization during WW2 to "fully protected religion" across EIGHT USSC decisions - all wins. That's probably about what we're facing.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Scholar says Hatch, NRA 'sabotage' suit to end D.C. gun ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!