Evil NRA?!

[xd45gaper]

found this on another board and wanted to know what you guys thought about it.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm

Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[TexasRifleman]

unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you have read any of the zillions of posts on this thing since the Appeals Court ruled you will see that a SCOTUS hearing of this case won't likely end with this "unambiguous pronouncement".

You will have a ruling that says you can have a gun in your home.

It's clear the Appeals Court had a couple of pro 2A folks on it, and since these cases are extremely rare they did a good job in documenting their process and they will get their names published in all kinds of legal journals I'm sure.

The Supremes will likely be very pointed in what they debate and they would probably (from what I've been reading) rule on this case and never touch the whole individual rights argument.

because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment.

Not really. There is a danger in the Supremes hearing this. It could very well go against us based on what we know about the sitting Justices.

The NRAs position is that it's too dangerous. If you disagree with them does that make them EVIL?

 

[Jim K]

It is no secret that both the NRA and the anti-gun lobbies have tried to keep a true SA case from reaching the Supreme Court. Both see a ruling for the other side as a disaster, and are afraid of a final ruling.

Actually, an adverse ruling would be worse for the anti-gunners; if the right applies to individuals, all those gun bans would be in question, and other laws, even the ancient NY Sullivan Law could be called into question.

If the gun rights side loses, the situation remains the same. The anti-gun lobbies would be fired up, but they would still have to pass their legislation against strong opposition. As an example, the Constitution says nothing about a right to own an automobile, but any legislation banning cars or limiting them to government officials would very likely be strongly opposed and would not be likely to pass, even if Al Gore supported it.

Jim

 

[xd45gaper]

oh dont take this the wrong way im a big supporter of the NRA i just put "evil NRA" to get people to read the post.

i never really actually thought about a Supreme Court Ruling on the second going the other way (for the antis) and now that i think of it, if it did go up that far and they did rule against us we (as in gun owners) would be in a world of hurt.

After reading your comment Jim, it would make sense (to me) that the NRA wouldnt want this case to go up to the Supreme Court level in fear of them ruling against the 2A

 

[HiroProX]

It's a risk we're long overdue for. If there was a time to put every resource at the disposal of every pro-2A group in the US, this one's it. A ruling in favor of the 2nd would strangle 1022 in its cradle, and pull the rug out from under the MG manufacture ban of 1986.

It'd be VERY difficult and suspicious if the USSC overturns this, as they'd basically be asking the people of the United States to believe that the words "the people" mean two separate things. Even a USSC ruling against would show the whole corrupt, stinking mess that is the .gov in a manner that cannot be ignored. Such a ruling would fatally undermine the concept of rule of law because it will make absolutely crystal clear that the law will mean "whatever a bunch of political appointees for vested interests" decide it does this week.

So it either solves the problem, or it will make it so obvious that action will be taken. I'd say we win whichever way it goes.

 

[Monkeyleg]

I'd feel much more comfortable if Bush were able to replace Ginsberg with another Alito or Roberts.

The Parker case wasn't brought to the DC circuit by a gun rights advocate, or even someone with a vague interest. It was brought by a person with strong libertarian leanings who could afford to fund the challenge.

If the NRA is trying to play it safe, I can't say that I blame them.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Currently, outside D.C., having the 2nd amendment is of absolutely no legal use to us. Even in the 5th circuit, they only ruled that it's an individual right only in name, permitting it to be over-ridden for the most casual reason.

So, we've got little to lose on a legal front if the Supreme court rules against us. It just puts us back where we were a couple weeks ago. So, if it's a problem, it's a political one.

My take on it? A ruling against us will be such a political bombshell, it would make the '94 ban look like a squib. It would wake so many gun owners from their stupor that the next election would be a bloodbath for gun controlers.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is also worth noting that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson recently reintroduced this same bill to repeal the D.C. Gun Ban. Prof. Eugene Volokh commented on March 14, 2007 in his http://volokh.com/ blog that he believed the bill would not only stop the Supreme Court from hearing the case; but probably destroy whatever value the case has as precedent in the D.C. Circuit.

NRA-ILA sent out an alert on this noting the Parker victory and then asking members to support this bill. I can understand the NRA's different approach in Seegars. They took the standard lawyer approach of throw every argument you've got against the wall and hope one of them sticks. When you just want to win that particular case, that is usually the way to go. However, I've got to say that their recent attempt to promote Hutchinson's bill tends to suggest they would really rather see this issue dead.

I've written them twice now as an NRA member asking why they did this and so far they have declined to answer me. I've also written both my Senators (one of whom is Sen. Hutchinson) and asked them to withdraw/not support the bill. I'll share their response when I see it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I've written them twice now as an NRA member asking why they did this and so far they have declined to answer me.

Well I don't have any more info that you certainly but I think that since our AG and his staff worked pretty darned hard on the DC case, with Hutchinsons support, there must be a reason they feel safer chasing it this way.

Perhaps the AG told her something she is afraid of?

I wrote the Solicitor General and asked the same question. If it does go to the Supremes he will be leading the argument there.

 

[SoCalShooter]

I agree that putting the case infront of the USSC is very dangerous for us and its a gamble. We have a momentary lead on them, we need to wake up all gun owners and get the pro-gun dems to realize that we might actually vote for them if they give us a good reason, I personally don't care about anything else other than guns when I vote, I weigh the other issues but gun rights is the priority and the tie breaker. The NRA and other organizations should be truley focused on educating all gun owners and explaining why it is important to protect all weapons. When 80million of us vote as 1 we can make a HUGE difference, as a culture it is necessary to unite and educate and dominate, having USSC make a ruling is truly irrelevent in my estimation if we do not put the right REPS in power.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I think with Roberts on SCOTUS we hold the better cards. But this could of course change quickly.

I have to side with the NRA on one part of this. I admit, I am scared of this going to SCOTUS. Too big of a gamble. I understand we all want this 'settled' but think of what happens if we lose. Sure, things could remain the same. But we dont know that.

Even if they allowed all FEDERAL laws to be shot down, I have a feeling theyd 'leave it to the states' and watch clones of the 1986 freeze on the MG registry be passed in several states.

 

[xd9fan]

This back and forth about asking Govt courts what our Rights are.....annoys me.
If you ask the Courts for answer to "what color is the sky?"....it would be a 250 page "brief"

I agree that putting the case infront of the USSC is very dangerous for us and its a gamble.

If putting a case about the individual intent of the 2A in front of the SC is dangerous and a gamble.......what does that tell you?

I'm tried of this hiding
we either have a right or we do not......and if we dont.......then let the heads roll.

 

[Robert Hairless]

When I was a younger man I won money playing poker from time to time. It was always good to have impatient people in the game. They bet far too much on hands that could go either way. It's not that I was the world's best poker player, or even very good, but I was much better at sitting out hands in which the odds were not enough in my favor.

I wasn't waiting for sure things or even overwhelmingly good hands. What I wanted were hands that were sufficiently in my favor to justify the cost of staying in. When the odds were much better, I would bet more.

One difference between those poker games and this is that I could afford to lose on some hands and still come out a winner in the end. This game of going for a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment's central issue is one hand of winner take all--or close to it.

If SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment is an individual right, there still will be battles about acceptable regulation at each state level. That's when pressure on legislators can be effective. But if SCOTUS rules that it's a collective right, not an individual right, the game is lost forever. Legislators who were inclined to defend gun rights from their belief that they were individual rights will have to revise their position.

So will everyone here who has said so confidently "Can't they read plain English?" The inevitable response will be "Can't you?"

I would welcome an immediate decision by this Supreme Court if there is no doubt that it would be what I want. If there's any doubt, though, there's more to be gained by postponement for as many years as possible until the Supreme Court is constituted so it's more likely to make that favorable decision. In that situation I have infinite patience. It buys time in which to exploit the present ambiguity as much as possible on the state and federal levels.

It's significant, I think, that the dissenting opinion in the Parker v D.C. appeal was by a card carrying conservative with the right credentials. It's even more significant that the majority opinion argued that there should be governmental restraints on the individual right. It did not assert or support the unrestrained individual right to keep and bear arms in which many of you believe. It did not give you the right to own machine guns, so-called "assault rifles" or real ones, semi-automatic firearms, or armor piercing ammunition. So the decision most people are celebrating now is much less than you had been claiming as your rights.

My sense is that the NRA has a better feel for the situation than any of you do. If the NRA wants to scuttle a Supreme Court showdown, I'm willing to ride with the NRA and I won't undercut it. I have no high opinion of the political savvy of gun owners.

My major objection to the position that we should "let the heads roll" if SCOTUS does not declare an individual right is that my head will be one of those that roll. I do understand and sympathize mightily with people who are impatient to find out whether heads should roll, but I do ask that you find some way to protect my head while you're jauntily putting your head on the chopping block.

There's no justification for any confidence in the risk assessment skills or judgment of people who intentionally vote for candidates with no chance of winning elections.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I do understand and sympathize mightily with people who are impatient to find out whether heads should roll, but I do ask that you find some way to protect my head while you're jauntily putting your head on the chopping block.

The quote attributed to Ben Franklin applies here: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If someone wants a right, they will, as forseen by the Founders, have to fight for it. If you don't want to fight for it, stay out of the way of those who will.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

One thing I will say, I think if this is going to the Supreme court, it's time to reverse another NRA policy, and have a MAJOR, as in "this is what a million people really look like!" march in Washington.

Something the NRA has opposed, because it really hates situations it's not fully in control of.

One of the problems we've got is that even the 'conservative' justices live in a social circle where the 2nd amendment is either despised, or simply regarded as an anachronism. Scalia, who theoretically ought to be a safe vote, wrote in once that if the Supreme court killed off the 2nd amendment, few tears would be shed. The extent to which you have to be out of touch to believe that is mind boggling.

Before the case is heard, we ought to stage the biggest possible gun rights march in Washington, in order to give the Supremes a gut feel for how many people care about this right. To convince those theoretically on our side that it's an issue they shouldn't take a dive on for convenience, and to put a real scare into the ones not on our side.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Before the case is heard, we ought to stage the biggest possible gun rights march in Washington, in order to give the Supremes a gut feel for how many people care about this right. To convince those theoretically on our side that it's an issue they shouldn't take a dive on for convenience, and to put a real scare into the ones not on our side.

Can the marchers carry signs that say things like "Vote Our Way or We'll Kill You"? How about "We're Armed, We're Dangerous, and We're Determined to Get What We Want"?

Signs like that would put a real scare into everyone who isn't on your side--and a lot of people who are on your side too. That's the way to get results. They will make everybody in the country want you to have the ability to own firearms for sure, because everyone likes to be threatened by armed hooligans.

Do you plan on shooting into the air as you march? Give it a thought. It would get lots of attention and turn everyone into a gun rights supporter.

Note: Please do me a big favor? Post messages letting the rest of us know when you folks set the date of your march on the Supreme Court to scare them. I'm sure it will get wide television coverage and I want to make sure I'm watching. I would not miss seeing it for anything in the world. I want to see you scare the government of my country into letting you have guns so you can scare the government of my country.

It would be good if you and WeedWhacker would wear big name tags and wave at the camera. It's always interesting to associate names with faces.

I sometimes wonder if messages like yours are planted by The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun forces. They're the best arguments for complete gun bans and confiscation that I see on the Internet. It's hard to believe that there really are people who think as you do. Do you really believe that you can scare people into letting you keep your guns?

 

[Robert Hairless]

WheedWacker:

If someone wants a right, they will, as forseen by the Founders, have to fight for it. If you don't want to fight for it, stay out of the way of those who will.

Okay. That's fair enough. I will stay out of your way entirely. You're a winner. You now have one less ally who doesn't share all your beliefs. When you drive away everyone else who doesn't completely agree with you about everything, you'll have a clear path to accomplish your own desires. Go fight. Alienate more people.

 

[Igloodude]

From the medical marijuana situation in California, we can be sure that federal law enforcement can and will intervene where a state permits an activity or substance despite federal law to the contrary. What happens when federal law (not the US Constitution) is contrary to a provision in a state constitution? Something over a third of US states (22, by rough count, but that includes Illinois) have RKBA provisions in their state constitution that cannot be rationalized as collective or civic rights (they refer to persons or citizens, not "the people"), and a mere eleven (California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) do not have any arms provisions in their state constitution at all.

 

[Trip20]

It's hard to believe that there really are people who think as you do. Do you really believe that you can scare people into letting you keep your guns?

It was your post that spoke of scaring people in its literal sense with crazy wild-eyed antics... whereas it's obvious Brett was talking about how showing up in great numbers in support of a cause has an impact.

I read no statements in Brett’s post about shooting guns in the air or threatening non-believers with murder. You attributed your ridiculous statements to Brett as if they were his own beliefs.

I'm sure smart-alecky straw man arguments are fun to write... but doing so dismisses any valid point you could possibly have.

 

[xd9fan]

All this "we are taking a risk" talk tells me some are not confident in what the 2A says. Its almost a ..."oh please oh please oh please dear court tell me its an individual right" NO offense to you!! Its just why wait for stacking a court to have what we want.....only to wait 40years and the other side stacks it back........its pointless. The all the talk of Rights before Govt means nothing...its all talk.

I think its all about attitude...the Left (rightfully so)have such an strong attitude towards the 1stA being an individual right........What I dont get why some gun owners have this timid attitude about the 2A? I dont get it. The Parker case is good........if we dont not have an individual right......then its time to fix the real problems....or leave the Union (worst case....which even I dont see the american people today fighting for something that strong anymore)

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Certainly I can understand why the NRA is nervous; by my own count we have at best one solid vote, and three probable votes for RKBA. That still leaves us one vote short of what we need to win and it allows that fifth judge to severely limit any individual right that does come out of a SCOTUS decision.

However, Scalia and Thomas won't be on the Court forever and right now it is a good question who will be appointing their replacements with the current mood of the populace. According to Jon Cowan of AGS (a gun control group) 74% of Americans support the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

I just don't see the Court taking a position that puts them at odds with a majority of Congress, the President and 74% of the public - especially when the academic and historical scholarship supports an individual rights view as well. I guess my concern here is not that NRA isn't eager for the fight - I understand that. My concern is that NRA will not ever have this fight until the grassroots culture effort has grown so strong that the fight is irrelevant. In the meantime, we will continue to face an anti-gun crowd that will propose legislation like the Second Amendment doesn't exist at all and we face a very real proposition of losing the cultural war and not even having the comfort of a Supreme Court decision to shield us as a minority political group. Because right now the only thing standing between us and gun bans is our political might - if that ever fades, so will we.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I just don't see the Court taking a position that puts them at odds with a majority of Congress, the President and 74% of the public - especially when the academic and historical scholarship supports an individual rights view as well.

You mean the way they upheld property rights in that whole Eminent Domain thing?

I think that one tells us that we cannot predict in any fashion what the maniacs might do, and that's why it's scary.

 

[cosine]

(...) and a mere eleven (California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) do not have any arms provisions in their state constitution at all.

What is this then?

The WI State Constitution, Article I, Section 25 states: Right to keep and bear arms. Section 25. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

 

[Master Blaster]

This editorial was written in 2003 when Ashcroft was still AG. The situation on the court has changed has it not? Has the NRA changed its positions as a result??

Igloo dude I would not take anything that Site you got the information on state constitutional rights from seriously. They mention Delaware as one of the 11 states lacking a right to keep and bear arms. THEY ARE WRONG!
It was added to the State consitution in 1989 as the 20th amendment, the most recent one passed.

http://www.delcode.state.de.us/constitution/constitution-01.htm

§ 20. Right to keep and bear arms.

Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

WE DECLARE THAT EVERYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS RESERVED OUT OF THE GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT HEREINAFTER MENTIONED.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You mean the way they upheld property rights in that whole Eminent Domain thing?

Kelo was a 5-4 decision and frankly, I can see why the Court thought it wasn't any big deal given that there was precedent going back 30 years in support of it. One of the cases used to support Kelo was where the state of Hawaii decided that too few landowners (around 24 IIRC) owned too much land (around 75% IIRC) and took the land away from them and gave it to the people renting the land. That decision is incredibly at odds with the beliefs of the majority of Americans, yet there wasn't the slightest bit of uproar when it was declared in the 1980s.

So I could see where some of the Justices might have thought that Kelo was a logical extension of that ruling and no big deal. However, I think they know better than that now and I think they realize that a Second Amendment ruling is not something that people will take lightly.