Levy distanced from NRA for Heller

[TexasRifleman]

On the political front, it would have energized the gun rights movement and probably helped McCain.

I've heard that argument but the "beat us down so we can show you how strong we can come back" theory frankly scares the hell out of me.

It's too much of a gamble in my opinion.

But now the standard, well-accepted theory has changed and law students going forward will hear a different version.

A loss of Heller is not worth it just to get McCain elected. There's always going to be some anti politician out there. If not the current crop then a new one 4 years from now.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

"When we filed the case, in 2003, Justices Alito and Roberts had not yet joined the Court, but it did appear that over the near term there would be replacements of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Conner suggested that she might retire, and of course that did come to pass," he said.
Yes, that was a pretty big bet to lay down considering that both left the Court after the 2004 election and nobody knew how that was going to turn out in 2003. Just thinking about what might have happened had that gone the other way makes my stomach churn.

- Not really, because the money could have been taken off the table.

If Kerry won and Brady and Helmke were appointed to the Supreme Court instead of Machine Gun Sammy Alito and Roberts- then the case stops at a lower level, or they add in a couple of arguments that are more palatable to moderates- which SCOTUS jumps on to get out of deciding it. Remember, the D.C. Circuit went our way too.

As for the NRA, I don't think they could have done this case. The NRA is an advocacy group, so it has to stake itself way out at the end of the spectrum. If it moves to the center, everyone thinks they are a bunch of sissies and a new group takes their mantle. However, to win Gura had to make a ton of concessions that the NRA would never make. Since Gura/Levy/Niely/Heller have disconnected themselves and the case from any group someone else can come in and advance upon/repudiate their positions without seeming like they are going back upon their word/reasoning.

It's just the first step, they did what needed to get done.

 

[WayneConrad]

Driving is a privilege not a right

Driving is most certainly a right. It is an unenumerated right, covered by the ninth amendment. Travel by the ordinary means of the day, being indispensable to daily commerce, and by the way to the exercise of the enumerated rights, is most certainly a right. What good is the right to assemble if you cannot get to the place of assembly without government permission? What good is freedom of religion if you cannot get to your church except in the manner government says you can? What good is the right to keep and bear arms if you cannot get to the range to practice without paying a vehicle tax determined by the government, whereby the government may prohibit you from traveling?

I know you've been told countless times by government that driving is a privilege, not a right. I am not suggesting that you tell your government that driving is a right and expect to get anywhere by it. I am merely suggesting that you not believe what your government says.

 

[outerlimit]

I'm guess I'm not the only one who bangs my head against the wall every time I hear that driving is a privilege.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's a very interesting issue, though a little OT for us here. Driving has in fact become a very powerful tool for tyranny. Our very identities are issued to us by the DMV. In a legal sense we barely exist without the official permission of the DMV. And the society has come to rely so much on autos it is as a practical matter virtually impossible to exercise our rights fully without them. The same is true for aircraft, at least up here.

The state has used driver's licensing and airport screening as a means of controlling the population. It's very, very disturbing when you take a step back and really think about it.

 

[mbt2001]

It's just the first step, they did what needed to get done.

I very much agree with that assesment. Conservatives hold themselves to this ideologically pure level at which we can't win. That is one reason that the gun grabbers have been successful.

First it was:

1.) Machine guns are dangerous and have no use in hunting, criminals can kill hundreds with them, we don't want your other guns

2.) Not doing a background check is dangerous

3.) NEW machine guns are dangerous

4.) Assualt weapons and hi cap handguns are dangerous

5.) Semi auto's and handguns are dangerous

Each time they remind us that they don't want our hunting guns and don't want to interfere with our rights...

If we keep to this ideologically pure rhetoric all the time, we would have lost the fight. We adopt their tactics, fund studies that refute their studies and do so with more fanfare. We push the culture war, we chalk up victories and keep pushing. Look where we are today. Keep pushing in incriments, keep changing the minds of those in the populace and we will win.

Advocating machine guns today would be a mistake. Keep pushing and 10 years from now, things will fall into line.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If Kerry won and Brady and Helmke were appointed to the Supreme Court instead of Machine Gun Sammy Alito and Roberts- then the case stops at a lower level, or they add in a couple of arguments that are more palatable to moderates- which SCOTUS jumps on to get out of deciding it. Remember, the D.C. Circuit went our way too.

Except that it only takes *four* votes to grant cert on a case and you have just changed the balance to 6-3 anti with your hypothetical appointments.

Plus since Heller won at the D.C. Circuit level, it is really not his choice whether or not to go forward with the appeal - so they cannot get off the bus even if they wanted to.

Great decision. I am glad they won and I would agree that the NRA is remarkably conservative when it comes to challenging these issues; but I think this one was a lot closer than many of us appreciated. A little tip one way or the other and we would have the collective right established.