NRA Amicus Brief

[Michael Thomson]

NRA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court, D.C. v. Heller
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10585

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund today submitted an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia (D.C.) and Mayor Adrian Fenty v. Dick Anthony Heller. This brief supports a lower federal appeals court decision holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and asserts that the D.C. bans on handguns, on carrying firearms within the home and on possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

“We want to return hope and we want to return freedom to our nation’s capital. After this ban was enacted, D.C.’s murder rate tripled, and the city was labeled ‘murder capital of the United States’,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The irony of this gun ban is that it has resulted in criminals having guns while denying law-abiding citizens their basic right to self defense in their own homes.”

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state. This case marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.

“It is beyond unreasonable to prevent law-abiding residents from using a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes, and that is clearly not what our founding fathers intended in crafting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” added Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The American people - whether Democrat or republican, urban or rural - know that the Second Amendment was not written to give a right to the government, but rather to guarantee the fundamental right of individual citizens.”

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), along with bi-partisan majorities of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives - in fact, the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history - will also be filing a strong brief in support of the individual rights view. Several other pro-Second Amendment individuals and organizations, including an overwhelming majority of state attorneys general, will be filing briefs in favor of affirming the D.C. Circuit’s decision as well.

The NRA is widely recognized as America’s foremost defender of Americans’ civil rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as well as being the nation’s leading provider of firearms safety and marksmanship training. The NRA has a vital interest in this case, as the District of Columbia’s arguments, if accepted, would abrogate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms enjoyed by the NRA’s members and other Americans.

As stated in the NRA brief:

“In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes, not a collective right to keep and bear arms only in connection with state militia service.”

* * *

“By its terms, the Amendment protects the right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms. The holder of the right is unambiguous: it is not the States, it is ‘the people’ themselves.”

* * *

“Americans’ personal right to possess . . . firearms for hunting or self-defense was part of the essence of the Framers’ view of themselves as a free and democratic people. Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified.”

The NRA’s counsel-of-record is Mr. Stephen D. Poss of Goodwin Procter LLP.

Click Here to read NRA's brief.

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

 

[ilbob]

not bad. didn't think much of the four pages of ads for the NRA they wrote into the brief. seemed kind of self serving.

does not have the punch that the gura briefs do. gura's stuff is much more readable.

they did however, bring up incorporation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I haven't finished reading the entire brief yet; but I am a bit underwhelmed so far. Like I said, I am not that far into it; but so far I do not see what territory the NRA is covering that is not already covered better by Gura's brief. I was kind of expecting them to branch out and address issues Gura did not cover in his brief.

 

[everallm]

Remember the SC is going to address the questions IT has asked and the Gura document talks to them.

Any amici brief that then wanders into issues off tangent will be weighted appropriately I imagine.

For example some of the opposition briefs are so off target and full of irrelevant filler that I would not be suprised if part of the SC's response includes a "How to respond to the SC" section....

Considering how the NRA was so against this action in the first place, this really is nothing other than a political placeholder.

 

[ArmedBear]

Some amicus briefs seem awfully self-serving these days.

 

[baz]

My take on the NRA brief is that it was basically to make the case that 1) for the militia purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be fulfilled, firearms knowledge and usage must be widespread among individuals, and that 2) the NRA's role in promoting firearms knowledge and usefulness in modern times shows that this remains a relevant rationale for the 2nd Amendment. I do prefer how the Gura brief demonstrated convincingly that the "purpose" clause was not controlling (the terms I would use is that the need for a militia is a "sufficient" cause for the 2nd Amendment, but not a "necessary" cause). But I think the NRA brief serves its purpose, even if the purpose is mooted if the Gura brief's position on the purpose clause prevails.

Has anyone read the Claremont Institute brief? I don't know which impresses me more -- the way it thoroughly refutes the "more guns = more crime/murder" argument, or the impressive list of "distinguished scholars" that are onboard for this brief. In a day when people are impressed by credentials and academic pedigree, it is nice to see such an impressive array of scholars willing to sign on to such a thorough debunking of the "more guns = more crime/murder" argument.

 

[Sheldon J]

“Americans’ personal right to possess . . . firearms for hunting or self-defense was part of the essence of the Framers’ view of themselves as a free and democratic people. Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified.”

Have a look at The founding documents AKA the "Federalist Papers" and they fought long and hard over the wording of the second Amendment Had it not been included there would have been no ratification. Further reading of Jefferson's papers shows his line of thought and it definitely refers to the rights of the individual and not the collective.

 

[Sam Adams]

Considering how the NRA was so against this action in the first place, this really is nothing other than a political placeholder.

That is the single best cut-to-the-chase analysis I've seen. It is also part of the reason why I left the NRA this past summer, after 18 years as a member (the other reason was its cooperation with Schumer & McCarthy on the Veteran's Disarmament bill).

Sheesh, opposing the most air-tight pro-RKBA case in history (until it won in the DC Circuit, and then it piled on) and cooperating with 2 of the most anti-gun legislators in the Congress...*** are these people thinking?

NRA gets new leadership (or the present leadership takes its collective head out of its arse, I don't care which) and actually takes the OFFENSIVE in protecting our rights, and I'll gladly rejoin. Until then, I can spend the annual dues on ammo.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Given that the Supremes here took the unusual step of writing "the question" themselves, I think it's appropriate for those filing briefs to stick to that.

These wandering, talking about whatever sounds good style of briefs will, I suspect, carry less weight than those that stick to the point.

Guras brief was wonderful, about all that can be done when directing your attention to "the question" before the Supremes is to repeat it.

This is not the end all and be all case for eternity here. It's a beginning, with a VERY specific question that will be answered.

That question MUST be answered in the right way to open the door to all the other fights to come.

 

[green-grizzly]

baz, I agree that the Claremont brief is very good.

I thought the NRA brief was pretty good, especially as it had a straightforward and powerful argument for strict scrutiny. The self-promoting section was probably unecessary and reads like something out of American Rifleman, but it does put some things in context.

I wish the NRA had brought a better definition or "arms" to the table than Gura's brief, but they didn't really address that issue. That was disapointing.

As far as the NRA sobotaging this case, when it was filed O'Connor was still on the court. We would have lost. When she was repalced by "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito, they did an about face and supported the case. The NRA had Congress hold off on the DC Personal Protection Act so as not to make this case moot (if we lose this case, it will surely be passed by Congress ASAP given the number of Congressmen signing the pro-Heller brief). The NRA did not want to get into a fight it would lose; now that there is a fair chance of a win, they have been supportive.

 

[shield20]

Not bad. But I do wish someone would address the need for self-defense OUTSIDE THE HOME.

Also, they didn't shoot down DC's "keep and bear arms is military talk" - which is REAL easy to do (was this covered in someone elses brief?).

And I wish someone would point out that it is HIGHLY unlikely the framers intended that members of Congress, the VP, members of the state goverments, civl servants, etc. would not have THEIR right to arms secured just because they were exempt from Militia duty.

 

[Bentley8]

Have any of you guys had fundraising phone calls from the NRA to send them money to support "their" fight against the DC gun ban? I've gotten two in the past month. The one I got last week said they needed $1.2 million to fight this case and "lobby" the Supreme Court. $1.2 million to write a brief? I mean, come on!

 

[ArmedBear]

No, but with Democrats controlling both Houses and the Presidency next year, they'll need the money for lobbying somebody.

 

[Deavis]

NRA gets new leadership (or the present leadership takes its collective head out of its arse, I don't care which) and actually takes the OFFENSIVE in protecting our rights, and I'll gladly rejoin.Until then, I can spend the annual dues on ammo.

Another illustration of how petty gun owners can be as a group and one of our biggest weaknesses. By spending money on ammo you aren't advancing the 2A anymore than staying home on election day advances your politics. Emotional reaction with no logic behind it, sorry, you should be ashamed. Take that money and start your own organization or better yet, take your 18 year credentials and make a difference in the NRA. Have you run for an NRA office? What have you done to affect the course of the organization? Have you tried to lead a local branch? Have you donated a major block of time or a huge chunk of change for the 2A? What are you doing other than complaining on an internet forum, witholding and over-emphasizing the insignificant amount of money you used to pay in dues to the NRA?

The NRA had a plan and Parker wasn't it. The NRA was not willing to go in for all the marbles, Gura was. You can be a conspiracy nut-job or an anti-NRA lemming but the simple answer is that the this case is incredibly risky and the NRA leadership wasn't up for the risk.

If you don't recognize the risk this case presents then you are drinking too much of the Patriot Kool-Aid crap served by ignorant zealots on these types of boards. If your 2A analysis can fit on a bumper sticker, "What part of infringed don't you get", you are drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Sam Adams]

Deavis

By spending money on ammo you aren't advancing the 2A anymore than staying home on election day advances your politics. Emotional reaction with no logic behind it, sorry, you should be ashamed.

If you don't know the facts, the logical thing to do is to ask, not to assume and then spout off. FYI, I thought long and hard about resigning from the NRA - there was no emoting involved. Having been a member for 18 years, I wasn't looking for any excuse to leave - I've long had great admiration for the organization, even before having joined. I'm ashamed of nothing that I've done regarding the NRA.

Take that money and start your own organization

Yeah, right.

or better yet, take your 18 year credentials and make a difference in the NRA. Have you run for an NRA office? What have you done to affect the course of the organization? Have you tried to lead a local branch? Have you donated a major block of time or a huge chunk of change for the 2A? What are you doing other than complaining on an internet forum, witholding and over-emphasizing the insignificant amount of money you used to pay in dues to the NRA?

I have 2 little kids and a business to get off the ground and maintain - I, unlike many people, simply don't have the time to be so involved.

As for doing something "other than complaining on an internet forum," I've written to the NRA and spoken to several of its representatives on the telephone over the last year. I've never received anything better than the stock responses that I've received countless times from politicians who want constituents to shut up and go away.

As for bitching about "the insignificant amount of money you used to pay in dues to the NRA" - your illogic shows itself here - either I have an insignificant amount, or I have gobs of money to start my own organization or contribute to the NRA so that I'll be listened to - so which is it?

The NRA had a plan and Parker wasn't it. The NRA was not willing to go in for all the marbles, Gura was. You can be a conspiracy nut-job or an anti-NRA lemming but the simple answer is that the this case is incredibly risky and the NRA leadership wasn't up for the risk.

I am no conspiracy nut-job or anti-NRA lemming, and I fully understand the risks of litigation (chief among which is that no litigant is guaranteed a win). If you took just a little bit of time to review my past posts, you'd understand that - and, of course, you could have asked, either in a public post or in a PM. Thank you so much for taking The High Road and assuming that I'm either a nut or so stupid that I don't understand a simple fact like that.

If you don't recognize the risk this case presents then you are drinking too much of the Patriot Kool-Aid crap served by ignorant zealots on these types of boards. If your 2A analysis can fit on a bumper sticker, "What part of infringed don't you get", you are drinking the kool-aid.

Again, thanks for taking The High Road.

 

[munangokeewati]

The NRA financed several other briefs that showed up today (sorry, not sure which ones--read too many). Good use of some of my money.

 

[Deavis]

I'm ashamed of nothing that I've done regarding the NRA.

Good, then you shouldn't mind discussing it.

If you don't know the facts, the logical thing to do is to ask

You have ample opportunity to post facts just as I have ample opportunity to question your post. There is nothing personal about my actions, it just so happens that it touches a nerve for you. So, reply with the facts, prove my position wrong, and feel good about it. I don't mind being wrong, it is the only way to learn.

I have 2 little kids and a business to get off the ground and maintain - I, unlike many people, simply don't have the time to be so involved.

Plenty of people who are as busy or more busy than you manage to contribute beyond posting on a forum. Your personal life is nothing special, a lot of us are busy making our way through life and still people volunteer to sit at gun shows passing out fliers, work to strengthen state RKBA organizations, send in more than just dues money, write editors, blog, and show up in State legislatures to support pro-gun measures. People who want to do something will always get it done and those who don't won't. Should having a child, working a full-time job, and starting a business on the side be an excuse for me as well? I don't let it and have volunteered and contributed more this year than before in ways I think are beneficial to my beliefs. Are the things I do all that impressive, probably not, but they are my goals and at least I'm doing something about them despite my busy life.

I've written to the NRA and spoken to several of its representatives on the telephone over the last year.

People get so indignant when they are called out after they talk about their qualifications or actions. 18 years in the NRA, you made some phone calls and then gave up? Wrote a couple letters? That is it? A struggling business man with 2 kids who understands dedication and hard work gives up 18 years after a few phone calls and letters? Either the NRA treated you terribly, which you should then document and use to improve the organization or you gave up. There is no shame in the latter, it is understandable but if you are going to stand on 18 years of service I think most people would expect a bit more dedication. I know I wouldn't leave an organization after 18 years without putting up a huge stink otherwise, maybe I wasn't really all that much of a member.

Like I said, it is okay to quit that is a personal decision you have to make and defend. Maybe you don't have time but then you also don't get any credibility when it comes to complaining about the organization. Quiters that don't have an impressive amount of evidence showing thier hard work to improve the team don't get taken seriously for a good reason. If the NRA dismissed you, start a post to gather support and change the way the NRA works. You can do it, you and many others just don't seem to want to and I'm going ask why. You can get indignant but nothing you said refutes my points and actually you continually prove them.

As for bitching about "the insignificant amount of money you used to pay in dues to the NRA" - your illogic shows itself here - either I have an insignificant amount, or I have gobs of money to start my own organization or contribute to the NRA so that I'll be listened to - so which is it?

Your dues are insignificant in terms of overall monetary contributions to the 2A. That is a fact. Nobody said you have gobs of money, simply that you could form your own organization if you were dissatisfied. Your dues would fund a web site for a year and you could spread your own message across the web. You dismissed the idea of actually doing something yourself with prejudice. Why should anyone take a person who is so ready to dismiss the possibilities of supporting the 2A on their own seriously?

Nothing I said was illogical, you are getting emotional about it rather than being logical. Nothing I said was not THR and if you can point ot where insulted you personally, I'm happy to apologize. It is nothing personal, I'm simply using you as an example of what I consider armchair 2A advocates or internet patriot zealots. This forum is rife with people who talk a big game but contribute nothing to the 2A despite their protests otherwise. You are spenging money on ammo that could be going to support the 2A. If not the NRA then the JFPO, SAF, TSRA, ISRA, amicus brief filers like Academics for the 2A, Buckeye Firearms Foundation, or <cringe> The Pink Pistols. What about participating in local youth outreach programs at ranges? How about taking coworkers to the range and using that ammo to create new gun owners? What about fighting ignorance about the 2A by schooling yourself and then positing on forums or using your business to your advantage? How about a round-up program for the 2A organization of your choice?

Take your choice, there are plenty of great organizations out there to support if you don't have time other than the NRA and things you can do at the local level as well. If you really felt that your money should be supporting the 2A you'd be behind one of them that most closely rep'd you or you'd be using it on your own. If you are, good for you. Post what you are doing and work to get more people interested in your cause.

 

[cracked butt]

I'm going to have to reserve judgement on the NRA's position until the GOA puts out their talking points.

 

[ilbob]

Not bad. But I do wish someone would address the need for self-defense OUTSIDE THE HOME.

A LOT of grass roots effort has gone into just that at the state legislature level. Once there is enough of a groundswell, the NRA is quite happy to help. But, the NRA has no magic bullet (pun intended) when working with legislatures. There has to be pressure from people in that state to get anything done.

The NRA also created personal defense classes that it wants to be the template for CC training. Thats a good thing too. It means that quality training is readily available for states that require it when that becomes an issue. it helps deflect the blood in the streets argument if training is readily available.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, finally read all of the NRA brief and while there is some overlap between this brief and Gura's it looks like the NRA took time to explore more deeply the angles that Gura didn't have the room to address. They also nicely took apart D.C.'s attempt to argue that long guns were sufficient for self-defense and even preferable to handguns.

Of course, it was kind of stupid for people who don't know much about firearms to begin with to get into a technical argument about firearms with the NRA. You don't have to be a genius to see how that ends.

Overall, nice brief though it is a bit cumbersome and wordy when read after Gura.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Sam Adams:

If you don't know the facts, the logical thing to do is to ask, not to assume and then spout off. FYI, I thought long and hard about resigning from the NRA - there was no emoting involved. Having been a member for 18 years, I wasn't looking for any excuse to leave - I've long had great admiration for the organization, even before having joined. I'm ashamed of nothing that I've done regarding the NRA.

...

As for doing something "other than complaining on an internet forum," I've written to the NRA and spoken to several of its representatives on the telephone over the last year. I've never received anything better than the stock responses that I've received countless times from politicians who want constituents to shut up and go away.

...

I am no conspiracy nut-job or anti-NRA lemming, and I fully understand the risks of litigation (chief among which is that no litigant is guaranteed a win). If you took just a little bit of time to review my past posts, you'd understand that - and, of course, you could have asked, either in a public post or in a PM. Thank you so much for taking The High Road and assuming that I'm either a nut or so stupid that I don't understand a simple fact like that.

...

Again, thanks for taking The High Road.

It's possible that one reason why you've "never received anything better than the stock responses that I've received countless times from politicians who want constituents to shut up and go away" is that whoever you contacted at the NRA just didn't realize that you "have 2 little kids and a business to get off the ground and maintain" and that "unlike many people, simply don't have the time to be so involved."

Perhaps if you had made that clear, perhaps by explaining that you're a very busy man and don't have time to waste, Wayne LaPierre might have made an appointment to call on you at your office at a convenient time so you could have told him personally what you wanted the NRA to do and how you wanted it done.

Of course I hope that after LaPierre gave you the quality time you deserve he would visit all the other busy people who earn a living while raising young kids. LaPierre probably should consult with them too. He could skip the visit to me, though. I don't have any young kids to raise now and I probably am not as busy as you are, so it would have been all right with me if he checked with me by phone every once in a while. A few simple questions would do: "How's the wife? How are the kids? How's business? What would you like me or your NRA to do this week?" That would be nice. But I would understand if LaPierre skipped a few calls and visited the people raising kids and earning a living, who don't have time to be "so involved" but spend a little of their time volunteering to assist in managing the NRA. I'm probably not as important as you folks either: I raised my young kids while I was doing business and maintaining it, and I don't think I could steer the NRA effectively by remote control. More power to you for being able to do all that. You do deserve attention for it.

I confess that like Deavis I'm guilty of not taking "just a little bit of time" to review your past posts before responding to these present posts of yours. Although I'm certainly not as busy or significant as you, I had a previous engagement with my wife and some friends, the day was packed, and we just didn't get home in time to do that thorough review of your previous writings before posting this message. I know that sounds like excuses and I'm embarrassed to offer them in explanation. Deavis, the NRA, and now me -- none of us have given you the respect you deserve, but I hope you'll take The High Road and show some forgiveness.

It's not for me to say that either Deavis or the NRA consider you a "conspiracy nut-job or anti-NRA lemming." I did search long and hard for something called "the Veteran's Disarmament bill," though, and the only references to it that I could find were attacks on the NRA by people who argued rather nuttily that the NRA had conspired with "Schumer & McCarthy" on the NICS Improvement Act. That's not to say that I consider you a "conspiracy nut-job or anti-NRA lemming" even though it might look like that.

I join with you in hoping that other people here will keep to The High Road. As you said in the message to which Deavis responded, "*** are these people thinking?" Some of them even use obscenities inelegantly disguised by initials: *** is that all about, we ask? Perhaps that group of people needs to take "its collective head out of its arse" and take The High Road. Or at least put a to show that they're on The High Road when they do such things. No accounting for some people, ***, or their arse either I suppose. So crude. They don't even think to accuse people who disagree with them of not taking The High Road, which would put them on The High Road.

Sam Adams:

That is the single best cut-to-the-chase analysis I've seen. It is also part of the reason why I left the NRA this past summer, after 18 years as a member (the other reason was its cooperation with Schumer & McCarthy on the Veteran's Disarmament bill).

Sheesh, opposing the most air-tight pro-RKBA case in history (until it won in the DC Circuit, and then it piled on) and cooperating with 2 of the most anti-gun legislators in the Congress...*** are these people thinking?

NRA gets new leadership (or the present leadership takes its collective head out of its arse, I don't care which) and actually takes the OFFENSIVE in protecting our rights, and I'll gladly rejoin. Until then, I can spend the annual dues on ammo.

Enjoy shooting with that box of ammo you bought with the money you didn't spend on NRA membership this year. Ammo is expensive nowadays. $35 buys at least a few minutes of shooting, which is your way of supporting your Second Amendment rights and punishing the NRA and all its other members for The Veterans Disarmament Act, whatever that is.

In your research did you happen to discover that Stephen P. Halbrook is the Counsel of Record for the Amicus brief just submitted to the Supreme Court in the Heller case by 55 members of the House of Representatives, 250 Senators, and the Vice-President of the United States? Halbrook was called "the NRA's top hired legal gun" by Donald P. Beyer, the Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Virgnia in 1995, when he was upset that Halbrook argued against Virginia's "motor voter" law and included an argument against the Brady Law in it. That was twelve years ago, when you were still an NRA member, so you might have had the time. "'It seems perfectly natural that the NRA's top hired legal gun is also the top hired gun of the Allen-Gilmore administration,' said Lt. Gov. Donald P. Beyer Jr., a Democrat."

Maybe you know that Stephen P. Halbrook is the distinguished lawyer whose name has been associated with pro-Second Amendment suits in causes supported by the NRA for many years. I don't know if your research allowed you to discover that, or if your two kids or your business let you have the time to do that research, but of course if you didn't or couldn't that wouldn't mean you are "a conspiracy nut-job or anti-NRA lemming" just because you post messages on Internet forums attacking the NRA for not taking the offensive in Second Amendment causes. No, of course not. You would have been too busy with your personal affairs and offering the NRA advice that it didn't accept.

Oh wait. I almost forgot. Thanks for taking The High Road. Now I'm surely on The High Road too. From up here with you I can see up there. What a view.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Bart Roberts:

Isn't an amicus brief supposed to supplement the litigant's brief from a specially relevant point of view and background? If so this brief from the NRA should argue the relevance of its viewpoint to this case--what some others here have objected to as "advertisements from The American Rifleman"--shouldn't it? Or do I misunderstand?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Typically in a big case of this nature, the amici briefs would be coordinated to discuss points of the case that the respondent/petitioner's brief could not cover in their 9,000 word limit.

From my perspective, I did not see it as advertisements. It was more like the NRA realizes it is perceived as a polarizing organization and wanted to make sure that the Justices on the other side recognized the important role it has historically played in preparing military and law enforcement.

At the same time though, the NRA Civil Defense Fund has existed since 1978 and after all of that time accumulating legal expertise, I expected a better brief than the one they wrote. As legal briefs go, I thought they were overly verbose for the amount of topics they covered. It just reinforced my belief that while the NRA does many things well, litigation is not a strong point for them.

 

[ctdonath]

I do wish someone would address the need for self-defense OUTSIDE THE HOME.

We'll get there. Kinda hard to establish a right to bear if there is no right to keep.

didn't think much of the four pages of ads for the NRA

Many forget that the NRA was practically established by the government (details escape me) as a private group to promote firearms training and safety. Reminding people that it is the only firearms group recognized in federal and state law, and not just a hangout for triggerhappy yahoos, is important.

 

[ilbob]

It just reinforced my belief that while the NRA does many things well, litigation is not a strong point for them.

Things the NRA does well:
- competitions
- firearms safety training
- lobbying

Things the NRA is pretty mediocre at:
- litigation
- grass roots organizing

I think the NRA just does not trust the legal system at all. Plus it is something they have zero control over once its gets started. No one can tell where something like Parker could lead. I don't blame them a whole lot for being risk aversive. If they win, it gains them as an organization almost nothing. If they lose, they are vilified by gun owners forever.

On the grass roots side of things, it is another area that you can get really burned in. You can't control where the grass roots people end up going. Its entirely possible after taking on the worst politicians, the grass roots guys might go after the less worse politicians the NRA is supporting.