NRA Attorney, S. P. Halbrook's answer to NRA Sellout

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sparker

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
34
Location
Nevada
NRA Attorney, S. P. Halbrook's answer to NRA Sellout

Handguns are absolutely banned in the District of Columbia. Before 1976, citizens could possess registered handguns. D.C. law required all firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting the registration of handguns, thereby completely banning them. Our lawsuit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, seeks to allow D.C. residents once again lawfully to possess handguns.

Our clients actually live in the District of Columbia and are confronted by criminals of all kinds in their neighborhoods. For them, it would be major progress to be able to keep a handgun in the home, even if it must be registered. Arm-chair critics may wish to litigate every gun control law on the books in one case, but it's not realistic litigation strategy.

Our strategy is a narrowly-focused effort to encourage the court to recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right and to declare the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional, so that residents who are daily threatened by criminal violence may keep handguns in their homes to defend themselves. To a defenseless people, the ability merely to possess a handgun would be a giant step forward. But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment.

This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments.

NRA supports this litigation as part of a broader strategy to restore Second Amendment rights to D.C. citizens. Bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House to repeal not just the handgun ban, but also the requirement that all firearms be registered. The goal is the complete restoration of Second Amendment rights, and NRA will continue vigorously to pursue this objective in the courts and in the Congress.

This morning I received a request to add to the above article from Mr. Halbrook.

Mr. XXXXX:

I would appreciate if you would also post the following:

Further response by Halbrook about DC Second Amendment Challenge

In oral argument in the D.C. challenge, we made clear that the only "reasonable" regulations were the prohibitions on violent criminals and the like, and that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of law-abiding citizens to keep handguns. We did NOT state that registration was reasonable. Since we are attacking the ban on handguns, and since the law otherwise requires all firearms to be registered, we are seeking to register handguns. For residents in immediate danger, a registered handgun is better than no handgun.

Knowing full well that our litigation strategy threatens the gun ban and may result in pro-Second Amendment precedent, the Brady Center and Violence Policy Center are vehemently opposing us in this case. Anyone misled into thinking that I support registration should read my article http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html Registration: The Nazi Paradigm

Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law
10560 Main St., Suite 404
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel. (703) 352-7276
Fax (703) 359-0938
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.stephenhalbrook.com
 
"Gentlemen, our rights were lost a slice at a time. We will recover them a slice at a time."

I'd go along with that strategy if the anti-gunners weren't still slicing us while we're busily sharpening our knives.

The NRA may have a reasonable strategy in this particular case, but their overall strategy has been a losing one. I have no confidence in the "Wayne and Kayne" show, anymore than I did when "Moses" was the Prez. When they stop supporting the re-election of gun-grabbing politicians and adopt a 'zero-tolerance' attitude toward RINOs like Bush and Ashcroft I will be more than happy to eat my words. The NRA may very well be the '800 pound gorilla' of special interest lobbies, but I have to ask whose special interest are they lobbying for.

I send them my membership fee every year-- not because I support them, because I don't think they support me-- but because my membership in the local gun club requires NRA membership.
 
Too many RKBA'ers walk to the plate wanting to hit a grand slam. Constantly swinging for the fences results in an unusually high strikeout rate.

Any team that can send a batter to the place with an 80% chance of hitting a single will beat any team out there. I for one would love to see a string of small victories rather than one great big showdown suit.
 
As would we all Waitone... Unfortunately we've seen too many trade-offs and sidesteps with zero forward momentum to call anything a net gain. Too much collaborating with the enemy at this juncture for me to have any faith in their motives or actions. They have "little slices" us to death and there is precious little left to sacrifice or trade.
 
As would we all Waitone... Unfortunately we've seen too many trade-offs and sidesteps with zero forward momentum to call anything a net gain. Too much collaborating with the enemy at this juncture for me to have any faith in their motives or actions. They have "little slices" us to death and there is precious little left to sacrifice or trade.

I have to agree. All the gains in RKBA have come at state levels and not at the national level. States are wising up to CCW laws and such. There has been no progress at the national level. They have stalled a few bills but no ground regained. If the AW ban ends that would be the first step in a long time. The supposed lifting of the DC gun ban is just to squash the CATO suit so that really isnt a gain anyway.
 
I'm going to pose a question to y'all incrementalist-types that my friend JT - a JAG attorney posed to me today after reading everything relating to this:

When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?

This is not a fight we're going to win with compromise. What may be a marginal improvement for DC residents' situation will be a major screwing for the RKBA movement.
 
Another point to make regarding Jeeper's point on CCW and other gains. In another thread, someone made reference to the bountiful CCW gains as being an example of NRA's headway. CCW gains have been by and large a result of grass roots efforts in individual states and have had little NRA involvement.

Like Nicki, I'm an NRA member and have yet to burn my card. But I can't help but feel that the NRA is swinging to a view that certain segments of the shooting sports are expendable or to put a finer point to it, negotiable chaff that they can barter as chips for more political power. Sacrifice the dedicated handgunners or the self-defense crowd to strike a political deal to protect the others. It concerns me. I can't help but feel that our voices count less and less while more weight is given to those non-member voices that would take our rights away.

Most of the NRA's moves of late seem to be designed to bolster their political capitol rather than fight the good fight. The NRA model is to give a slice to get a slice. Where do we compromise next?
 
One more point

This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments.
I want to point out that the comparison of strategies in this case is completely inappropriate.

No, the NAACP didn't go in trying to overturn all the Jim Crow laws at once. And while they took on one offensive portion at a time, in no way shape or form did they EVER concede that the other offensive portions were acceptable. They didn't say, "Your honor, we're here to argue that black people need to use white bathrooms - just the bathrooms, your honor. It's OK for us to ride in the back of the bus and not be able to eat in white-only restaurants."
 
Asking for information, please don't flame me, because I wouldn't ask if I knew.

Can anyone give me a list of cases the NRA has filed against gun control at the national level in the last 20 years? If that's too long, how many have they won?

How many have they filed at the state level? How many have they won?

Amicus briefs don't count. I'm looking for a list of "NRA vs XXXX"

I do want to be fair and informed, after all.
 
filed against gun control
???
How about helped carefully craft them (legislation) in a manner of compromise such that they are then palatable as the lesser of two evils and "this version we can sell to our members"?
I know that doesn't answer your question madmike and I'll do a little research to see where they might have actually come out aginst gun-control in reality vs rhetorically...
Shouldn't take long.
Be right back when I find them...
Don't hold your breath waiting tho...
 
Can anyone give me a list of cases the NRA has filed against gun control at the national level in the last 20 years? If that's too long, how many have they won?

madmike, FindLaw shows six pages of entries featuring the National Rifle Association, some are related to the same cases though and not all of them are directly related to the Second Amendment.

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=National+Rifle+Association&sites=findlaw.com

I do want to be fair and informed, after all.

In the interests of fairness then, it is worth pointing out that not all NRA sponsored cases refer to the NRA. For example, the very case that this thread is about mentions the NRA only once in its complaint - and that is when it mentions that one of the plaintiffs is an "NRA-Certified Firearms Instructor". That is the only mention of the NRA. There is no NRA vs. or any other clues that would suggest they sponsored the lawsuit.
 
Valid point, Mr Roberts. So let's amend it to include cases where the NRA is taking an active part in the proceedings.

They claim credit for a lot of cases where "NRA activists in (yourstatehere) accomplished..." but the sum total of their involvement is that the parties belong to the NRA. There was no actual money or support offered by NRA HQ.

I'm looking for signs of real judicial activism. I know what they do as lobbyists, that's legislative. I'm looking for what they've fought in court.
 
When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?
This is not a fight we're going to win with compromise.

Amen!
 
Since the NRA was against Silveria and the US Supreme Court denied Silveria and;

Since the NRA felt that an 'incrimental' method was far better and the DC Circuit Court ruled against the NRA;

Can anyone who knows or has some idea what the NRA is doing tell me/us what the next 'incriment' is?

I might be induced to re-join and make some special contributions if I thought there was hope that the NRA doing something to advance the cause. I would think that there must be some sort of 'incirmental' case out there, maybe?

Or has the NRA given up?
 
When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?

:scrutiny: You're kidding, right?

I hope that everyone knows that the ultimate aim of the gun grabbers is the complete banning of firearm ownership by private citizens. If not, now you do.

Okay.

They want a complete ban. They take tax on full-auto weapons. A compromise.

Then, a little later, they still want a complete ban on guns, but they take a ban on short-barrelled rifles and shotguns.

And, in a bit, they still want a complete ban on guns, but they take a ban on 11+ round magazines.

Little bit later, trust me they still want a complete ban, but they take a ban on scary guns.

See? Little steps - increments.

Am I the only one that this is glaringly obvious to? If y'all really don't see the NFA of '34; the GCA of '68, the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban as increments along the road to a total gun ban, then I'm going to have to seriously re-think my assessment of KABA.

LawDog
 
http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=National+Rifle+Association&sites=findlaw.com

the first page is almost entirely NRA vs FEC

National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Cuomo is on page 2...

page 3, same as page 1, barring some article references...

page 4 we start to fall off and get unrelated responses, plus the previous...

page 5...

page 6...

hmmm...that appears to be it.

Their response to legislation is to push for more legislation, which, ultimately, confuses the issue.

Kinda like tax accountants and tax attorneys love "revisions" to the tax code, but never seek to find a tax law unconstitutional.

So, the more laws, the more complex, the more problems, the more the NRA can beg money to pay LaPierre something like $450,000 a year, as well as BoD members, execs, advertising companies....

and if the laws go away, what then?

I think we're done here. I'm writing GOA another check, and Angel can expect one, too.
 
No, the NAACP didn't go in trying to overturn all the Jim Crow laws at once. And while they took on one offensive portion at a time, in no way shape or form did they EVER concede that the other offensive portions were acceptable. They didn't say, "Your honor, we're here to argue that black people need to use white bathrooms - just the bathrooms, your honor. It's OK for us to ride in the back of the bus and not be able to eat in white-only restaurants."

EXACTLY!

Side note:

Even my gun-grabbing congresscritter replies to my letters and emails.

I have yet to hear back from my beloved NRA!
 
I just love pitching against batters who swing for the fences with every pitch. I'll win every stinkin' time.

A few random thoughts in no particular order:
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes that a litigation strategy of advancing RKBA is fiendishly expensive.
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes the entire monstrosity called gun control law can be disassembled with a handful of strategically chosen cases.
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes it is not good mojo to be the dominant legislative influence group and the dominant litigation advocate.
--Perhaps the NRA uses litigators who know what they are doing in arguing cases before the appeals courts and supreme court as opposed to gun rights keyboard commandos.
--Perhaps the NRA is sufficiently plugged in to legislative and judicial sources to know that a showdown court case will blow up in the face of RKBA.


Some think LaPierre is over paid for what he does. I don't. I remember quite distinctly in the mid 90's he appeared on Russert's show and with one statement shut down the Clinton anti-gun movement when he said it is obvious the president is willing to accept a level of killing because he does not enforce the laws already in effect. That one comment changed the nature of the debate. Show me any other RKBA leader who has redirected the attacks of the opposition.
 
A random thought:
----Perhaps the NRA recognizes that eliminating 2nd Amendment infringements would reduce their membership dramatically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top