NRA DC lawsuit appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kim

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
1,488
I need some help. Keepandbeararms.com (I think their Monday news has a link to a blog talking about the appeal courts oral arguments. I don't know how to post that from there to here but I want to hear what ya'll think. I sounded like they did not buy the no standing bit (maybe) and that they did not buy (much at all) the collective idea of the 2nd amendment. :scrutiny:
 
Anyone know what is going on with this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93338,00.html

D.C. gun-rights group says NRA is sabotaging their case.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. NRA management is terrified that a case unavoidably raising the Second Amendment will get to the Supreme Court.

A clear decision is a lose-lose proposition for the NRA (although not for everyone else). That's why NRA jumped in with a less clearly framed case than Parker.

Here's why. If the court says no individual right, after an expensive but losing rear guard action NRA will eventually disappear as gun owners disappear. But, if the court says an individual right exists, NRA's flood of fundraising, "the sky is falling" letters will fall on deaf ears. NRA will diminish into a museum and the high power competitions division, the excessive salaries of its execs will shrink, and NRA will become irrelevant. It will as good as disappear.

Only by keeping the pot boiling does NRA (or HCI, for that matter) succeed.
 
Here's why. If the court says no individual right, after an expensive but losing rear guard action NRA will eventually disappear as gun owners disappear. But, if the court says an individual right exists, NRA's flood of fundraising, "the sky is falling" letters will fall on deaf ears. NRA will diminish into a museum and the high power competitions division, the excessive salaries of its execs will shrink, and NRA will become irrelevant. It will as good as disappear.
Click to expand...

Not likely. If the court rules that there is no individual right, the NRA will be busy lobbying for appointing a new justice that will support an individual right. The fight will also go on in States where the state constitution is less ambiguous about the right to keep and bear arms.

Even if the US supreme court rules that there is no individual right, which would make little sense considering the bill of rights is all about individual rights, that doesn't give the federal government the right to ban fireams ownership.

It would pave the way for States to ban ownership, and take the fight at the federal level to the comerece clause.

If the supreme court rules that it is an individual right, there will be endless court fights on what are reasonable limitations on that right. How literally should "shall not be infringed" be interpreted? Does it grant the right to bear all arms (rockets, gernades, nukes?), or just small arms? If the supreme court takes a literal interpretation including the right to bear all arms, then expect the fight to ammend the constitution, and how to ammend it to begin immediately.

You'll also have an endless number of appeals of state laws.

The fight for the right to keep and bear arms won't end in our lifetimes, or our children's.
 
But, if the court says an individual right exists, NRA's flood of fundraising, "the sky is falling" letters will fall on deaf ears. NRA will diminish into a museum and the high power competitions division, the excessive salaries of its execs will shrink, and NRA will become irrelevant. It will as good as disappear.
Click to expand...

The NRA existed from 1873 to 1979 without ever forming a political wing. What makes you think it would suddenly disappear or be any less important if the court ruled the Second was an individual right?

For that matter, even pro-individual decisions like Emerson that say the Second is an individual right, still say it is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. Who defines what reasonable is in the wake of an individual rights interpretation by SCOTUS? The NRA will continue to play an important role relating to the Second Amendment even if they succeed.

I think that the conspiracy theories to the contrary are rooted in something less than reality.
 
Kind of answering my own question but...

The only thing that I can think of is that the NRA wanted to delay this case until after the election. Why? Because if Kerry won, we wouldn't want to be in a position for the Supreme Court to decide against us. If Bush won, then we have the opportunity to pack the Supreme Court with strict-constructionalist judges, raising our chances of a win.
 
not to mention

If it is deemed individual, that would mean the NRA has more to do.
like others have said, they would have to define the limits of "shall not be infringed"
They could go after any firearm ban, in any state.
Any recent case that was lost in the country that said that the 2nd is not individual could be appealed.
That is just the lawyers.

The political side will still have to work in 2008 to make sure the Dems don't get into power and try to change things. After all, it takes years for some cases to be tried and appealed.

I believe this will go on for quite some time regardless of the outcome of SCOTUS. (I believe that SCOTUS will try to wiggle out of actually defining the 2nd as an individual right, they will look hard for a technicality so they wont have to make a decision)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top