Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The NRA and PARKER

Discussion in 'Legal' started by mack, Apr 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mack

    mack Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    512
    This was mentioned in another thread but you have to read three pages to get to it, and since this is new it seems to deserve its own thread. The link is to a letter by Robert Levy - atty in the Parker Case and it explains his concerns about the NRA's recent actions that seem designed to undermine that case.


    http://www.examiner.com/a-653443~Ro...r_the_courts_decide_D_C__gun_ban_s_fate_.html

    If this link doesn't work go to KABA and it is listed under today’s (4/4/07) news links.


    I'm sorry; I have always supported the NRA and defended them against attacks by both anti-gun activists and second amendment purists. But for me this goes beyond the pale.

    The NRA has asked its members (of which I am one) to support the legislation that would repeal the DC gun laws and thus void Parker as it would make the case moot - and yet say publicly that they support the Parker case. That is either rank ignorance or disingenuousness at best. As I don't credit the NRA leadership as being idiots, it would seem to be the later.

    I understand the reticence of some and their fear of losing the case. But there is no honor in saying you support, something as the NRA has said they do the Parker case, and then working to undermine it. If the NRA does not support the Parker case then they need to say so and state their reasons rather than to pretend that they support it in order to mollify that percentage of their members that do support it.

    While I understand the fear that some have about losing this case, it is also true that freedom was not won, nor has it ever been kept without taking a risk. Besides if one has not noticed the Supreme Court does not have the final say in this matter no matter what they rule. Government cannot alienate an inalienable right - they can merely recognize it or refuse to recognize it.
     
  2. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    I support what the NRA is doing.

    Don't forget that the lawyer for Parker is wanting MONEY, FAME and REFERRELS. This case has and will continue to bring him that. What the NRA is doing threatens HIM and not RKBA supporters.

    The NRA has gotten us this far. We have concealed carry in virtually all the states, and the gun laws are getting better in many of them. We seem to be winning the gun control debate, I see more and more people thinking gun control is a waste of time...

    Don't let what some lawyer says persuade you not to keep sticking with the broader movement.

    BTW, if you read some of the opinions on what winning the case may mean, then you would understand that what it gives with one hand (individual rights) it takes away from the other (even almost draconian gun control measures are legit as long as it isn't a TOTAL FULL BAN or something).
     
  3. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    However the DC handgun ban is repealed, I don't care.

    Just repeal it already.
     
  4. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I think that is way unfair. First, there are multiple lawyers working on the Parker case. One of them, Alan Gura, is working on several pro-Second Amendment cases for SAF and certainly doesn't need the money. In fact, Gura waived a substantial amount of the fees for Parker. The primary lawyer for Parker is Robert Levy, who funded the case out of his own pocket and went back to law school when he was 58 to specifically promote cases he felt were important to liberty.

    If you have some evidence that either of these men are in it for the money, I would appreciate you sharing it since all the evidence I have seen supports that they are doing this because the believe it is the right thing to do.

    The NRA has been wrong plenty of times and have been wrong on litigation more often than not. To use one example, the NRA reportedly supported FOPA in 1986 despite the poison pill because they felt they could get the ban overturned. Instead they supported cases that ended up establishing precedent upholding the ban in almost every circuit in the land.

    As for what winning Parker might mean, it is impossible to say since none of us are able to see in the future and read the majority decision. You also seem to miss that Parker can't "take" anything away. Right now you have NO court supported right to own a firearm unless you live in the Fifth Circuit or the D.C. Circuit. The only thing protecting your right is our political power in Congress... you need look no further than Massachusetts, California and New York for evidence of this. Any individual rights decision at the SCOTUS level, even a narrow one, means that there is a limit to what Congress can do. Right now, the only things limiting Congress are fear of the voters.

    I think we need to get behind Parker and I will not support legislation that moots it. I will definitely be vocal with my dissatisfaction with the mixed message the NRA is sending here. I don't intend to quit as a member; but you can bet I will be sending more money to groups like SAF as a result and I will definitely chew on the NRAs ear about this.
     
  5. jnojr

    jnojr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,095
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    Absolutely, totally, unequivocally not true.

    The lawyer who's pushing the Parker case is funding it out of his own pocket.

    The NRA is scared that SCOTUS might rule against the plaintiffs in Parker, which is a valid concern. They might. But if they're going to, shouldn't we find out sooner instead of later? before there are a few more "assault weapon" bans and taxes and restrictions and regulations? Shouldn't we find out while there are still patriotic, armed, angry Americans, and before we're all disarmed sheep, and the court decision is just confirming what everyone already knows?
     
  6. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    743
    Location:
    southern NH
    I understand why the NRA would try to moot it, I just don't happen to agree with them. I'm okay with that. What I don't understand (and am not okay with) is their claiming to support Parker while simultaneously attempting to moot it.
     
  7. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,752
    The NRA was not a party to Parker, only an "amicus curiae." Their view is that if the DC law can be repealed (or overruled by Congress), it will be void and the issue, so far as DC is concerned, will be moot. But if SCOTUS rules against us, it will be a great triumph for gun control and we can expect to be inundated by thousands of anti-gun bills, many of which will become law.

    The other side is that if SCOTUS upholds Parker, then only the DC law is nullified. Similar laws, like Chicago's will have to be taken to court one by one, and the whole process begun again to show that their law is also unconstitutional. And what about laws in areas like NYC, where handguns are not banned, but are made nearly impossible to obtain except by Mafia gangsters and the wealthy elite?

    Jim
     
  8. wdlsguy

    wdlsguy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    TX
    Not necessarily.

    It would be a whole lot easier to do with a U.S. Supreme Court decision on your side though.
     
  9. October

    October Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    Do you mean you are in favor of the NRA’s tactics of disingenuous support for Parker, or you are for an all-out effort to undermine Parker?
     
  10. Kindrox

    Kindrox Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    703
    On gun bans and the like, if the SCOTUS decision was correctly rendered, I have to imagine you simply sue in the proper federal court, SCOTUS ruling is binding, you win. Its on the finer points of what regulations are and are not allowed that the courts might be kept busy.

    But this would be on the finer points of removing regulations. Anti's still could not sue to impose regulations. Anti's impose regulations via passing laws, not court.

    So the outcome could onlyl be positive. Things are as bad as politically possible right now and can only get better with Parker upheld.

    If we assume Parker would not be upheld, when would be a better time to fight? As some point the democrates are going to pass some serious gun control legistlation at the federal level, which is likely to be done in stages we cannot overturn at the federal level, so the fight will come to us anyway. This is the best case I can see for getting the courts to recognize the 2nd amendment. Once recogized, its a whole different ballgame.
     
  11. HarryCalahan1

    HarryCalahan1 member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    Obviously we don't know what SCOTUS will do!

    I disagree that it's better to find out sooner than later! A bad SCOTUS decision will hurt us possibly BEYOND RECOVERY because it will aid the other side in their bans by giving them more ammunition!:uhoh:

    That notion is a pure Libertarian fantasy. I'm sorry but you guys really don't understand how Court decisions can set PRECEDENTS-MAYBE PRECEDENTS YOU DON'T WANT SET!:what:

    A BAD Precedent ruling in a SCOTUS that is stacked unfavorably to us will give us no room to maneuver. YOU PICK YOUR FIGHTS. How many "armed patriots" will actually be prepared to fight??:confused: I can tell you that if the BATFE, FBI, and ARMED FORCES get involved we would need the Army on the side of the people to win.

    Additionally, don't forget the unconstitutional "MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT".:uhoh: If you're declared a "Domestic Terrorist" you can't challenge your Incarceration, and will be tried by a Military kangaroo court with a "Military JAG" style lawyer. How well do you think your rights will be upheld in a "Military Court" of expedience? GEORGE W. BUSH is a scumbag traitor and the Military Commissions act and suspension of Habeus Corpus both must be overturned.:mad:

    An all-or-nothing fight could very very easily leave us with nothing. The NRA doesn't want to chance this and I don't blame them. They're trying to hedge OUR BETS and leave all-out fights for a better day when WE HAVE THE EDGE.

    You guys need to leave the Libertarian Melodrama, and fantasies at home. If we lose in a Major Precedent that could be used by the anti-gunners we could suffer a string of setbacks that could hit us VERY HARD and affect things for the next 20 years.

    IT TOOK 10 YEARS FOR THE CLINTON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN TO GO AWAY. A SCOTUS decision isn't about JUST FINDING OUT NOW it will have a positive or negative PRECEDENT and thereby an impact on the entire battle-and the BRADY CAMPAIGN knows this! I would bet on Sam Alito but not necessarily on John Roberts with his "Flexibility" views on the Constitution. If we could have gotten a Chief Justice Scalia or Pickering, along with Alito and at least one more Arch-Conservative before we lost the Senate to the worst Democratic congress yet then i might agree with you.

    You guys are WAY, WAY, WAY, OFF BASE. Think strategy and tactics and use your heads about this thing. This fight isn't going to be won with a few bold strokes. It will be a "Guerilla War" that if won will be hard faught for every inch of ground. It ain't gonna be done quick or easy, and decisiveness may only be achieved in small increments. Look how long it took to get the "Shall-Issue" Right-To-Carry Laws.

    I know you guys all mean well and I'M SORRY TO GO OFF LIKE THIS BUT YOU GUYS BETTER START WISING UP.;)
     
  12. ClonaKilty

    ClonaKilty Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    272
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    That's true, every district would have to be taken to court, one by one. This is exactly how Jim Crow and "separate but equal" was overturned, by suing local boards of education, culminating in Brown v. Board of Education. And then when some boards of education refused to comply, they were forced to.

    As I understand it, the Brown model is the strategy that the Cato Institute and the attorneys to Parker are following, because it has proven to have worked in the past.

    And remember: in Brown, SCOTUS was asked to overturn a previous SCOTUS decison -- arguably a taller order than asking them to uphold Parker.
     
  13. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Are they waiting for a SCOTUS decision to propose ridiculous bans? It doesn't look like it to me. It looks like even now they are trying to pass bans that are huge in their scope (see H.R. 1022)

    Tell me how a SCOTUS ruling upholding a collective rights decision is going to reduce our "room to maneuver" when only two circuits currently consider the Second Amendment an individual right? Since 1934, only one federal gun law has been overturned - the one at issue in Parker. So we should throw that one decision away because if we don't, we might not get any gun laws overturned?

    Picking your fights implies that you do intend to fight at some time. If not now, then when in the future do you suggest would be a more opportune time? What makes you think that future will be more favorable to RKBA?

    This is off-topic for this thread, so please limit the discussion to the NRA and Parker.

    1. When is that day?
    2. What do we have right now and how is that better than nothing?
    3. What advantage do we gain from having no Supreme Court decision; but also not having any federal firearms laws overturned ever?

    You guys need to leave the Libertarian Melodrama, and fantasies at home. If we lose in a Major Precedent that could be used by the anti-gunners we could suffer a string of setbacks that could hit us VERY HARD and affect things for the next 20 years.

    About 20 years. We have been waiting for a clarification of Miller since 1939.

    Well, how about this. I'll ignore my gut reaction to your comments and not respond as if I know everything in the world about this subject. In turn, you grant me the same consideration and consider that there may be well-qualified individuals here who disagree with your interpretation and analysis of this issue and that those disagreements are not based on "melodrama" or "fantasy" but a fairly reasoned assessment. Sound fair?
     
  14. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    I support trying to use congress now that we have a favorable decision from the court and use the possibility that SCOTUS will agree with the decision as leverage.

    Further to that, I am a member of SAF and others... Anyway, what is wrong with the NRA working on a back door or a plan b? Seriously, this is exactly the way that Gun owners / Gun lobby need to attack issues. We have a huge political lobby with several different groups attacking several different areas.

    Alpha Team, Bravo Team, Charlie Team...

    I guess I am tired of the NRA being everyones whipping boy. The media, the brady's, the anti's, my bloody mother in laws....

    My lawyer comments were out of line... :(
     
  15. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Good luck getting any action from the congress that is pro RKBA. We will be lucky if we don't have AWB II next year.
     
  16. ptmmatssc

    ptmmatssc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    563
    Location:
    Maine
    I'm all for pushing ahead with Parker. While we wait for a "perfect" case at a "perfect" time , bills are being introduced to take away more of our gun rights . For instance , here in maine a bill was introduced that would require a gun lock on any pistol within your home unless you are carrying it . During the hearing I attended the issue was brought up about a " nightstand" gun and it still would need a trigger lock . Is that progress? i think this is as good a case as your going to get for this . Should we wait until ALL our rights are gone or do something now? People talk of all the states that have CCW laws now , but neglect to mention all the additional laws that have been added to the books that are anti gun . Are we taking a chance with this case? Maybe , but better to do it now with a good solid case rather than wait for something that may never come.
     
  17. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    The problem in your case isn't Guns. It is legislative rape. Every year anti's try to pass the Assualt Weapons Ban or something like it. One year, almost in a fluke, it gets through....

    Here in Houston we voted down a new stadium twice and the light rail 3 times. Well, in one year, they were both on the ballet AGAIN and they passed. Game over. You can spend your lifetime supporting something only to have dumbies come in and vote and it's all over.

    We have to oppose every day. They only have to catch us off guard once.

    sux, but don't know how to change it.
     
  18. pcosmar

    pcosmar member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    UP Michigan
    I believe that the NRA does some good, But they are a political entity.
    I have a question for you to think about.
    What would happen to the NRA if,
    Gun laws are found to be unconstitutional.
    All restriction of the 2nd ends.
    We Win.
    ?????

    Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?
    Is it in their best interest to win the war? Or to keep the battle going?

    Sorry but my mind always works on the "what ifs".
     
  19. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    The NRA has been around since 1871, long before we had any substantial gun control in the US. I am sure they will find a way to continue.
     
  20. F4GIB

    F4GIB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Midwest
    What's the SAS motto?

    Who dares, wins.


    NRA cannot control every desperate public defender in America.
    There will never be a Supreme Court with 9 pro-gun votes.
    So the ultimate outcome is out of NRA's control no matter what.
     
  21. Bruce H

    Bruce H Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    North Mo.
    I want a SCOTUS ruling on the second very soon. Parker isn't a bad choice. Lets get them to commit themselves so we can either say about time or know who to kill that can't understand the constitution. We don't need to put up with the antics of Carloyn Mcarthy every term.
     
  22. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    I don't mind if the NRA tries to keep Parker from reaching the Supreme court. It's not an irrational position to take, and there's room for disagreement within the pro-gun community.

    I really, REALLY mind that they're trying to do it dishonestly. That's the issue here: You're not going to see an editorial in the Rifleman explaining why we have to keep cases like Parker from reaching the Supreme court. Because the NRA doesn't trust it's members to agree with it's strategy.

    So they issue press releases that would almost have you thinking that Parker was their idea, they don't tell the members they tried to get Gura to abandon the litigation, and then tried to sabotoge it. And they don't tell members that they're, after all these years, and in a more hostile Congress than we've had in years, suddenly obsessed with repealing D.C.'s gun control because it would moot Parker.

    I expect the other side to lie to me. It royally pisses me off when my side lies to me.
     
  23. HarryCalahan1

    HarryCalahan1 member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    BARTHOLOMEW you seem like a genuinely good guy but it could definitely be worse!

    Bartholomew I don't for a minute doubt your sincerity and you have my respect, but believe me it could be MUCH WORSE if a NATIONWIDE ENGLAND/AUSTRALIA-STYLE HANDGUN/RIFLE/SHOTGUN BAN is given an emboldened push by a bad SCOTUS PRECEDENT.

    It is not that bad yet and a better day would be a U.S. Supreme Court with a couple more solid progunners. The real question is will the U.S. Supreme Court do it's job and honor the Oath they take (A binding contract with the people!) to uphold the Constitution?:confused:

    The thing is, sooner or later if we don't start making some major gains at the National/Federal Level I think we are going to get hit hard. I just don't want to see this happen prematurely by a bad precedent.:(
     
  24. antsi

    antsi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    ------quote----------
    Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?
    Is it in their best interest to win the war? Or to keep the battle going?
    ----------------------

    People are always making this insinuation on gun boards - that the NRA is deliberately trying not to win the political battles in order to prolong its own existence.

    There is no basis for this accusation, and even a passing familiarity with the organization of the NRA makes it obvious how ludicrous this is.

    The NRA is an enormous organization and political activism is only a tiny fraction of its operations. All the other activities - publications, videos, instructional courses, hunter support, law enforcement support, range safety, all the thousands of different kinds of competitions, and all the hundreds of local and regional affiliated organizations would absolutely flourish in the absence of an anti-gun movement.

    Besides, this same argument can be applied to any occupation. By the same logic, computer programmers deliberately introduce bugs into the programs to generate future business for upgrades. Doctors and nurses deliberately spread disease. Firemen go out at night setting fires. All these people would be put out of business if they were 100% successful in their jobs, and the same is true for just about any kind of human endeavor.

    You may disagree with the NRA's strategy, but there is no ground to attribute conspiracy theory motives. Such insinuations do nothing to help the cause. Besides not making the slightest bit of sense.
     
  25. Kindrox

    Kindrox Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    703
    I don’t know what the anti-Parker people are smoking. Yeah we have fought our way through the states with CHL and the like, but all the state gains can be lost in one second with one federal law. And AWB was already passed once. It passed legal challange. The next one will too.

    The anti’s aren’t waiting around to get empowered. They know what they want and they have the people in office to carry it out. Yeah they might bid their time till after the next presidential election, or maybe not. Either way they are hell bent on boxing with laws we cannot challenge. What are you going to do in 5-15 years if the following laws are passed at the federal level:

    All of AWB I plus banning more like HR1022
    All states back to may issue CHL or CHL revoked all together
    Full gun registration
    Big transfer fees to buy “assault weapons”
    Big ammo tax
    Gun locks on guns at all times
    No importation of any guns/ammo
    No sunset of any of it

    Then will you fight? With what? The democrats are smart, they will make ways for it to be technically possible to own a gun, i.e. just a little less regulation than what D.C. has now, but more than enough to effectively kill the RKBA. And just enough to keep you from having standing to sue or being 100% denied owning any kind of gun.

    This crap is already headed our way. Is this the ‘split’ over Parker? Do some people on the board think gun rights are in vogue at the federal level? If so, please share why you think this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page