The NRA and PARKER

[camacho]

I believe that the NRA does some good, But they are a political entity.

No, they are not. The rest of the gun organization mentioned in this forum are strictly political but not the NRA. I suggest you peruse their website and educate yourself what exactly they do. The political wing of NRA is just of the many things they do.

Would there still be PAYING Jobs in The NRA?

You bet!

Come on folks, let's stop being cynical about the NRA and the alleged conspiracy not to win the war but continue the battle. It is simply not true and very naive notion.


As to the issue of Parker and the Supreme Court, I would like to read a scholarly analysis on the situation and the pros and cons of reaching the SCOTUS. I am still not convinced (but I am listening) if it can not get any worse. I did a search on the issue but could not read anything that dealt with the constitutional implications of Parker reaching the highest court. What Levy wrote in the piece that was posted did not address the issue of what happens if the Court goes with the collective rights doctrine. Moreover the notion that "the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens." is true but has nothing to do with jurisprudence. The Court cares about only and purely about legal issues not about who the plaintiffs are. For those who want to do a legal research: go ahead, you will be surprised how many cases were ruled in favor of unsavory characters. We would not have Miranda rights if it was like that. Actually, I can believe Levy said that, he knows better.

 

[oldfart]

I try to write a bit once in awhile but I usually find that someone else has already said what I want and usually done a better job of it than I could. So I tend to quote those erudite fellows who are or were better wordsmiths than I can ever hope to be.
The following quote is one we're all familiar with. Patrick Henry was trying to drum up support for a revolution. We here are trying to drum up support for a court case. Many of his comments fit our situation nearly as well as the situation they were intended for.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British soldier shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Many here and elsewhere seem to want to wait until we have a clear majority of conservative judges on the Supreme Court. When will that be? "Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, . . ."

He then launches into a discourse about actual war, a scenario we probably will never have to face. But then he points out that the only choices they had (and we have) are freedom and slavery. Those choices are as real today as they were in 1776.

Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!
We need to fight this now with the tools we have rather than cower and wait for the Democratic Congress to "save" us.

He finally ended up with the real meat of his speech, something that is as appropriate today in this small theater as it was then on the world stage.

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

I am a member of the NRA just as I am a citizen of this once great country. I do not believe that the groups that run either of those organizations is infallible. Our governmewnt once told us we had to go to war because our navy had been attacked in the Tonkin Gulf. We now know our govenment lied, just as they have lied about other things. If the NRA wants anything more than my membership dues they need to be more forthcoming about just what they do or do not support. From what I have been able to ascertain so far, they're lying to me and I will not support that!

 

[F4GIB]

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.

It's worse, NRA knows that it's members want a court decision.

From www.instapundit.com:
MORE ON PARKER: Bob Levy sends this as a follow up to an earlier post:

Let me briefly recap the pro-cert argument for Parker, and make a couple of other points:

First, black-letter law is pretty clear. Parker will be vacated -- either by the Circuit or the Supremes -- if a mootness event (e.g., passage of the DC Personal Protection Act) occurs anytime between now and the date that the Supremes either deny cert or issue their opinion. In other words, if the bill passes, Parker is almost certainly history, with no precedential value anywhere.

Second, the time is ripe for SCOTUS review: (1) The Court's makeup is better than it has been and better than it's going to be. (2) The other side has more to lose (47 states) than we do (3). (3) Congress and state legislatures can trump the Court if necessary. (4) An adverse decision on the merits is unlikely, especially during an election year. (5) If the Court is so inclined, it has ways to reverse Parker without reaching the merits (e.g., standing, DC statehood). (6) A bad case will ultimately go up if Parker doesn't. Public Defenders continue to challenge felon-in-possession charges on 2d Amendment grounds. Sooner or later, a bad Court is going to grab one of those cases. (7) Silberman's opinion is great, and so are the underlying facts of our case. (8) Incorporation isn't an issue. (9) DOJ will likely change its view of the 2d Amendment under a liberal AG.

The NRA [LaPierre, Froman and Cox] has stated to me and others that cert is desirable. Sen. Hutchison's press release says she agrees. The other major gun groups, Gun Owners of America & Second Amendment Foundation, also agree. That's the "official" position of insiders who are supposed to have the best crystal ball regarding the Supremes.

Nobody at the NRA has provided a credible answer to this simple question: Why is the NRA pushing the DC Personal Protection Act? If the NRA were to say, "You're going to lose, so we want to kill the litigation," I would understand that argument -- although I would dispute the premise. Instead, we're hearing that the NRA wants the Supremes to review Parker. There's a disconnect somewhere.

******************************************************
Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bartholomew I don't for a minute doubt your sincerity and you have my respect

Well unfortunately, I do doubt your sincerity and I can't really return the respect seeing as you have been banned twice previously here.

In any case, you keep mentioning bad precedent without seeming to grasp that most of the country already lives under the bad precedent you have mentiond.

It is not that bad yet and a better day would be a U.S. Supreme Court with a couple more solid progunners.

And what chain of events do you see happening in the next 20 years to put a couple of more solid progunners on the Court? Time works both ways... some people seem to assume that only antis will die off and we will get to replace them; but I would point out that the last two Justices to leave the Court were both on the conservative side. The next Justice to leave could just as easily be Scalia as Stevens (though the liberal Justices are generally older as a group).

 

[qdemn7]

Very simple, I support what Levy is doing and oppose what the NRA is doing. The NRA could have done what Levy did years ago, if they had used their heads, only they didn't. Now they're jealous the NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) and are attemtping to undermine Parker, so THEY can claim victory and thus the $$$ that go with that.

Let's quite farting around and let SCOTUS decide, by God. If we win they we can shove that right down the Antis throat and make them choke on it. If we lose, then we're not much worse off than we are right now.

 

[ksnecktieman]

FIRST, to oldfart,,, please hang on, and continue your nra membership a little bit longer, if you were a politician, and some group could say we have four million members we will tell how to vote,,,, what would you do, as that politician?


To HARRYCALAHAN? I think we need a decision. I think we need our politicians to stand and declare their intentions. I think we need the supreme court to stand and declare their intentions. I think now is the time. NOW, not later.

And a bit of trivia for you, HARRY, for confirmation? What primer did he have in his pistol, when he said "Do you feel lucky, Punk?"

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA could have done what Levy did years ago, if they had used their heads, only they didn't.

To be fair to the NRA, they probably couldn't have. The Supreme Court was a lot less conservative years ago, even if they could have gotten it through the lower courts, their chances weren't great. As I mentioned earlier, the NRA did support some of the litigation attempting to overturn the 1986 machinegun ban and almost all of those attempts not only failed; but left some bad precedent as well.

You can't really blame the NRA for being skittish here. A good outcome for us is by no means a sure thing and we haven't had great luck in the past with litigation. The question though seems to be whether it is going to get better anytime soon? We have six justices born in the 1930s - Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Scalia. As you can see, the odds greatly favor one of the more liberal justices being the next one to step down; however, what type of administration will be appointing their replacements?

This case will be heard around Summer 2008 if it goes to the Supreme Court. If we take a pass on Parker hoping to win a later case, we had better put a pro-Second President and Senate in office in 2008. Right now, it looks like the chances of that are marginal at best.

Another big advantage of having Parker go forward is that we have a giant national debate on the individual/collective rights issue right before a Presidential election. 74% of Americans (including some who believe in an outright ban on guns) believe the Second Amendment supports an individual right according to polling done by gun control groups. Both parties will be courting the gun vote for that election and it will give us a great chance to leverage our power at the polls.

 

[ozwyn]

Parker needs to go to the Supreme court for gun owners nationwide.

The dc bill should also be supported.

The NRA has to figure out how to manage both, and score victories on both. Simple as that.

And yes, that's a tough job. But it is about time to start turning signs of hope into real progress.

 

[mack]

A few points I find interesting on this thread.

One those who say they support the NRA in this matter never seem to address the primary point that the NRA is saying one thing to its members and then doing another. So I ask directly - If you say you support the NRA, do you support them lying to their members about their support of Parker?

If you don't support the Parker case because it isn't time yet - one, when will be the right time, and two, when is the right time to ask the government permission to exercise ones' inalienable rights?

At least one poster clearly doesn't understand that the passage of a DC repeal will void the Parker decision as precedent, rendering it moot.

If you say the NRA has done good and we are winning - I will acknowledge that the NRA has won some victories - but it can all go away with one Democrat or one liberal Republican President and the current Senate and House. Also if you think things are so good then try living in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, or Hawaii...to name a few - about half the population live in such states and they hardly enjoy the rights that the rest of the country does. No significant political victories rolling back gun laws are going to happen in those states in the next fifty years. You may be satisfied with your ability to exercise your rights today, but what about your fellow gun owners, should we just shut up and wait for some better future that may come some day when today we face more and more restrictions and bans on our right to keep and bear arms?

The Parker case gives hope, a chance in our lifetime to see the right to keep and bear arms become a right recognized by the government and honored as is the right to free speech. Instead we see the NRA taking active steps to sabotage that possibility and then lying about their actions.

Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

 

[The Drew]

Clearly we have NO constitutional right to keep and bear in the minds of our politicians. AWB, DC ban, draconian registration schemes in NJ and Ill, all point to this being the case.

There is NOTHING stopping all these worst case scenarios from going into law RIGHT NOW. Without a negative ruling from Parker at SCOTUS. All that keeps them from going into law now are legislators and executives who are pro gun.

If Parker goes to SCOTUS and is overturned, we really lose nothing. The anti's still would have to be elected, and would still have to convince the pro gun guys that gun control is a good idea... There wouldn't be any fewer pro gun forces out there, in fact, they may be more. It may be seen as a rallying cry for gun owners to stand up and be heard finally and amend the constitution to clarify an individual right to keep and bear arms.

If parker is upheld. Then a precedent is set for a whole slew of challenges based on individual right to keep and bear arms.

I see no downside. If we lose, it is no different from today where the 2nd amendment is totally ignored or dismissed by anti's.

 

[NC-Mike]

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?

Does anyone believe the SC will get any better than it is right now for a SA case? The time is right, the time is now. With all this non-sense about fighting terrorists over there, instead of over here and the very real possibility of a Democrat elected President, I see nothing but a long hard road in front of us. In the next few years, our rights will continue to be assaulted and marginalized by the MSM and liberals like no other time in history.

 

[oldfart]

I believe I made my views on this question plain in my earlier post and I'm glad to see there are others who feel as I do.
Two days ago I renewed my NRA membership. To be brutally honest, I maintain my membership because it's required by my club, so I really consider it a part of my club dues. But while I was on line with them, I took the time to send an e-mail about this whole mess. I think it might be a good idea if everyone here were to do something similar. Until we tell them, they have no way to know what we think about the way they're doing their jobs. Don't be afraid to put a bit of pressure on them either; tell 'em you might drop your membership if they continue the way they are now. Whether or not you actually plan to drop your membership is another subject, but they don't need to know that.

 

[LAR-15]

We need to wait until Stevens dies.

Simple as that.

 

[NC-Mike]

And what if he dies or better yet steps down under a Democratic?
(not wishing death on any SC Justice)


Waiting is a risk unto itself and the main premise of the argument to get this case before the SC now. We know what's there now, we have no idea what's going to be there tomorrow.

 

[jpk1md]

Levy and CATO are our best vehicle to solving the biggest issue here and now/once and for all.

The biggest issue is the Individual/Collective Argument and is one that was clarified in the Parker Case and needs to be solidified by SCOTUS.

Second is the degree to which 2A Rights can be regulated by the States. Clearly the courts have said that the 2A can be Regulated in a fashion consistent with the 1A (ie you cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre).

I for one Support Levy and Cato and Oppose the NRA on this particular issue.

Now is the best opportunity that we are going to get in our lifetimes wrt SCOTUS and the composition of SCOTUS.

We are fighting against a MUCH more left leaning Congress and a strong possibility that an anti 2A radical left wing Democrat like Obama or Billary will get into office in 2008 and should that happen in combination with the possibility that the Dems maintain a majority in both houses of Congress then there is a good chance that we will see some pretty draconian laws along with the appointment of some VERY LIBERAL Supreme Court Appointments......those are LIFE Positions folks.....

The thought of the Dems controlling the Exec and Leg Branches is chilling wrt 2A, Illegal Immigration, Education not to mention taxes and the deficit.

Now is the best time to push the issue.....back off NRA and let Levy and Cato take this one.

 

[antsi]

-----quote-----
once and for all
---------------

I wish them every success with their legal battle, but even if they are successful it won't be total victory "once and for all."

It would be nice to get a good SCOTUS precedent, but only to the extent that such a precedent would be helpful in future legal battles.

The magic wand solution - "poof" and all the gun laws disappear overnight - is not on the table here.

 

[mack]

antsi wrote - "The magic wand solution - "poof" and all the gun laws disappear overnight - is not on the table here."

I would agree, and I don't see people here suggesting that would happen as a result of a positive outcome. A victory would only establish a basis for years of continuing work to define the right. But it would be a start.

Besides the issues at debate are the NRA's duplicitous representation that they support Parker, while actively working to derail it, (including trying to enlist their membership in the effort to derail Parker without telling them that the NRA's plea to have them call to ask their senator or representative to support legislation to repeal the DC gun laws will void the Parker case and erase the precedent that it sets). And, the issue of either supporting Parker now or waiting for some unspecified length of time for some unspecified court case, for some perfect pro-second amendment Supreme Court, at some unknown future date, as the risk of doing something now is too great.

Maybe the NRA is right to want to wait. I don't believe they are, but one can never be certain. But that is the point isn't it - one can and never will be certain that the court will ever recognize the rkba. We have a chance for the first time since Miller in 1939 to put a good case in front of the court and the NRA decides to try to torpedo it - while lying about it and trying to get their members to unknowingly aid in the deed.

The whole thing, especially being an NRA life member, makes me sick to my stomach. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Dave Workman]

Who was it said, 'If they mean to have a war, let it start here" ????

I have purposely stayed in the background of this debate, primarily because I have to write about this case.

It occurs to me that the Parker case DOES offer us the best opportunity to get this great question resolved once and for all.

We have wandered through the fog long enough. It is clearly time for SCOTUS review of a solid 2A case. I believe that case is Parker.

Of course it's not a sure thing. Life isn't a "sure thing." Life is about risk. About taking a chance. About making mistakes, and about learning from them. Didn't your grandfather ever tell you that? Your father?

You think in their day they could have built this country, brought it out of the Great Depression, won WWI and WWII if they sat back and waited for the "sure thing?" They'd still be waiting.

To those who contend "We cannot take the risk" I guess the only meaningful response is:

Tell it to Columbus. Tell it to the Pilgrims.

Tell that to the people who stood on Breed's Hill in '75, at Lexington and Concord.

Tell it to Roger's Rangers, Sam Houston, the 101st and 82nd Airborne, the guys who went to the Moon, the pioneers, the cowboys, Lewis and Clark, Woodward & Bernstein...anybody who ever risked it all, not knowing what was around the next bend in the river, or over the next horizon, or coming with the next sunrise.

I am reminded of something told me long ago by someone a great deal wiser than I will ever be. It goes something like this:

If you never lose, if you never make a mistake...then you will have lived your entire life and done NOTHING.

Doing nothing is not a fit occupation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Parker isn't the only case and maybe not even the best case; but it is one of the few good cases out there and certainly the best one to be heard anytime soon. Considering the litigation that will follow any individual rights ruling, we can't afford to be throwing away any good cases; but if Parker doesn't get cert or doesn't progress, it isn't the end of the road by a long shot.

 

[scbair]

I am truly disappointed. I just received a fundraising letter from NRA-ILA; my response:

"Dear Mr. Cox:

"As much as it pains me, I must advise you that I, a long-time NRA member and supporter, am deeply disappointed in recent actions by the NRA that I believe will negatively impact the battle for our right to keep and bear arms, as validated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The timing and nature of recent attempts to enact the D.C. Personal Protection Act are suspicious, to say the least.

"I had heard rumors to the effect that the NRA would actually circumvent, if possible, any definitive actions to safeguard the Second Amendment protections, in order to maintain its stream of contributions, but I refused to accept them. Online research and discussions with other supporters of our right to keep and bear arms have changed my mind (one example, an article in The Examiner, is attached).

"I believe our cause would be much better served by having Parker v. District of Columbia proceed through the courts. It is a solid, well-reasoned case, based on “good” circumstances (sympathetic plaintiff, etc.), and a favorable ruling would have tremendous positive impact. If the NRA, via the efforts of U.S. Representatives Moss and Souder and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, is successful in the passage of the D.C. Personal Protection Act, the Parker case would become totally irrelevant, and the Act would have far less impact.

"For more than thirty years, I have investigated fraud and abuse, as well as other criminal and civil matters. This sudden pressure brought by the NRA onto some sympathetic legislators fails the “smell test.” I recently received an annual incentive bonus, and had set a portion aside to financially support the NRA ILA. Based on these developments, I am unable to do so, in good conscience."


Dunno if I'll receive a response, but maybe if a lot of members respond along these lines . . .

BTW, I did affix a postage stamp; ain't right to chastise someone on their own nickel!

 

[antsi]

---quote----
I would agree, and I don't see people here suggesting that would happen as a result of a positive outcome. A victory would only establish a basis for years of continuing work to define the right. But it would be a start.
------------

I do seem to see a lot of rhetoric suggesting people on this board believe that Parker could provide a definitive solution to RKBA. Language like "once and for all" seems to imply people are looking for a decision which will end all debate over gun laws and protect RKBA for all eternity.

Perhaps I am reading too much into people's enthusiasm, but I do think there are some very unrealistic expectations flying around.

 

[Titan6]

I do seem to see a lot of rhetoric suggesting people on this board believe that Parker could provide a definitive solution to RKBA. Language like "once and for all" seems to imply people are looking for a decision which will end all debate over gun laws and protect RKBA for all eternity.

Perhaps I am reading too much into people's enthusiasm, but I do think there are some very unrealistic expectations flying around.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

It will never be over. Not anyone's life time. Dosen't matter what the courts say or the law says it will never end. Even if we lose it will not end.

 

[jpk1md]

Nothing short of a actual invasion of the continental US by an obviously armed foreign force that would essentially require individual citizens to bear arms to protect the US is going to take the heat off this issue in our lifetimes.