Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why did the NRA oppose "the most important Second Amendment court victory in a long, long time"?
The Agitator ^

Posted on 03/19/2007 2:25:43 PM PDT by AZRepublican

A three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals has thrown out the District of Columbia's gun ban, citing an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

Which means residents of D.C. may soon no longer need to result to wearing whistles to thwart off violent attacks.

The suit was filed by legal whiz (and Agitator reader) Alan Gura, and includes a few of my former colleagues at Cato, including the brilliant Bob Levy. Congratulations are in order all around. This is a huge ruling, one that could well facilitate a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gene Healy has more details. His comment about the NRA is worth repeating. The organization has fought this suit every step of the way. The question is, why?

The NRA has said it's because they don't think the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is right for a Second Amendment case. Maybe. But it is the most conservative court we've had in at least a generation. A less charitable explanation for the NRA's opposition may be that the organization didn't want a suit to go forward that didn't include its name.

Of course, now that the case has made history (I don't think that's an exaggeration), the organization has to explain to its members not only why the group wasn't behind the most important Second Amendment victory in a long, long time, but why they actively opposed it each step of the way.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2007 2:25:45 PM PDT by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too. If the Court does to the Second Amendment what Roe v. Wade did to the sanctity of life, the issue of confiscation will be immediately be on the table. Imagine a majority opinion written by Ginsburg-it would be the death knell of gun rights and the Constitution. The liberals would like nothing better than to test our 'from my cold dead fingers' resolve, if they could get armed BATF agents to do it for them.


2 posted on 03/19/2007 2:35:29 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

The NRA is a very powerful organization but they have a history of appeasement. IMO, they have encouraged the lefties tactic of incrementalism.

The NRA does good things of course but the GOA is less likely to compromise.


3 posted on 03/19/2007 2:36:43 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too.



Yes, but maybe it is better to just have it out now, instead of boiling the frog gradually.


4 posted on 03/19/2007 2:38:59 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
A less charitable explanation for the NRA's opposition may be that the organization didn't want a suit to go forward that didn't include its name.

I think that this is the most likely answer. And I have been a life member for over 20 yrs.

5 posted on 03/19/2007 2:44:14 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok
Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too

The time is now. If a 'Rat wins the Presidency in '08 - and after amnesty for illegals instantly creates tens of millions of new Democrat voters, it's a distinct possibility - we can expect to see 2 to 3 more Ruth B. Ginsberg clones on the Court in the not-too-distant future. We can't afford to take that risk.

6 posted on 03/19/2007 2:44:46 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

I hadn't realized this was the case, but I think you could argue it either way.

Give the NRA credit, it's doubtful that Al Gore would have been beaten in 2000 if not for the gun issue. That was certainly one of the things that tipped the balance. Democrats who ran that year as vociferous gun grabbers were creamed at the polls, and they've been a lot quieter and more careful ever since.

I'm more familiar with the ins and outs of the pro-life movement, and what that tells me is that in a major cultural war it takes all sorts of different organizations, each doing its own thing, to move the battle forward, from picketing to legislative pressure to education campaigns to billboard trucks driving around the country, to youth groups speaking on campuses.

Maybe both these organizations are right.


7 posted on 03/19/2007 2:47:12 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

ping for later


8 posted on 03/19/2007 2:47:27 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

I don't think the DC court gets overturned very often. They're not exactly the 9th circuit.


9 posted on 03/19/2007 2:50:10 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803399/posts


10 posted on 03/19/2007 2:54:04 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; All

Help correct my memory if I have this wrong. Isn't this the same supreme court that upheld gun owners rights against confiscation in LA after Katrina?


11 posted on 03/19/2007 2:56:45 PM PDT by Godzilla (If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Interesting. Saying that the current SC is the "most conservative" in a generation does not necessarily mean that the court will line up in favor of the originalist Constitutional ruling. Are there any cases heard by this current SC (with Roberts and Alito) dealing with 2A issues that can provide some hint as to how they would rule?

All I know of Alito in this regard is his dissent in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); he questioned the Constitutionality of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, but *NOT* with respect to the Second Amendment - he made the case for his dissent ONLY on Commerce Clause grounds. Anything more recent (that is easier to read Alito on)???

Roberts...his two year prior federal judge history does lend much information. Jones v. Flowers was a major letdown, but is not necessarily relevant here.

Regardless, unless the NRA knows something that is not a matter of public record, I see no reason for having not supported this case.

12 posted on 03/19/2007 3:10:51 PM PDT by M203M4 (Ignorance of basic math underlies economic ignorance and helps fuel socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

I'll die in the process, but I won't be the only one going down.


13 posted on 03/19/2007 3:11:35 PM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; Shooter 2.5; Joe Brower; All
"Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal."

That's from page two of the decision. I thought AZRepublican wrote that he read the decision when he called it terrible on one of my earlier threads. This is just more slander against the NRA.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was established by the NRA Board of Directors in 1978 to become involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.

14 posted on 03/19/2007 3:12:06 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

An even less charitable interpretation is that the NRA depends on the Brady bogeyman and the threat of future laws or confiscations to retain its membership, clout, and contributions. Many might have to find other jobs if a sweeping pro-2A SCOTUS decision were to come down.


15 posted on 03/19/2007 3:12:58 PM PDT by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Because the NRA doesn't believe we'll win a Supreme Court decision right now. They don't believe the current judges can read English anymore than some Freepers can.


16 posted on 03/19/2007 3:14:22 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Thanks for the link!


17 posted on 03/19/2007 3:14:30 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

It's been clear for quite some time that the NRA has been heavily infiltrated by Brady Bunchers.


18 posted on 03/19/2007 3:18:20 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; All

---anybody that trusts the Supreme Court should remember what it did with McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment--


19 posted on 03/19/2007 3:21:19 PM PDT by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

Exactly, and with Stevens on the way out, it would have been better to wait...unless of course we win!


20 posted on 03/19/2007 3:22:06 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson