Skip to comments.Why did the NRA oppose "the most important Second Amendment court victory in a long, long time"?
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.
"The NRA does good things of course but the GOA is less likely to compromise."
You hit that one on the head! I've been telling people that exact statement.
Funny that this article just got posted. I was looking at the documents under "Consolidation / Recusal / Disqualification Dispute" at http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm and sent some unfriendly messages to the NRA and Stephen Halbrook for trying to subvert and undermine the case.
Except for the fact the GOA doesn't do anything. Find a single thing they have ever done on their own. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committee have better records than than the GOA.
Right, little to gain, much to loose by letting the court decide. I had to jump through some hoops, but right now I can carry concealed, own a variety of handguns, rifles and shotguns, and basically enjoy the intended rights of the 2nd amendment. If they mess with it, that could all end up on the table, or worse, use any decision to make things much worse. Even a favorable ruling probably won't give blanket access to machine guns and .50s, so going back to the SC seems like a risk.
But you cant ask them: Your papers, please. ;-)
"The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committee have better records than than the GOA."
SAF is a good organization. I don't know much about the other.
My point was that the NRA is powerful but they are supporting the incrementalism. The laws never seem to swing back the other way. Its always inching towards the socialist dream of a total gun ban.
At least the GOA sent out alerts about the Lautenberg Abomonation before it passed.
The 1st amendment is already crippled with Campaign Finance Reform and the USSC's decision that it is Constitutional. There is the Eminent Domain decision by the USSC. Then there is Roe v Wade. The 2nd is pretty much all we have left. Without 1 and 2 or any right to property or life, the rest of it is not particularly significant. NRA might just be right.
I think you're on to something here. It's interesting a website says the NRA tried to block the lawsuit but in further reading, find they lent support to the lawsuit.
It's also interesting the original poster doesn't agree with the decision.
They only worked with what they had. The NRA doesn't manufacture Congressional or Senatorial votes. We have been losing for the last forty years and it never helped to go against a bunch of brain dead, union voting, dem voting deer hunters who never believed daddy's shotgun would be threatened.
"NRA might just be right."
That's why I said it might be the end of the Constitution. There's precious little left once all of the exceptions and 'nuances' have been applied.
You do make a good point.The future ain't looking so rosie for a number of our rights when we look at the shifting demographics here in the US. Problem is there's still a LOT of lib's on the SCOTUS !!!
There may be a legal reason that the NRA is opposed to this.
Odd logic. For 70 years, the Justice Department supported the idea that the 2nd Amendment applied to organizations, not individuals. Now at first, this benefited the gun controllers in outlawing several weapons. However, over time, the pro-gun forces turned this idea on its head, in essence saying "Because the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias", the government is limited in how "well regulated" individual gun ownership could be.
But then, George W. Bush ordered the Justice Department to change their stance, and to say that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual rights.
AT THAT TIME, the NRA came out and was apprehensive, because they were afraid that if the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment was applied, it would be interpreted in the courts as "any restrictions the government wants it can have."
That is, you can have a gun, but you can't use it, keep it on your property or on your person, can be heavily licensed and registered, etc., ad nauseum. All part of "regulation".
Now this sounds weird, as if the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights would be utterly corrupted into a gun control and prohibition act, but stranger things have happened.
But push has come to shove, and now we get to find out, in a pretty irrevocable way, what the SCOTUS thinks. But that may not be the end of it.
Even if it is a "win" for gun rights, immediately the gun control organizations lawyers will try to use the "well regulated" angle to create a gun control regime. In the long run, then, winning might be losing.
"We have been losing for the last forty years and it never helped to go against a bunch of brain dead, union voting, dem voting deer hunters who never believed daddy's shotgun would be threatened."
Thats a good point. Many people don't believe the dems would ever ban their hunting rifle.
However I think now is the time to push back the laws that have been put in place over the last 20 years. All we are doing now is slowly losing our rights.
The NRA was instrumental in the FOPA of 1986 that undid the worst of the 1968 GCA. They were instrumental in passing shall-issue CCW in two dozen states. For that matter, They compromise more than I wish they did, but don't discount the real progress that has been made in some directions.
Interesting, the NRA's amicus curiae states: "The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund did not file an amicus auria brief in the district court."
I'd really like to see us have one more justice before this goes to SCOTUS. Right now we have 4 that should be on our side and maybe we can pull it off, but I really don't want to bet my gun rights on all 4 of the conservative justices voting for us and one of the liberal ones crossing over to our side. For the most part our justices are young and healthy and theirs are sick and old. We have 2 more years of Bush and we very well might win again in 2008. Time is on our side. Sooner or later this will have to go to the SCOTUS, but I'd rather it waited a couple more years.
and the stupid unconstitutional eminent domain decision.