PDA

View Full Version : NRA moves to divide McDonald argument time


hoffmang
01-05-2010, 8:07 PM
From Josh Blackman's blog (http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=3511):


The NRA Respondents-Supporting-Petitioners, in McDonald v. Chicago, have filed a Motion for Divided Argument (http://joshblackman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/08-1521-Motion-for-Divided-Argument.pdf) to request time at oral arguments. Petitioner opposed this motion.

In short, the NRA, represented by Paul Clement at King & Spalding, is asking to divide Gura’s time, and to get 10 minutes to argue. The NRA argues that Gura’s brief spent primarily focused on arguing in favor of extending the right to keep and bear arms through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause. The NRA argues that the Court needs to hear an argument in favor of the Due Process Clause.

Indeed, because the Due Process Clause represents a route to reversal that does not necessitate the overruling of this Court’s precedents, it would be particularly unfortunate if that argument were not adequately presented at oral argument . . . Because participation of the Respondents-Supporting-Petitioners in the oral argument will ensure that the Due Process Clause alternative is adequately presented, the proposed division of argument will materially assist the Court in its consideration of the case.

The NRA wants to incorporate through the Due Process Clause, and leave Slaughter-House intact. Gura, wants the Court to overrule Slaughter-House, and reinvigorate the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Even though both parties want the Court to strike down Chicago’s gun ban, their preferred approaches are in tension.

While Gura’s brief mainly focuses on Privileges or Immunities Clause, he does address the Due Process argument. It is pretty much open and shut. Recognizing this likely failure, the City of Chicago spends most of its ammo on policy arguments.

To be frank, it really doesn’t take much effort to find for incorporation through the Due Process Clause. Ilya Shapiro just pinged me a note, and remarked that any first-year law student who’s taken constitutional law—let alone a Supreme Court clerk—could write an opinion incorporating the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause in her sleep.

Further, the Due Process argument was briefed extensively by over 30 Amici. And, I am certain that Gura will be able to handle any questions at oral arguments dealing with Due Process.

For those of you new to the fray, there is a lot of history here. First, if you recall, the NRA tried to spike Heller by joining plaintiffs who would be dismissed. For a full background, see Clark Neily, District of Columbia v. Heller: The Second Amendment Is Back Baby, 2007–2008 CATO SUP. CT. REV. 127, 134 (2008) and Pandora’s Box (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1503583), pp. 19-23. Second, in all likelihood, Paul Clement will argue the case. As Solicitor General, Paul Clement filed a brief on behalf of the United States in Heller urging the Court to adopt an intermediate level of scrutiny. Both positions were antagonistic to Gura’s efforts to champion the right to keep and bear arms.

This is Supreme Court politics at its greatest. Stay tuned.

-Gene

wildhawker
01-05-2010, 8:13 PM
The old guard vs the best and brightest young minds. I'm pleased to be alive and present to witness the transition.

SimpleCountryActuary
01-05-2010, 8:17 PM
It seems to me that by filing the motion, the NRA has ensured that the members of the Supreme Court (at least those who are not senile or ... not open to reason) are aware of the issue.

Unless Paul Clement wants to see if his voice resonates in the room as it does in his private office, the one with the sink and tub and toilet.

Best!

Gray Peterson
01-05-2010, 8:22 PM
Yes, let's cut off 1/3rd of the time of one of the best 2nd amendment litigators in a generation with "Machine Gun" Clement, the same guy who argued on behalf of the US government to screw us gunnies over (thanks for nothing, GW Bush) on 2A issues and send it back to the district court and kept repeating the mantra to SCOTUS about "this will lead to machine guns being re-legalized" over and over and over again.

Alan got unfairly tarred with the whole "machine-guns not being protected by 2A" thing when it was all Paul Clement's fault for continually bringing it up to scare SCOTUS into remanding the case back to District Court.

And this is the guy that the NRA hires? Anyone from the NRA have any comment? Bueller?

Meplat
01-05-2010, 8:43 PM
You have to be ****ting me!

stag1500
01-05-2010, 8:58 PM
So if the petitioner opposed the motion, then that's the end of the story, right?

Hanniballs
01-05-2010, 8:58 PM
What a joke.

sholling
01-05-2010, 9:03 PM
Unfreaking believable! I guess there is still life in the guns are for hunting and target shooting/bolt actions and revolvers only only branch of the NRA. The branch that sold us out for a generation. I was hoping that branch was long gone but I guess not after seeing this dumb move. Who do I raise hell with?

bigstick61
01-05-2010, 9:10 PM
Personally I think it makes much more sense to argue via the due process clause, because it specifically addresses rights, generalizing them as life, liberty, and property, which the RKBA easily falls under. A right is not the same thing as a privilege or immunity.

stag1500
01-05-2010, 9:12 PM
Paul Clement has upgraded from being a fly in our ointment to a thorn in our side. Let's hope he does not become a pain in our *ss.

freonr22
01-05-2010, 9:17 PM
I just cant write what I think about this. or Gene, do they know so much better what is good for us????

sholling
01-05-2010, 9:20 PM
Personally I think it makes much more sense to argue via the due process clause, because it specifically addresses rights, generalizing them as life, liberty, and property, which the RKBA easily falls under. A right is not the same thing as a privilege or immunity.
A right is a privilege and/or immunity of citizenship. Read the history of the 14th amendment.

Due process just refers to jumping through the proper hoops to limit your rights. Look at the Kelo decision. The city/county/state can take your property to give to a private developer as long as it jumps through the proper legal hoops. That's due process. The same case may well have been decided in favor of Kelo if the taking had bumped up against the P&I clause which was intended to actually enforce rights as citizens.

RP1911
01-05-2010, 9:22 PM
Are there any negative ramifications for the NRA if incorporation happens?

hoffmang
01-05-2010, 9:22 PM
or Gene, do they know so much better what is good for us????

I'm not sure why NRA dues are paying the freight for someone who tried to hurt us in Heller. "Just doing my job" was an excuse heard in 1946...

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
01-05-2010, 9:24 PM
All my NRA money is now going to Calguns, The Second Amendment foundation, Cato Institute and whomever Mr Gura is partnering with at the time on behalf of 2A.
I hope, and believe the court will deny the NRA request, for a number of reasons. One of which, is that Gura is a lot more interesting to listen to. Another is that they don't want there to be the appearance of cowing to the NRA when they incorporate, by whichever clause. Lastly, If they thought the NRA had the more compelling argument, they wouldn't have granted cert to Mr. Gura and not the NRA.

professorhard
01-05-2010, 9:25 PM
What does this mean?

Maestro Pistolero
01-05-2010, 9:36 PM
First, if you recall, the NRA tried to spike Heller by joining plaintiffs who would be dismissed.Not sure how to access that info. Any chance someone could post a few nuggets?

Kestryll
01-05-2010, 9:36 PM
What does this mean?

If I'm reading this right, and I KNOW someone will corect me if I'm not ;), the NRA is concerned that Gura is focusing too much on the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a means to win Incorporation and wants time to also put forward an argument based on the Due Process Clause which they seem to feel has a better chance of winning Incorporation.

The NRA has filed a motion with the Court to take 10 minutes of oral argument time away from Gura so their guy can present their case based on the Due Process Clause.

At least that is how I'm reading it.

five.five-six
01-05-2010, 9:39 PM
I'm not sure why NRA dues are paying the freight for someone who tried to hurt us in Heller. "Just doing my job" was an excuse heard in 1946...

-Gene

obeying orders FWIW, and you make a good point

CABilly
01-05-2010, 9:39 PM
rame

Lone_Gunman
01-05-2010, 9:45 PM
Is this something that should worry us? The NRA seems to be doing it's level best to screw gunnies at every turn. I would like the guy (can't remember his name here) from the CalNRA to to chime in on this.

freonr22
01-05-2010, 9:46 PM
If I'm reading this right, and I KNOW someone will corect me if I'm not ;), the NRA is concerned that Gura is focusing too much on the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a means to win Incorporation and wants time to also put forward an argument based on the Due Process Clause which they seem to feel has a better chance of winning Incorporation.

The NRA has filed a motion with the Court to take 10 minutes of oral argument time away from Gura so their guy can present their case based on the Due Process Clause.

At least that is how I'm reading it.

Couldn't they just ask for an extra 10 minutes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3596802#post3596802)
Is this something that should worry us? The NRA seems to be doing it's level best to screw gunnies at every turn. I would like the guy (can't remember his name here) from the CalNRA to to chime in on this.


Good point about CalNra's views. I believe his name is Paul,

383green
01-05-2010, 9:50 PM
Does Gura get to approve or deny any requests to take some of his time, or can anybody and everybody whittle away at his time if they manage to talk the justices into it?

I have an NRA renewal sitting on my desk, and this move is making me reconsider whether it goes in the mailbox or the shredder.

hoffmang
01-05-2010, 9:54 PM
Couldn't they just ask for an extra 10 minutes?
No. There is an argument scheduled in the hour after McDonald already.
Does Gura get to approve or deny any requests to take some of his time, or can anybody and everybody whittle away at his time if they manage to talk the justices into it?

Gura opposed the motion by NRA. Usually the Supreme Court does not allow time to be divided but we shall see.

-Gene

Hanniballs
01-05-2010, 10:01 PM
The NRA seems to be doing it's level best to screw gunnies at every turn.

:yes:

bwiese
01-05-2010, 10:07 PM
We'll, in the end, end up OK.

I don't think Clement will screw the pooch for us, but it probably shouldn't have happened.

I wonder if this has to do with Chris Conte being out of service for a bit for a kidney transplant.

This may also just be lawyerish issue of wanting to be on the billing for something historic.

ke6guj
01-05-2010, 10:11 PM
Isn't Texas already taking some of Gura's time to argue that, or did they just just petition for time?

Alaric
01-05-2010, 10:13 PM
I think Bill got it right. The NRA just can't sit on the sidelines on something like this without trying to take center stage.

That, and the fact that they might just be right. SCOTUS might be more willing to consider the due process argument in a more favorable light as P&I requires overruling it's own precedent. Granted it's been 100+ years, but the court still rarely overrules it's own precedent. One might say it's just as rare as the NRA choosing to sit on the sidelines.

anthonyca
01-05-2010, 10:15 PM
No. There is an argument scheduled in the hour after McDonald already.


Gura opposed the motion by NRA. Usually the Supreme Court does not allow time to be divided but we shall see.

-Gene

Can anyone who files an amicus brief ask for time against the wishes of the
petitioner?

M. D. Van Norman
01-05-2010, 10:16 PM
What does this mean?

The damned NRA can lose, while civil rights win a resounding victory.

Isnʼt that right, Gene?

Gray Peterson
01-05-2010, 10:20 PM
I think Bill got it right. The NRA just can't sit on the sidelines on something like this without trying to take center stage.

That, and the fact that they might just be right. SCOTUS might be more willing to consider the due process argument in a more favorable light as P&I requires overruling it's own precedent. Granted it's been 100+ years, but the court still rarely overrules it's own precedent. One might say it's just as rare as the NRA choosing to sit on the sidelines.

SCOTUS has done it repeatedly. Arizona v. Gant overruled a 1981 case over automobile searches last session. Lawrence v. Texas overrode Bowers v. Hardwick.

I believe that P&I will be resurrected. It might take the form of "concur in part, dissent in part" opinions (Agree that Slaughterhouse was wrong, agree that 2A applies to the states under both provisions, but disagree that Chicago's ordinances are unconstitutional under 2A), but as long as they have just 5 judges who will overturn Slaughterhouse, it doesn't matter because by my count we have 5 judges who will overturn the Chicago ordinances.

Sgt Raven
01-05-2010, 10:26 PM
The damned NRA can lose, while civil rights win a resounding victory.

Isnʼt that right, Gene?

Maybe some of the other 4 can vote against racism and against the NRA. :p

hoffmang
01-05-2010, 10:27 PM
That, and the fact that they might just be right.

Gura argues "due process" incorporation as well. The NRA petitioned for Cert focusing on "due process" incorporation and that petition was not granted.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
01-05-2010, 10:32 PM
Maybe some of the other 4 can vote against racism and against the NRA. :p

Precisely.

Alaric
01-05-2010, 10:39 PM
Gura argues "due process" incorporation as well. The NRA petitioned for Cert focusing on "due process" incorporation and that petition was not granted.

-Gene

Almost seems like the court wants to use this case to revisit P&I specifically.

I'm thinking that NRA made a deal of some kind to try again with DP. Like some legislator said to them, "you push the court for DP and I'll make sure a fed AW ban stays off the table until 2012"...since there are those who feel a bit threatened by what an unraveling of P&I could mean for other rights besides guns.

trashman
01-05-2010, 10:50 PM
I agree with Bill and Alaric - this smells a bit to me like leftover resentment from the big guns in Fairfax at how Levy financed Parker/Heller and gave stewardship of it to Gura.

It doesn't appear to address anything not already in Gura's brief - but it will certainly give our opponents across the field something to cheer about....

It disappoints me that this motion was filed by the NRA. Sometimes leadership means knowing when to get the frack out of the way.

--Neill

G17GUY
01-05-2010, 11:34 PM
When will the court give an opinion to this motion?

ke6guj
01-05-2010, 11:43 PM
Not sure how to access that info. Any chance someone could post a few nuggets?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Non-party_involvement

jdberger
01-06-2010, 12:07 AM
This may also just be lawyerish issue of wanting to be on the billing for something historic.

Or concerns about continued relevancy. :rolleyes:

I'm a big fan of the NRA. Unfortunately, this appears to be a purely selfish move on their part. It makes me think of lawyers when they smell the blood of a juicy class action....

wash
01-06-2010, 11:40 AM
I don't get it, the biggest weapon we have in this fight is Slaughterhouse. We'll get more than the Heller five on board for P&I incorporation because none of the judges in their right mind want to be known for supporting the Slaughterhouse decision when they have an opertunity to throw it out.

There might be a couple crazy enough to do that but a win is a win.

If you argue for Due Process incorporation, you're relying on the Heller five to rule the same way but there is no margin of error, if we loose one vote, we're screwed.

That's NRA strategy...

bwiese
01-06-2010, 11:48 AM
What's puzzling is that NRA indeed does get to file a reply brief.

Well, that's not that puzziling intrinsically - but if they get that ability (as their position of essentially a "super-duper extra special amici") they can cover Due Process matters exhaustively, so getting those 10 mins of argument time is almost superfluous.

Hell, everybody and his dog is arguing DP incorporation anway - even though the Supremes hooked McDonald (Gura's case) and not NRA's Chicago case. I think the Supremes recognize Slaughter-House is way bad law (major wounding to the intent and even presence of the 14th) - and that's why they went in that direction.

Due Process incorporation has been well-covered across the spectrum in tons of briefs - including those by organizations having other goals besides guns (GOA and other "right-wing-bound" groups worry about P-or-I resurrection and gay marriage/abortion/'omigod the brown people have new rights' - and who seem to have RKBA concerns far secondary). These are the problems you have when you stray from "gun rights only" stances - you lose cleanliness and clarity.

I'm just hoping against hope that's not the reason this crept into some internal NRA politics - hoping some Board members aren't trying to 'steer' this for wholly non-gun/non-RKBA reasons. The NRA - both nationally and in CA - has generally been pretty good at staying out of non-gun politics and not trying to 'link' things, supporting candidates that are pro-gun regardless of R or D after their name.

kf6tac
01-06-2010, 11:53 AM
(GOA and other "right-wing-bound" groups worry about P&I resurrection and gay marriage/abortion/etc and seem to have RKBA far secordary).

The (another?) stupid aspect of this worry is that these things are just as likely to get done under substantive due process anyway.

GrizzlyGuy
01-06-2010, 12:10 PM
In his post, Blackman references the 'Pandora's Box' article that he and Ilya Shapiro (from Cato institute (http://www.cato.org/)) authored. It is an enthralling and enlightening read, and provides much of the background info and strategy related to Gura's approach. If you don't want to read the whole thing, I summarized the conclusion here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3489445&postcount=10).

Short answer:

Gura and the libertarians are on the RIGHT TRACK
NRA and the neocons are on the WRONG TRACK

Kinda reminds me of the world in general...

Californio
01-06-2010, 3:17 PM
Short answer:

Gura and the libertarians are on the RIGHT TRACK
NRA and the neocons are on the WRONG TRACK



YES

wildhawker
01-06-2010, 3:19 PM
I am taking the liberty to repost since I believe it goes to the core of the issue before us:

Asking “what difference does it make” on the proposition: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Against the States: “Due Process Clause” or “Privileges and/or Immunities Clause?” misses an important point made by the Heller decision itself.

The Heller Court’s mode of analysis for Constitutional principles purports to be a combination of textual analysis and “contemporary public understanding.” {Bias disclosure: This is a theory I happen to agree with.}

If the Court extends that analysis via the incorporation issue, and does so by implicitly (or explicitly) holding that textual analysis and “contemporary public understanding” trumps stare decisis, then it will have bolstered the Heller decision by the outcome in McDonald.

Its called a twofer.

Remember also that the Second Amendment, even more than the other Amendments, protects an article of personal property owned and possessed by a majority of people in this country. In this respect, the Second Amendment has more practical significance as a constitutional right to more people.

Heller/McDonald, by affirming the “right to keep and bear arms” and applying it to the states via the same “mode of analysis” cements this right, not only in the dry pages of our law books, but also in hearts of “the people.” The genius of taking this path is that Mr. Gura, and the Court if they follow his reasoning, are re-gifting the Constitution to the rightful heirs.

I concede that the more abstract rights of speech, press, religion, protections against unreasonable search/seizure and self-incrimination, the right to counsel, etc..., are just as important.

I merely wish to point out two aspects of the right to keep and bear arms that makes this right more relevant to a greater majority of people: (1) State and local governments have been (and are) criminalizing gun ownership to an astonishing degree and at an equally astonishing pace. And (2) A majority of Americans, while they enjoy the buffer zone of liberty created by the criminal procedure Amendments and the First Amendment, will not concretely exercise those rights in their lifetimes. A majority (maybe only a slight majority, but a majority nonetheless) of Americans will shoot, own or possess a gun during their lifetime.

tombinghamthegreat
01-06-2010, 4:18 PM
Short answer:

Gura and the libertarians are on the RIGHT TRACK
NRA and the neocons are on the WRONG TRACK

Kinda reminds me of the world in general...

Best response in this thread

GuyW
01-06-2010, 4:22 PM
A right is a privilege and/or immunity of citizenship. Read the history of the 14th amendment.



...which is contrary to A. the Founder's position that the RKBA pre-dated the US and US citizenship, based upon their historic rights as Englishmen and (B. not to mention their position that rights came from Providence...)

And Heller approvingly cites a state Supreme Court decision that says (paraphrase from memory) "the RKBA is in no way based upon the Constitution, but pre-dates it...".
.

bwiese
01-06-2010, 5:04 PM
...which is contrary to A. the Founder's position that the RKBA pre-dated the US and US citizenship, based upon their historic rights as Englishmen and (B. not to mention their position that rights came from Providence...)

And Heller approvingly cites a state Supreme Court decision that says (paraphrase from memory) "the RKBA is in no way based upon the Constitution, but pre-dates it...".


Yes, but that was DC only.

We may well be talking about a post-14th 2nd Amendment view. here so its BoR/pre-BoR origination matters less than what it would mean if properly retriggered by the 14th.

SteveH
01-06-2010, 7:39 PM
In times that it appears new antigun legislation will be passed, or new antigun politicians have been elected, NRA membership and fundraising increases. In other words gun bans are good for the NRA's bank account.

Nodda Duma
01-06-2010, 7:56 PM
You NRA members: Do what I did: Call the NRA and tell them to (essentially) get their heads out of their asses. If you do not think this is a smart move, then let them know. This is part of being an NRA member.

-Jason

nat
01-06-2010, 9:09 PM
The NRA is clearly playing backroom politics here.

Sadly, I have to agree.

One of the things I hope for from P&I, besides 2nd ammendment incorporation, is reaffirming that all US citizens have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.

Sinixstar
01-07-2010, 1:27 AM
I don't get it, the biggest weapon we have in this fight is Slaughterhouse. We'll get more than the Heller five on board for P&I incorporation because none of the judges in their right mind want to be known for supporting the Slaughterhouse decision when they have an opertunity to throw it out.

There might be a couple crazy enough to do that but a win is a win.

If you argue for Due Process incorporation, you're relying on the Heller five to rule the same way but there is no margin of error, if we loose one vote, we're screwed.

That's NRA strategy...

I've never been a big fan of the NRA for that very reason. They're what we have, and that's great - i'm glad they're there, but their strategy sucks sometimes.

The bottom line is - it's not enough to have a win. It has to be a nailbiter for the NRA. Reason being - if it's a slam dunk cakewalk, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief - nobody's fired up, nobody's sending money, nobody's writing letters and jumping at the NRA's call for political action (they are a lobbying group afterall, and do have a LOT of sway over elections in some areas).
If their actions build suspense and tension, then that suspense and tension can be leveraged into political action by it's members.

A simple "win" isn't enough...

nicki
01-07-2010, 3:13 AM
Alan Gura did it right the first time, and he is going to do it right again. Texas is already eating up 10 minutes of time.

Alan earned the case, the NRA didn't.

Let's just get incorporation and not grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is a second amendment case, but if it happens to get the rest of the bill of rights incorporated, I have no issue with that at all.

Gura's strategy can open the doors to the political center and to many people on the left.

The ruling will come down after the NRA 2010 convention, but will come before the SAF GPRC that will be here in San Fran Sept 2010.

Now of course the bad thing is if this ruling expands Gay rights, it will mean that Alan Gura will be a hero to the Gays in this state.

Gee, and of course when one of his follow up cases will be the "Sykes case", a GSA (Gay,Straight Alliance) between the Pink Pistols, Calguns and SAF, the press won't dare smear Alan Gura.

The only thing is if Alan Gura keeps up his outstanding work, he just may make the NRA ILA obsolete.

Nicki

Kharn
01-07-2010, 3:44 AM
Texas's motion to split argument time has not been approved.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-07-2010, 10:07 AM
I have an NRA renewal sitting on my desk, and this move is making me reconsider whether it goes in the mailbox or the shredder.


FWIW, I decided a long time ago to let my membership in the NRA lapse. Even when membership was free, I still didn't re-up. This latest act surely hasn't made me change my mind.


The Raisuli

yellowfin
01-07-2010, 10:18 AM
I really hate seeing this because Paul is a very good friend of ours and very good to us. :(

bruss01
01-07-2010, 10:45 AM
Alan Gura did it right the first time, and he is going to do it right again.

<snip>

Gura's strategy can open the doors to the political center and to many people on the left.

<snip>

Now of course the bad thing is if this ruling expands Gay rights, it will mean that Alan Gura will be a hero to the Gays in this state.

Gee, and of course when one of his follow up cases will be the "Sykes case", a GSA (Gay,Straight Alliance) between the Pink Pistols, Calguns and SAF, the press won't dare smear Alan Gura.



Not getting how that's a "bad thing". As you said, this is one of the areas where gun rights overlaps with other rights, and so that overlap should be exploited for the sake of the gun issues as well as on general constitutional grounds. Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals, and a person ought to have a right to contract how and when he pleases, and with whom. Big mistake was getting the state involved in marriage to begin with, it is not within the state's pervue to grant or deny "permission" to marry, licensing of any kind is a bogus concept when it comes to marriage, it was originally to prevent inter-racial marriage (another flawed concept).

The only thing is if Alan Gura keeps up his outstanding work, he just may make the NRA ILA obsolete.



I rejoined the NRA after two years of protest withholding, on the assumption that now that Alan Gura had shown them how it is done, they would get the message. Yet, here they are again, trying to screw up a good thing for who knows what line of rational reasoning. I'm ticked off they do not seem to be learning from past mistakes at all. This really burns me up. I may have to do another protest absence if they do not straighten up and fly right.

No, Alan Gura will not make them obsolete... they're doing a dandy job of that all by themselves.

OleCuss
01-07-2010, 11:11 AM
Not getting how that's a "bad thing". Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals, and a person ought to have a right to contract how and when he pleases, and with whom. Big mistake was getting the state involved in marriage to begin with, it is not within the state's pervue to grant or deny "permission" to marry, licensing of any kind is a bogus concept when it comes to marriage, it was originally to prevent inter-racial marriage (another flawed concept).
.
.
.

Hot dang! Someone else who wants government to get out of the marriage business. Let there be personal contracts and let the churches handle marriage.

hill billy
01-07-2010, 11:33 AM
Apropos of nothing whatsoever, both Don Kilmer and Alan Gura have a fantastic way of articulating the law both in ways that the average non lawyer can understand and also putting it in terms which relate to an individuals life and infringement of rights. I applaud both of them heartily.

bwiese
01-07-2010, 11:45 AM
Before this turns into a huge brouhaha...

1.) it may well not happen, the 10min may not be granted;

2.) we've made, thru a very high-grade channel, the issue known: our "channel" & like-minded friends indeed are also furious.
Comprarisons were made by this person with Dan Lungren's behavior in late 1990s.

M. D. Van Norman
01-07-2010, 11:59 AM
The NRA chooses to play a role. I may not agree with it, but I understand it.

Alaric
01-07-2010, 1:39 PM
Before this turns into a huge brouhaha...

1.) it may well not happen, the 10min may not be granted;

2.) we've made, thru a very high-grade channel, the issue known: our "channel" & like-minded friends indeed are also furious.
Comprarisons were made by this person with Dan Lungren's behavior in late 1990s.

Bill, would it help to have NRA members contact the .org to voice our displeasure or is this more a case of "don't waste your breath"?

bruss01
01-07-2010, 1:44 PM
Bill, would it help to have NRA members contact the .org to voice our displeasure or is this more a case of "don't waste your breath"?

Give me a phone number where I can talk to more than an answering machine or a hired flunkie who couldn't give a rat's *****... oh, I guarantee they'll hear from me on the subject.

bulgron
01-07-2010, 1:49 PM
Before this turns into a huge brouhaha...

1.) it may well not happen, the 10min may not be granted;

2.) we've made, thru a very high-grade channel, the issue known: our "channel" & like-minded friends indeed are also furious.
Comprarisons were made by this person with Dan Lungren's behavior in late 1990s.

I hope so, because this stunt has made me reconsider my involvement with the NRA.

bwiese
01-07-2010, 2:10 PM
I hope so, because this stunt has made me reconsider my involvement with the NRA.

Guys, it's not that bad.

As I've said, strong communications are moving up an appropriate channel - and there's, anyway, a very good chance this request is not granted anyway.

And please remember the great California NRA team here and the other battls that require fighting.

bulgron
01-07-2010, 2:42 PM
Guys, it's not that bad.

As I've said, strong communications are moving up an appropriate channel - and there's, anyway, a very good chance this request is not granted anyway.

And please remember the great California NRA team here and the other battls that require fighting.

I said 'reconsider it.' That doesn't mean I'm going to quit, or even come close to it.

But whoever decided to make that motion has seriously pissed me off.

Mitch
01-07-2010, 4:37 PM
Are there any negative ramifications for the NRA if incorporation happens?

Might interfere with hysteria-tinged fundraising efforts.

unusedusername
01-07-2010, 4:55 PM
If the people at the top of the NRA get the message is the petition allowed to be withdrawn?

Paging H Paul Payne....

Kharn
01-07-2010, 5:03 PM
I said 'reconsider it.' That doesn't mean I'm going to quit, or even come close to it.

But whoever decided to make that motion has seriously pissed me off.Gura wants to revolutionize the field of Constitutional law and expand liberty to unprecedented heights. The NRA wants to protect gun ownership. Those goals do not necessarily require the same game plan.

bulgron
01-07-2010, 5:17 PM
Gura wants to revolutionize the field of Constitutional law and expand liberty to unprecedented heights. The NRA wants to protect gun ownership. Those goals do not necessarily require the same game plan.

Foolish me for thinking that they did.

I mean, why have gun rights in the first place if you aren't interested in maximizing personal liberty?

Kid Stanislaus
01-07-2010, 5:35 PM
Hot dang! Someone else who wants government to get out of the marriage business. Let there be personal contracts and let the churches handle marriage.

Better yet, keep the churches out of that also. I don't want churches dictating to me about gun ownership and I don't want them meddling in my personal relationships with other people.

Sgt Raven
01-07-2010, 10:42 PM
Better yet, keep the churches out of that also. I don't want churches dictating to me about gun ownership and I don't want them meddling in my personal relationships with other people.

Get the state out of marriages. Change the state sanction event to a civil union.

Gray Peterson
01-07-2010, 11:49 PM
Get the state out of marriages. Change the state sanction event to a civil union.

Robert A. Levy, the funder and co-counsel for Parker v. District of Columbia (which became Heller), on the issue of marriage equality and privatizing marriage (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112)

cbn620
01-07-2010, 11:55 PM
Due Process incorporation has been well-covered across the spectrum in tons of briefs - including those by organizations having other goals besides guns (GOA and other "right-wing-bound" groups worry about P-or-I resurrection and gay marriage/abortion/'omigod the brown people have new rights' - and who seem to have RKBA concerns far secondary). These are the problems you have when you stray from "gun rights only" stances - you lose cleanliness and clarity.

I'm just hoping against hope that's not the reason this crept into some internal NRA politics - hoping some Board members aren't trying to 'steer' this for wholly non-gun/non-RKBA reasons. The NRA - both nationally and in CA - has generally been pretty good at staying out of non-gun politics and not trying to 'link' things, supporting candidates that are pro-gun regardless of R or D after their name.

What's puzzling to me, man, is...didn't the NAACP argue for due process in their brief? What in the h e double hockey sticks. These are crazy times man, but maybe I'm preaching to the choir on that one.

As far as the NRA and non-gun politics...honestly I'm not so sure I agree with you that they in general have been very good at keeping out of the fray. That's what turned me away from them as an organization for so many years, even if I am a member (finally). I just hate getting crap in my email inbox about "Obamacare" or whatever other non-gun issue of the day, whether it's right or wrong. Just wish they'd stick to guns, or at the very least civil rights in general as they may pertain even remotely to firearms. And it seems a lot of gun organizations are slanted this way, who shall remain nameless. It is rather troubling to me.

Kharn
01-08-2010, 4:44 AM
...which is contrary to A. the Founder's position that the RKBA pre-dated the US and US citizenship, based upon their historic rights as Englishmen and (B. not to mention their position that rights came from Providence...)

And Heller approvingly cites a state Supreme Court decision that says (paraphrase from memory) "the RKBA is in no way based upon the Constitution, but pre-dates it...".
.How about this passage from Dredd Scott v Sanford, which the 14th Amendment was written in response to:
For if they (blacks) were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.Seems like the Supreme Court at the time thought carrying arms was a P&I of white citizens. Just because a right predates the Constitution does not require it is specifically enumerated (see Amendment 9) for it to be protected. Technically, all of our rights predate the Constitution (even the recently discovered ones), they just have not been enforced.

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 6:00 AM
Robert A. Levy, the funder and co-counsel for Parker v. District of Columbia (which became Heller), on the issue of marriage equality and privatizing marriage (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112)

Great article, thanks for the link. Levy and libertarians in general never seem to fail to provide straightforward solutions to "complex" problems. If the government would simply privatize marriage and repeal all laws that license it, regulate it, or treat individuals differently based on who they may be married to or cohabiting with (if any), our society would again operate consistent with historical precedence and the intent of our founders and framers.

How about this passage from Dredd Scott v Sanford, which the 14th Amendment was written in response to:
Seems like the Supreme Court at the time thought carrying arms was a P&I of white citizens. Just because a right predates the Constitution does not require it is specifically enumerated (see Amendment 9) for it to be protected. Technically, all of our rights predate the Constitution (even the recently discovered ones), they just have not been enforced.

One of the few (the only?) good things to come out of Dred Scott was its acknowledgment that RKBA existed and was commonly exercised in 1857 when the case was decided. That is one more item in a pile of evidence showing the same. This is important because an important question for SCOTUS in McDonald will be 'what was the RKBA status in 1868?' (14A was adopted in 1868). From Blackman & Shapiro's Pandora's Box article (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1503583):

Analyzing the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms in 1791 was proper in Heller, because the Second Amendment in that case only applied to the federal government. In McDonald, however, the key year is 1868, and the Court should look at evidence from the time of Reconstruction, not the time of the Revolution. To the extent that the common-law right of self defense existed from time immemorial, through the Revolutionary era, earlier evidence is relevant only to the extent it affected mid-19th-century understandings. To put it another way, McDonald asks not so much whether the Second Amendment applies to the states, but whether the right to keep and bear arms—independent of its codification in the Bill of Rights—is protected against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-08-2010, 6:41 AM
Foolish me for thinking that they did.

I mean, why have gun rights in the first place if you aren't interested in maximizing personal liberty?


Plus 1,000! And isn't the 2A America's "First Freedom" because it helps to protect all of our other freedoms? Wouldn't that logically compel them then to support the maximization of personal liberty whenever the opportunity (like McDonald) comes along?


The Raisuli

socal2310
01-08-2010, 8:34 AM
Better yet, keep the churches out of that also. I don't want churches dictating to me about gun ownership and I don't want them meddling in my personal relationships with other people.

Then don't get married in a church, find some other institution that would bless your union. I think the original poster was simply referring to the fact that prior to the state nosing into the marriages of common folk (previously they only concerned themselves with their heads of State), marriage ceremonies were traditionally carried out by churches and most marriage ceremonies after the repeal of state sanctioned licensing are likely to still be carried out in churches.

There were marriages not blessed by any institution of course and those are what we refer to as "common law" marriages. Since homosexuals kept their personal relationships in the closet, they of course made other arrangements (civil contracts between two people of like sex were common in the middle ages and there was an unspoken don't ask, don't tell policy regarding what went on in the privacy of their home).

Marriages were never intended to provide legal benefits to the the couple entering into the contract anyway, they were designed to provide legal sanctions against violations of the marriage covenant for the protection of the children.

As a libertarian, I love pointing out to my "traditional marriage" friends that traditional marriage has been a dead letter since the advent of "no fault" divorce.

Ryan

H Paul Payne
01-08-2010, 2:37 PM
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, but I've been very sick for the last couple of weeks and my work schedule hasn't allowed me the time to get much rest.

I have read most of the comments on this thread and have spoken with some California-based activists that I consider to be quite informed on the topic at hand.

One thing I have noticed is that some people are quick to make assumptions regarding why someone (such as the NRA, for example) might do something or not do something. After these assumptions are made, others jump in and make other assumptions, and then others draw conclusions based upon those prior assumptions, etc. etc. This is not unusual, especially when some of those making the assumptions or drawing the conclusions are habitually critical of the party (in this case the NRA) of the discussion.

I would suggest that the main problem is that the truth is rarely found in those assumptions or conclusions. This, I fear, is the case with this current discussion.

I don't know all of the details of the "hows" and "whys" of the decision-making process regarding legal activities, lawsuits, and certainly not anything related to the U. S. Supreme Court. And I will not even attempt to go into personalities and egos involved with litigation on this level.

Legal strategy is not my job and I have nothing to do with it! PERIOD!!!

But, by reading some of these postings, it seems that there are quite a few legal experts within our midst. For that, I am certainly comforted. And to know (or at least I can assume) that many/most of these legal experts are also experts on constitutional law is also refreshing.

With that being said, I wish to make it clear that I have taken what has been said to me, in those conversations with the California-based activists I referred to above, seriously. They had questions that I did not have answers to, so I attempted to get a few answers. Below, you will find a statement from the NRA-ILA related to the court case which is the topic of discussion. I do not know if it has been publicly released yet, so this might be the first time you have seen it.

================

There are two provisions in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution through which the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states. One is the Due Process Clause, which the Court has historically used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights, and the other is the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has asked the parties in McDonald v. Chicago to address both of those issues.

Counsel for the petitioner, Otis McDonald, focused overwhelmingly in their brief on incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. NRA, as Respondent in Support of Petitioner and a party to the McDonald case under Supreme Court rules, focused its brief largely on incorporation through the Due Process Clause, although the NRA brief also discusses incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause). NRA believes that the Court should reach the same conclusion – that is, that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states -- under either provision of the 14th Amendment.

As a party to the McDonald case, NRA can ask, and has asked, for the opportunity to participate in the oral argument to ensure that all arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states are fully considered. Firearms owners will have the best chance of ultimate victory on this critical issue if all options are fully explained to the Court.

As always, NRA's goal through the McDonald case is to see that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state or city in which they live.

================

As far as I can tell, the statement speaks for itself. Since we all know that I am not a legal expert, especially an expert on constitutional law, and this is not my area of expertise, I will refrain from becoming overly involved with this subject or this thread/discussion.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. The legislature is back in session and this is an election year, so I am pretty busy with things that I can have a direct influence on.

Paul

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 2:49 PM
With all due respect, Paul, that statement doesn't pass the smell test for anyone remotely familiar with Gura's SCOTUS filings.

Below, you will find a statement from the NRA-ILA related to the court case which is the topic of discussion. I do not know if it has been publicly released yet, so this might be the first time you have seen it.

================

There are two provisions in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution through which the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states. One is the Due Process Clause, which the Court has historically used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights, and the other is the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has asked the parties in McDonald v. Chicago to address both of those issues.

Counsel for the petitioner, Otis McDonald, focused overwhelmingly in their brief on incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. NRA, as Respondent in Support of Petitioner and a party to the McDonald case under Supreme Court rules, focused its brief largely on incorporation through the Due Process Clause, although the NRA brief also discusses incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause). NRA believes that the Court should reach the same conclusion – that is, that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states -- under either provision of the 14th Amendment.

As a party to the McDonald case, NRA can ask, and has asked, for the opportunity to participate in the oral argument to ensure that all arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states are fully considered. Firearms owners will have the best chance of ultimate victory on this critical issue if all options are fully explained to the Court.

As always, NRA's goal through the McDonald case is to see that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state or city in which they live.

================

jdberger
01-08-2010, 3:31 PM
With all due respect, Paul, that statement doesn't pass the smell test for anyone remotely familiar with Gura's SCOTUS filings.

Yes.

But thanks for kicking it up, Paul. We really do appreciate what you do for us here in California. You're an invaluable asset.

nat
01-08-2010, 3:35 PM
With all due respect, Paul, that statement doesn't pass the smell test for anyone remotely familiar with Gura's SCOTUS filings.


Exactly, Gura seems more than capable of making Due Process arguments.

I too regret having renewed my NRA membership. Like others have said, I wish they would stick to gun issues and not any other political issue and I wish they would let Gura have the time he earned in fron of SCOTUS.

Quser.619
01-08-2010, 3:50 PM
It makes me nervous that we as gun owners & 2A supporters do not appear to be united in our arguments & personally I could care less who gets the credit as long as CA recognizes something that seems to me be to be pretty apparent. That said, maybe this is just a bit of insurance to push those who may find fault w/ one side of the arguments presented over to accepting incorporation as a whole... ultimately our combined goal.

As a gun owner & supporter of the 2A, I welcome any who would join, support or further a cause I see as a most fundamental step into keeping what freedoms we have left & regaining those we have lost via legislature or bad case law. I want my government & those that govern to recognize what is truly mine & every member's right who belong to this Republic, the right to the means to defend themselves.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 3:53 PM
Gura's motion to oppose is linked to in this SCOTUSblog entry: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/nra-argument-plea-challenged/

My concern with ILA's statement comes in this statement which I know to be correct (since I attended the call in question) from Gura's motion that:


[Listing the reasons Gura only spent 7 pages on Due process]
* advance knowledge of the NRA and amicus briefs, and the
desire to avoid extensive duplication of arguments already
familiar to the Court.

This last point warrants some discussion. Petitioners worked
closely with the amici in seeking to avoid duplication of effort, hosting a
coordination conference attended by several NRA attorneys and
attorneys for NRA-funded amici. NRA counsel expressed their intent to
reduce duplication in the briefing, and discussed the briefing efforts with
Petitioners, with whom they eventually exchanged drafts. Petitioners
also received advance copies of many amicus briefs.

Petitioners correctly anticipated that the familiar due process
issues would be overwhelmingly covered in other briefs, and therefore
perceived no value in belaboring the same points in briefing beyond their
own merely comprehensive treatment of the issue. Were the NRA
motion granted, parties in future cases would be well-advised not to
coordinate briefing with amici, as efforts to reduce duplication could
produce motions to divide argument time based on claims that the
parties did not devote "enough" pages to an issue.

ILA's statement also doesn't address the problem of choosing the former SG who argued against strict scrutiny for firearms and intentionally brought up machine guns to undermine Heller.

-Gene

adamsreeftank
01-08-2010, 3:57 PM
ILA's statement also doesn't address the problem of choosing the former SG who argued against strict scrutiny for firearms and intentionally brought up machine guns to undermine Heller.

-Gene

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Hopi
01-08-2010, 4:16 PM
Disappointing certainly, shocking...not so much.

Judging from discussions on this very board over the last 18 months or so, one thing is clear; just because you claim to support the Constitution, it doesn't mean that you agree that it should apply to everyone....

CDMichel
01-08-2010, 5:18 PM
A couple somewhat random discreet points for what they are worth, in no particular order:

I did not work on strategy on the McDonald case for NRA. I did the DAs amicus brief.

Does everyone understand that the NRA is a "party" to the McDonald case, not just an amicus? It has a right to ask for argument time under SCOTUS rules. Amici do not.

Lawyers are like forks and hookers. It doesn't matter who used it (or him) last, as long as cleaned throughly in between.

I am a libertarian. That said, the whole PorI / overrule Slaughterhouse strategy has risk, though not really to the Second Amendment. It might allow federal judges to implement their own notions of what PorI's are, and what people are entitled to. Consider a UN style declaration of "rights." That would be bad. There are lots of different perspectives on this debate, from all manner of legal scholars, including libertarians. Reason magazine did an interesting piece. There are lots of others.

Some folks speculate that the McDonald v. Chicago case was accepted for review over the NRA v. Chicago case (which was not denied cert, but is on hold) because SCOTUS wanted to emphasize PorI. Isn't it equally plausible they took McDonald simply because Stephen Halbrook is known as NRA's 2A lawyer, and he testified against Sotomayer at her confirmation hearing? That is a rumor inside the beltway. Think about it. Might also explain why Halbrook is not designated as NRA's official SCOTUS "counsel of record," nor to make the oral argument.

At the Heller SCOTUS oral argument, they went 90 minutes instead of 60. If the Justices want to hear what a lawyer is saying, they extend time. No one will be cut short by the clock unless the Justices don't care to hear what they are saying.

Does anyone really think that any of the Justices haven't already thought through and decided the P&I and DP arguments in their own minds? It is big stuff to them. I doubt anything any lawyer says at oral argument will have any effect on what any Justice has already decided. I predict the Justices will do as they often do - use oral argument to argue amongst themselves. Maybe Justice Thomas will actually participate for once, since he seems to be the biggest PorI / reconsider Slaughterhouse advocate.

Some posters seem to have insurmountable preconceived notions about NRA's motivations. Are people suggesting that NRA cares enough about which approach prevails to want to try to defeat the PorI approach? And that if it did its lawyer could do it in 10 minutes of oral argument?

What would happen if we got a "plurality opinion?"

PatriotnMore
01-08-2010, 5:27 PM
A couple somewhat random discreet points for what they are worth. I am a libertarian.

You had me at Libertarian.:p

All kidding side, thank you for your input.

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 5:33 PM
A couple somewhat random discreet points for what they are worth, in no particular order:

I did not work on strategy on the McDonald case for NRA. I did the DAs amicus brief.

Does everyone understand that the NRA is a "party" to the McDonald case, not just an amicus? It has a right to ask for argument time under SCOTUS rules. Amici do not.

Since when has right = prudent?

Lawyers are like forks and hookers. It doesn't matter who used it (or him) last, as long as cleaned throughly in between.

A truism to be sure, but I'm going to dance (and sleep and eat) with the one that brought me.

I am a libertarian. That said, the whole PorI / overrule Slaughterhouse strategy has risk, though not really to the Second Amendment. It might allow federal judges to implement their own notions of what PorI's are, and what people are entitled to. Consider a UN style declaration of "rights." That would be bad. There are lots of different perspectives on this debate, from all manner of legal scholars, including libertarians. Reason magazine did an interesting piece. There are lots of others.

Some folks speculate that the McDonald v. Chicago case was accepted for review over the NRA v. Chicago case (which was not denied cert, but is on hold) because SCOTUS wanted to emphasize PorI. Isn't it equally plausible they took McDonald simply because Stephen Halbrook is known as NRA's 2A lawyer, and he testified against Sotomayer at her confirmation hearing? That is a rumor inside the beltway. Think about it. Might also explain why Halbrook is not designated as NRA's official SCOTUS "counsel of record," nor to make the oral argument.

Are we saying that Halbrook is not the right lawyer for the job?

At the Heller SCOTUS oral argument, they went 90 minutes instead of 60. If the Justices want to hear what a lawyer is saying, they extend time. No one will be cut short by the clock unless the Justices don't care to hear what they are saying.

Seems to me that the "clock" was given to Gura when NRA wasn't granted cert.

Does anyone really think that any of the Justices haven't already thought through and decided the P&I and DP arguments in their own minds? It is big stuff to them. I doubt anything any lawyer says at oral argument will have any effect on what any Justice has already decided. I predict the Justices will do as they often do - use oral argument to argue amongst themselves. Maybe Justice Thomas will actually participate for once, since he seems to be the biggest PorI / reconsider Slaughterhouse advocate.

This is fascinating: if, as you proposed, the Justices have already decided the method of incorporation and orals don't swing the outcome then what, exactly, is the motivation for NRA to motion to split time?

Some posters seem to have insurmountable preconceived notions about NRA's motivations. Are people suggesting that NRA cares enough about which approach prevails to want to try to efeat the PorI approach? And that if it did its lawyer could do it in 10 minutes of oral argument?

What would happen if we got a "plurality opinion?"

Seems that you're trying to make both cases here, Chuck. As far as NRA's intentions, I'll not speculate. However, I don't need to know what the bovine consumed to be certain that it's bull****.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 5:38 PM
Does everyone understand that the NRA is a "party" to the McDonald case, not just an amicus? It has a right to ask for argument time under SCOTUS rules. Amici do not.
That's not correct. NRA is a respondent in support of Petitioners which was caused by Oak Park's relatively odd position in the case.

Some folks speculate that the McDonald v. Chicago case was accepted for review over the NRA v. Chicago case (which was not denied cert, but is on hold) because SCOTUS wanted to emphasize PorI. Isn't it equally plausible they took McDonald simply because Stephen Halbrook is known as NRA's 2A lawyer, and he testified against Sotomayer at her confirmation hearing? That is a rumor inside the beltway. Think about it. Might also explain why Halbrook is not designated as NRA's official SCOTUS "counsel of record," nor to make the oral argument.

If Halbrook's previous comentary on Sotomayor's fitness impacted the NRA, then why doesn't Clement's intentionally attempting to torpedo Heller impact NRA? Solicitor General is a position of policy far beyond simply being a court appointed defense counsel. If Clement was "just doing his job" then are we NRA members to blame former President Bush for attempting to weaken the right to arms?

Maybe Justice Thomas will actually participate for once, since he seems to be the biggest PorI / reconsider Slaughterhouse advocate. I, for one, look forward to this opinion likely being written by Thomas.

Some posters seem to have insurmountable preconceived notions about NRA's motivations. Are people suggesting that NRA cares enough about which approach prevails to want to try to efeat the PorI approach? And that if it did its lawyer could do it in 10 minutes of oral argument? Then why did the NRA say that Due Process was getting a short shift in Gura's case in it's filing to SCOTUS? That looks like NRA advocating due process incorporation over P or I to me.

What would happen if we got a "plurality opinion?"
The 2A would be applicable against States, would probably be more respected over the historical long haul, and just might pick off one of the anti-gun 4.

-Gene

CDMichel
01-08-2010, 5:49 PM
Due to the fact that all of the NRA parties in the NRA v. Chicago case and the NRA v. Oak Park case were all considered parties in the consolidated appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court, Supreme Court Rule 12.6 kicked in.

Supreme Court Rule 12.6 provides:

All parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in this Court, unless the petitioner notifies the Clerk of this Court in writing of the petitioner’s belief that one or more of the parties below have no interest in the outcome of the petition. A copy of such notice shall be served as required by Rule 29 on all parties to the proceeding below. A party noted as no longer interested may remain a party by notifying the Clerk promptly, with service on the other parties, of an intention to remain a party. All parties other than the petitioner are considered respondents, but any respondent who supports the position of a petitioner shall meet the petitioner’s time schedule for filing documents, except that a response supporting the petition shall be filed within 20 days after the case is placed on the docket, and that time will not be extended. Parties who file no document will not qualify for any relief from this Court.

McDonald did not notify the Clerk of Court that the other parties did not have an interest in the outcome of the petition. So even though the NRA’s cert petition was not granted, in light of Supreme Court Rule 12.6, NRA, and all the other parties to the NRA case in the Court of Appeals, were automatically made parties to the McDonald case in the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Case No. 08-1521) by virtue of their being parties to the consolidated case in the Seventh Circuit (Case Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244).

In other words, although the Supreme Court case is captioned McDonald, Supreme Court Rule 12.6 makes all of the parties in the NRA case included under that McDonald case caption umbrella, and the NRA is an actual party to the McDonald case in the Supreme Court, just as all the parties to the McDonald case were parties under the NRA v. Chicago case caption in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

OleCuss
01-08-2010, 5:52 PM
I thoroughly appreciate the CDMichel post.

If one remembers, the vote counting on most cases begins long before the case is heard and frequently the broad outline of the opinion is assumed as a given long before it is issued.

I've gained the impression that the SCOTUS opinions are more the result of an internal political struggle than of any reasoned legal opinion. So one is chosen to write the opinion and the others lobby for strengthening in one area, weakening in another, or for limiting or expanding the application.

This is where I think those who brought the current case were brilliant. They seem to pretty much know how the members of SCOTUS will vote when presented with a carefully prepped case chosen for a particular impact within the court itself.

So taking my own non-lawyerly view, the case hangs not so much on the arguments which are presented but on the political framing of the arguments. Given how carefully the litigants were chosen I suspect that the NRA's being given time in the oral arguments would be a mistake.

FWIW - and I expect the legal eagles to correct me. I will take my punishment politely (I hope).

CDMichel
01-08-2010, 5:57 PM
I know this is important to everyone, and I would like to stay engaged, but I am going to have to drop off for awhile and give everyone a chance to envisorate me unopposed!

Please use sterile scapels while dissecting my comments, which I should add are made in my personal capacity, not on behalf of any client.

Oh, and have your sent your email in to the Board of Education on the Tudesko case?? Check out his story on my calguns thread and on www.calgunlaws.com. Help him out please!

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 6:34 PM
I know this is important to everyone, and I would like to stay engaged, but I am going to have to drop off for awhile and give everyone a chance to envisorate me unopposed!

Please use sterile scapels while dissecting my comments, which I should add are made in my personal capacity, not on behalf of any client.

Oh, and have your sent your email in to the Board of Education on the Tudesko case?? Check out his story on my calguns thread and on www.calgunlaws.com. Help him out please!

No need to worry, everything is run through the Calguns autoclave after every use. ;)

I know of a few Calgunners who plan to attend re Tudesko; hope to see you there.

bwiese
01-08-2010, 6:46 PM
Hey Chuck,

Thanks for stopping by again. We're not here to eviscerate you, you're part of the team and always welcome here. We want you here more, but realize you're getting folks out of the cooler, have a biz to run, kicking LCAV in the teeth, etc.

Some of us are just worried that some political cross-contamination may (or may not) have occurred.

The SG's sometimes called the "10th justice" due to stature/deference, and I can only hope "former" is taken as "former". But a separate issue exists, aside from questions rewarding the "horse" being ridden given his prior arguments in Heller against strict scrutiny (so much so that VP Cheney weighed in to counter with a strong individual rights argument!)....

We've been aware for some time now that elements that could be considered as being encompassed by the label 'far right' are uncomfortable with a rekindling of the 14thA PorI -- because that might give rights to what are viewed by them as "undesirables" (biggest looming issue would be same-sex marriage/invalidating Prop 8, etc.).

I'm just hoping that there are more valid reasons for this - given 14A DP variant has been very, very well-treated - and that non-gun bias hasn't crept into a segment in the ILA.

That "R" in NRA stands for "Rifle", and not "buncha other concerns and oh we ususally do guns too". We've seen here in CA what happens when non-NRA gun orgs conflate other agendas with the gun issue, and the detrimental results thereto - and why our NRA team in CA and tons of us Calgunners don't worry about "R" or "D" after a legislator's name or their other positions, just how they vote or support (or don't!) gun rights.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 7:36 PM
NRA is a respondent in support of petitioner. That's why it says "BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS" on the cover of the NRA brief (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-ts-national-rifle-association-of-america-inc.pdf).

However, that's not the issue. The issue is that apparently opposing gun rights (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf) can get you hired as Supreme Court counsel to the NRA. That's not a message this very serious NRA supporter and member wants broadcast far and wide for the health of gun rights.

-Gene

bwiese
01-08-2010, 7:53 PM
However, that's not the issue. The issue is that apparently opposing gun rights (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf) can get you
hired as Supreme Court counsel to the NRA. That's not a message this very serious NRA
supporter and member wants broadcast far and wide for the health of gun rights.

With my luck they'd change it to Jay LaSeur or Dan Lungren ;)

nat
01-08-2010, 8:23 PM
Some posters seem to have insurmountable preconceived notions about NRA's motivations. Are people suggesting that NRA cares enough about which approach prevails to want to try to defeat the PorI approach?

I believe that is what some folks are saying.

SimpleCountryActuary
01-08-2010, 9:41 PM
Does everyone understand that the NRA is a "party" to the McDonald case, not just an amicus?


Ah, but it is as if they brought the chips to the party and not the MGD, yet they want first attention from the ... ummm ... "folk dancer". ;)

Gray Peterson
01-08-2010, 9:42 PM
Some posters seem to have insurmountable preconceived notions about NRA's motivations. Are people suggesting that NRA cares enough about which approach prevails to want to try to defeat the PorI approach?!

Not the NRA as an organization per se, but there is one person or a group of persons who made the call. There is only two reasons why NRA would do something like that:

A) A lack of confidence in the Alan Gura's oral argument ability, which Paul Clement, the lead counsel on the motion, is *partly* responsible for in the Heller case screaming "strict scrutiny equals machine-guns" continuously to the point where we may have lost the ability to fix 922(o) for a long time) or the ability to get "strict scrutiny for self defense" right off the bat. "Machine Gun" Clement has no business being on the NRA's payroll and there's plenty of NRA membership in California and now starting to elsewhere getting aware of what's going on.

B) That some operators within the NRA are willing to throw the superior arguer of 2A issues under the bus because of their own personal political beliefs over probably THE largest cultural issue of our time, and that's marriage equality for same gendered couples. Paul Clement will be called "Homosexual Marriage" Clement, just like he was known as "Machine Gun" Clement.

Rather than doing the honorable thing and resigning from the NRA and joining an org more in tone with their apparently more important (in their own mind) beliefs, they try to do everything possible to ruin Gura's P&I argument because it might lead to marriage equality, using their position in the NRA's payroll to be water carriers for the "Family Policy" groups. These people would sell out the NRA from the inside out if Focus on the Family and other "Family Policy" groups were to turn anti-gun. These people have no business taking a paycheck from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox and the NRA membership if they're going to take marching orders from Maggie Gallagher, James Dobson, or Tony Perkins.

They need be forced to have their desk cleaned out and be escorted out of Fairfax HQ for this disgrace. They can get employment with Paul Clement or his crew, or Focus on the Family/Family Resource Counsel/"National Organization for Marriage".

bulgron
01-08-2010, 10:46 PM
B) That some operators within the NRA are willing to throw the superior arguer of 2A issues under the bus because of their own personal political beliefs over probably THE largest cultural issue of our time, and that's marriage equality for same gendered couples. Paul Clement will be called "Homosexual Marriage" Clement, just like he was known as "Machine Gun" Clement.

I have heard it murmured here and there that some people at NRA HQ think it's the National REPUBLICAN Association.

Californio
01-09-2010, 11:30 AM
I resigned from the Republican Party over the SG Brief in Heller. After 37 years of supporting the party it was painfully clear that factions in the Republican Party were against Heller and the Rights that predated Government.

The NRA is way off base and I hope the message drums on the Internet beat loudly - this is just Wrong.

sholling
01-09-2010, 11:45 AM
I resigned from the Republican Party over the SG Brief in Heller. After 37 years of supporting the party it was painfully clear that factions in the Republican Party were against Heller and the Rights that predated Government.

The NRA is way off base and I hope the message drums on the Internet beat loudly - this is just Wrong.I left the NRA when they sold us out on "assault weapons" and only rejoined when they woke up and again welcomed those outside the bolt actions and revolvers clique. And like a lot of gun owners, RINO hating Republicans, and TEA Party attendees I left the RINO Party years ago - or they left me. If the NRA screws this up by trying to sabotage P&I I'll burn my NRA card and never-ever go back to them. They'll never see another dime from me!

Hunt
01-09-2010, 11:50 AM
I left the NRA when they sold us out on "assault weapons" and only rejoined when they woke up and again welcomed those outside the bolt actions and revolvers clique. And like a lot of gun owners, RINO hating Republicans, and TEA Party attendees I left the RINO Party years ago - or they left me. If the NRA screws this up by trying to sabotage P&I I'll burn my NRA card and never-ever go back to them. They'll never see another dime from me!

same reasons I went over to the Libetarian side

bwiese
01-09-2010, 12:30 PM
I left the NRA when they sold us out on "assault weapons" and only rejoined when they woke up and again welcomed those outside the bolt actions and revolvers clique.

This is moving OT, but please show me where NRA ever stopped fighting against split categorization of firearms. Yeah, we take hits because of political environment but your statement is completely off. This includes both fight against the 1994 ban and the CA ban.

Hell, most of the issue was from our so-called Fudd friends getting their 20 sec of fame on TV: "I don't need a black rifle to hunt ducks", or "this Garand is fine for my target shooting, why would I want one of those ugly rifles?" The situation to what you refer was in fair part brought to us by unthinking "duck hunters" and what I refer to as old-guard "thirty caliber idiots".

adamsreeftank
01-09-2010, 12:49 PM
...
Lawyers are like forks and hookers. It doesn't matter who used it (or him) last, as long as cleaned throughly in between.
...

Some things don't wash off.

waltrich
01-09-2010, 1:04 PM
I have an NRA renewal sitting on my desk, and this move is making me reconsider whether it goes in the mailbox or the shredder.

I think a lot of NRA members (...and former NRA members) are feeling the same way.

Paratus et Vigilans
01-09-2010, 1:14 PM
Don't get too overheated about the NRA getting or not getting 10 minutes of oral argument time to devote to its Due Process issue. This case will NOT be decided by the oral arguments. Appeals are decided on the briefs. Oral arguments are little more than theater. It has often been (truly) said that cases are not won at oral argument, but they can be lost there. This case will be won before the justices take the bench to hear oral argument, so long as Alan does not have a meltdown on oral argument, which is hardly likely.

However, the NRA retaining the services of someone to argue for it in this case who possesses such a track record IS disturbing, but it's disturbing for reasons other than its impact on the case in question. Having a "big name" arguing for you in the USSCt is nice, though not essential, but the value of that name certainly is not outweighed by the baggage that name carries. The NRA needs to know (as it clearly does, now) that it is being watched by the rank and file and that there are some unhappy campers there because of this decision.

Sgt Raven
01-09-2010, 1:29 PM
...snip.....

However, the NRA retaining the services of someone to argue for it in this case who possesses such a track record IS disturbing, but it's disturbing for reasons other than its impact on the case in question. Having a "big name" arguing for you in the USSCt is nice, though not essential, but the value of that name certainly is not outweighed by the baggage that name carries. The NRA needs to know (as it clearly does, now) that it is being watched by the rank and file and that there are some unhappy campers there because of this decision.

:iagree:

Kharn
01-09-2010, 1:57 PM
Clement has argued over 49 cases at the Supreme Court, how many other active litigators have that on their resume? Yes, Gura knocked his first SCOTUS case out of the ballpark, but the NRA has repeatedly shown themselves to always prefer the restrained/conservative angle when it comes to advancing our rights.

hoffmang
01-09-2010, 2:00 PM
Clement has argued over 49 cases at the Supreme Court, how many other active litigators have that on their resume? Yes, Gura knocked his first SCOTUS case out of the ballpark, but the NRA has repeatedly shown themselves to always prefer the restrained/conservative angle when it comes to advancing our rights.

So hire Ted Olson who hasn't specifically attempted to undermine gun rights.

-Gene

wildhawker
01-09-2010, 2:18 PM
Gene- *exactly*.

sholling
01-09-2010, 2:32 PM
So hire Ted Olson who hasn't specifically attempted to undermine gun rights.

-GeneI agree completely.

Sgt Raven
01-09-2010, 2:36 PM
So hire Ted Olson who hasn't specifically attempted to undermine gun rights.

-Gene

We need to give the NRA a "Gibbs' slap" for this. :p

Gray Peterson
01-09-2010, 3:04 PM
So hire Ted Olson who hasn't specifically attempted to undermine gun rights.

-Gene

But he's a supporter of the gays! We can't have that!

artherd
01-09-2010, 7:19 PM
Almost seems like the court wants to use this case to revisit P&I specifically.

Ya Think? :)



The NRA and Gura both want 2A rights. They just disagree on how to get there.

I'm picking Gura for my kickball team.

tombinghamthegreat
01-09-2010, 7:56 PM
So it appears Gura wants to not only take out the gun laws but use this to remove other unjust laws too?

wash
01-09-2010, 8:49 PM
The Supreme Court has asked the parties in McDonald v. Chicago to address both of those issues.

I must have missed that part or maybe that's what it sounded like to the NRA legal team when their case wasn't granted cert.

Like everyone here agrees, the decision is not going to be made at the oral arguments unless someone really screws up, so why is the NRA trying to fool around with it?

I hope it's lawyers with huge egos because if it's people who are trying to stop other people from gaining rights they don't agree with, they are just as bad as any anti-gunner.

Marriage has big problems and they might get bigger but manipulating this case is not the way to solve them.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 9:24 PM
That is an advantage of being an annual member.:(

Does Gura get to approve or deny any requests to take some of his time, or can anybody and everybody whittle away at his time if they manage to talk the justices into it?

I have an NRA renewal sitting on my desk, and this move is making me reconsider whether it goes in the mailbox or the shredder.

OleCuss
01-09-2010, 9:34 PM
I suspect the NRA just wants to look relevant. If they argue before the SCOTUS then they can more easily make the case to its membership that they won the case. If they don't participate in the oral arguments but officially tried - then they can argue that any lack of respect of our rights is because they were not allowed to argue.

If they don't even attempt to argue before the court (and the case is won leading to recognition of our rights) then the NRA will appear to some to be irrelevant/unnecessary.

The oral arguments are for appearances' sake for both the court and for the interested parties. (And yes, I'm oversimplifying.)

I'll also give the NRA the benefit of the doubt which would argue that they may truly believe that their lawyer will make an essential argument. Using a lawyer who has argued against gun rights in the past could also be construed as emphasizing that this is a matter which applies to much more than gun rights and that Due Process and P or I are of import above and beyond 2nd amendment issues - and could enhance the probability of success. And no, I don't believe that this is the real reasoning but since I'm not 100% certain of my mind-reading abilities I'll leave open the possibility that their motives are pure and their approach is wise.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 10:03 PM
You NRA members: Do what I did: Call the NRA and tell them to (essentially) get their heads out of their asses. If you do not think this is a smart move, then let them know. This is part of being an NRA member.

-Jason

Rank and file members are so used to being ignored that this is no longer the first thing that comes to mind.:(

Meplat
01-09-2010, 10:20 PM
If they want to play a roll fine, let them kick down some scheckels to Gura and later claim they financed the whole thing.

"There they go! I must hasten after them, for i am their leader!"


The NRA chooses to play a role. I may not agree with it, but I understand it.

Meplat
01-09-2010, 10:29 PM
Only in Kalifornia do all roads lead to gay marriage!:rolleyes:
Robert A. Levy, the funder and co-counsel for Parker v. District of Columbia (which became Heller), on the issue of marriage equality and privatizing marriage (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112)

yellowfin
01-09-2010, 10:40 PM
In all honesty I wonder what it is that's so great about marrying another guy that it's actually better than being able to protect your own life or keep more of your paycheck. I know some priorities are subjective but that's just a little out there to me, seems pointless if you're broke and even more so if you're dead.

anthonyca
01-09-2010, 11:53 PM
Only in Kalifornia do all roads lead to gay marriage!:rolleyes:

Gray is from washington.

Gray Peterson
01-10-2010, 12:03 AM
Gray is from washington.

:D :31:

Meplat
01-10-2010, 12:34 AM
Give me a break! Do you seriously see a bedsheet behind every bush?Hey Chuck,

Thanks for stopping by again. We're not here to eviscerate you, you're part of the team and always welcome here. We want you here more, but realize you're getting folks out of the cooler, have a biz to run, kicking LCAV in the teeth, etc.

Some of us are just worried that some political cross-contamination may (or may not) have occurred.

The SG's sometimes called the "10th justice" due to stature/deference, and I can only hope "former" is taken as "former". But a separate issue exists, aside from questions rewarding the "horse" being ridden given his prior arguments in Heller against strict scrutiny (so much so that VP Cheney weighed in to counter with a strong individual rights argument!)....

We've been aware for some time now that elements that could be considered as being encompassed by the label 'far right' are uncomfortable with a rekindling of the 14thA PorI -- because that might give rights to what are viewed by them as "undesirables" (biggest looming issue would be same-sex marriage/invalidating Prop 8, etc.).

I'm just hoping that there are more valid reasons for this - given 14A DP variant has been very, very well-treated - and that non-gun bias hasn't crept into a segment in the ILA.

That "R" in NRA stands for "Rifle", and not "buncha other concerns and oh we ususally do guns too". We've seen here in CA what happens when non-NRA gun orgs conflate other agendas with the gun issue, and the detrimental results thereto - and why our NRA team in CA and tons of us Calgunners don't worry about "R" or "D" after a legislator's name or their other positions, just how they vote or support (or don't!) gun rights.

Meplat
01-10-2010, 12:52 AM
Jeez!!! It's about 'credit", it's about keeping the cash cow a'milking! It's about the contributions continuing, so the inbred good ol' boys can keep funneling fat insider contracts and 'positions' to their friends & relatives.

Do you really think these guys really give a rats *** who is screwing whom? Or weather they call it a marriage or a sewing circle? :TFH: Some people will find any way to believe it's all about them!:rolleyes:

Not the NRA as an organization per se, but there is one person or a group of persons who made the call. There is only two reasons why NRA would do something like that:

A) A lack of confidence in the Alan Gura's oral argument ability, which Paul Clement, the lead counsel on the motion, is *partly* responsible for in the Heller case screaming "strict scrutiny equals machine-guns" continuously to the point where we may have lost the ability to fix 922(o) for a long time) or the ability to get "strict scrutiny for self defense" right off the bat. "Machine Gun" Clement has no business being on the NRA's payroll and there's plenty of NRA membership in California and now starting to elsewhere getting aware of what's going on.

B) That some operators within the NRA are willing to throw the superior arguer of 2A issues under the bus because of their own personal political beliefs over probably THE largest cultural issue of our time, and that's marriage equality for same gendered couples. Paul Clement will be called "Homosexual Marriage" Clement, just like he was known as "Machine Gun" Clement.

Rather than doing the honorable thing and resigning from the NRA and joining an org more in tone with their apparently more important (in their own mind) beliefs, they try to do everything possible to ruin Gura's P&I argument because it might lead to marriage equality, using their position in the NRA's payroll to be water carriers for the "Family Policy" groups. These people would sell out the NRA from the inside out if Focus on the Family and other "Family Policy" groups were to turn anti-gun. These people have no business taking a paycheck from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox and the NRA membership if they're going to take marching orders from Maggie Gallagher, James Dobson, or Tony Perkins.

They need be forced to have their desk cleaned out and be escorted out of Fairfax HQ for this disgrace. They can get employment with Paul Clement or his crew, or Focus on the Family/Family Resource Counsel/"National Organization for Marriage".

DedEye
01-10-2010, 1:01 AM
Give me a break! Do you seriously see a bedsheet behind every bush?

No. Just the bushes with bedsheets behind them.

Meplat
01-10-2010, 1:01 AM
and what I refer to as old-guard "thirty caliber idiots".

That was uncalled for! Tell ya what. Let's discuss this at 700 yds. I'll bring my Garand, you suit yourself.:p

bwiese
01-10-2010, 1:04 AM
That was uncalled for! Tell ya what. Let's discuss this at 700 yds. I'll bring my Garand, you suit yourself.:p

But I don't see you arguing against black rifles. Some of those old guard did, unfortunately back in late 80s/early 90s - they figured throwing black rifles under the bus would protect their M1As and Mini14s. Sadly, as we've seen in LA, even M1A folks get in trouble.

Meplat
01-10-2010, 1:06 AM
Clement has argued over 49 cases at the Supreme Court, how many other active litigators have that on their resume? Yes, Gura knocked his first SCOTUS case out of the ballpark, but the NRA has repeatedly shown themselves to always prefer the restrained/conservative angle when it comes to advancing our rights.

How's that workin' out for ya? To me it has been slowly loosing for 50 years.

Meplat
01-10-2010, 1:14 AM
Gray is from washington.

Well.......... Maybe not ONLY Kalifornia.:rolleyes:

Meplat
01-10-2010, 1:23 AM
But I don't see you arguing against black rifles. Some of those old guard did, unfortunately back in late 80s/early 90s - they figured throwing black rifles under the bus would protect their M1As and Mini14s. Sadly, as we've seen in LA, even M1A folks get in trouble.

All true! I'm personally still not a blackstick fan, tho it has evolved over the decades into a hell of a good rifle. One might say it has outlived it's uselessness. But I always knew that we must all hang together. I carry a side arm while hunting and have been told by other hunters that nobody needs one of those things. Drives me nuts!

tba02
01-13-2010, 6:19 PM
Sadly, my NRA renewal notice has been sitting on my desk for a few days now. I'm pretty sure it will land in the shredder this year.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-25-2010, 12:07 PM
Well, it happened anyway. According to this:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/a-boumediene-sequel-bypassed/

(in the last paragraph)


The NRA was granted permission to speak.


The Raisuli

tango-52
01-25-2010, 12:51 PM
New thread on the topic here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=262926

Mitch
01-25-2010, 1:03 PM
In all honesty I wonder what it is that's so great about marrying another guy that it's actually better than being able to protect your own life or keep more of your paycheck.

I myself wonder what is so abhorrent about it that some folks are willing to throw P&I under the bus to ensure gay marriage is never legal.

bwiese
01-25-2010, 1:14 PM
I myself wonder what is so abhorrent about it that some folks are willing to throw P&I under the bus to ensure gay marriage is never legal.

Bingo.

dantodd
01-25-2010, 1:58 PM
I myself wonder what is so abhorrent about it that some folks are willing to throw P&I under the bus to ensure gay marriage is never legal.

I suspect it is because P or I is not a requirement to get 2A incorporation and selective vs. P or I incorporation would likely have largely similar results as far as the protections for 2A are concerned. (since there has never been a right deemed incorporated via P or I clause this is a best guess statement)

So to those who are not generally amenable to civil rights but just want their guns P or I is not desirable.

Again; in a vacuum selective incorporation is adequate for gunnies.

GuyW
01-25-2010, 2:09 PM
So to those who are not generally amenable to just anything that someone wants to claim is a civil right but just want their guns, P or I is not desirable.



Fixed it.

Hopi
01-25-2010, 2:52 PM
Fixed it.

LOL. Not even close.


Equal protection is a civil right, just not one that some people can wrap their heads around.

Some 'gunnies' are experiencing what happens when the collision of egocentric morality and reality dissolves their world view.......

yellowfin
01-25-2010, 2:54 PM
Selective incorporation isn't broad enough to QUICKLY strike down problematic laws like those in NYS, NYC, NJ, MA, and CA which have layers of technical twisting and turning which takes several steps to take down. Did they think about that? I know you guys say we need to be patient, but we do have a bit of a timetable in overcoming the generational problem and the prolific output of law schools and demographic dilution. We do need to accelerate things to be able to achieve cultural recapture before we're too badly outnumbered.

dantodd
01-25-2010, 3:02 PM
Selective incorporation isn't broad enough to QUICKLY strike down problematic laws like those in NYS, NYC, NJ, MA, and CA which have layers of technical twisting and turning which takes several steps to take down. Did they think about that? I know you guys say we need to be patient, but we do have a bit of a timetable in overcoming the generational problem and the prolific output of law schools and demographic dilution. We do need to accelerate things to be able to achieve cultural recapture before we're too badly outnumbered.

Since there has never been a P/I incorporation case it is difficult to suggest that it would bring about changes more quickly than selective incorporation. I think it would greatly depend upon the level of scrutiny chosen and since there is precedence for strict scrutiny with selective incorporation I don't see P/I being automatically "faster."

yellowfin
01-25-2010, 6:53 PM
I myself wonder what is so abhorrent about it that some folks are willing to throw P&I under the bus to ensure gay marriage is never legal.My guess is that like gun control, some people have nothing better to believe in and/or because they have an unhealthy trust of who is telling them what to believe no matter how absurd.

artherd
01-26-2010, 4:50 AM
That was uncalled for! Tell ya what. Let's discuss this at 700 yds. I'll bring my Garand, you suit yourself.:p

I'll bring my (registered) Barrett .50BMG :)

artherd
01-26-2010, 4:55 AM
Sadly, my NRA renewal notice has been sitting on my desk for a few days now. I'm pretty sure it will land in the shredder this year.

Do the opposite - join to the point of Endowment or better so you can vote for the board :)

artherd
01-26-2010, 4:55 AM
So hire Ted Olson who hasn't specifically attempted to undermine gun rights.

-Gene

THIS

rynando
01-26-2010, 1:33 PM
So hire Ted Olson who hasn't specifically attempted to undermine gun rights.

-Gene

My view on attorneys is that they are simply tools used to accomplish your legal goals. The good ones are professional “winners” who are paid to formulate and implement a successful legal strategy. I don’t really care if they are ideologically aligned with the interests they’re championing. I’m interested in their track record and their experience in the venue in which they are to represent my interests. Someone earlier threw out the forks-and-hookers analogy which I feel is pretty accurate. I wouldn’t want to spend much time socially with many of the lawyers I’ve had dealings with however the same characteristics that many find so repugnant on an interpersonal level are often what make them so successful in their field.

The NRA hired who they hired because they believe he will give them the outcome they are seeking. I don’t know if his past client list is all that important.

R

bwiese
01-26-2010, 1:52 PM
The NRA hired who they hired because they believe he will give them the outcome they are seeking. I don’t know if his past client list is all that important.

The SG is sometimes known as the "10th justice". His former status does carry weight and might well have gotten the time not otherwise available to others; Joe Experienced Appellate Lawyer might well not have gotten the time.

And the fact he worked against us in Heller - so much so that VP Cheney had to come in for us, countervene Clement, and state it was an individual right - carries taint. While Alan gracefully avoided NFA/MG issues and focused on issue at hand, Clement raised them and he and Stevens may end up dancing on this subject - possibly setting any even partial NFA recovery way further back. Clement also made some other damaging statements

Even more importantly than on this case, we are rewarding someone who has worked against us. We have a scorched earth policy in CA on folks that move against us, why should that not pertain up the ladder to Fairfax? This isn't picaynue organizational pique, either: Clement's stance weren't against just the organization but our rights.

Shall we appoint Kathy Lynch to a senior NRA staff position, or replace (the excellent) Ron Schmeits with Paul Helmke?

wildhawker
01-26-2010, 2:02 PM
Do the opposite - join to the point of Endowment or better so you can vote for the board :)

I'm pretty sure Life members have voting rights, will need to verify.

Lex Arma
01-26-2010, 2:05 PM
I'm pretty sure Life members have voting rights, will need to verify.

It used to be annual membership for 5 consecutive years or more, or life member or above.

Sgt Raven
01-26-2010, 8:59 PM
It used to be annual membership for 5 consecutive years or more, or life member or above.


IIRC it still is. ;)