PDA

View Full Version : NRA'S LEGAL STATUS IN McDONALD CASE


CDMichel
01-27-2010, 8:45 AM
Everyone seems to have opinions about NRA's participation in oral argument before SCOTUS, and using Paul Clement to represent NRA before the Court.

While everyone is of course entitled to those opinions, a substantial portion of the conclusions being drawn seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the procedural posture of these cases, of NRA's rightful status as a PARTY in the McDonald case, and of how NRA got that status.

I recognize that I likely won't change the minds of those determined to see NRA as an officious intermeddler in Alan Gura's Privileges or Immunities argument, but for those of you wishing to have some background before passing judgment, I have posted a memorandum about the evoultion of the incorporation cases on www.calgunlaws.com.

I tried to stay as factual as possible in that memo, recognizing that some folks will perceive me as biased to the NRA since they are a client of my law firm. Full disclosure: I am biased of course. Although I am a libertarian and would like to see the PorI argument adopted assuming it couldn't be hijacked by progressives and used against the libertarian orthodoxy (a very real danger) I nonetheless see NRA's moves as prudent under the circumstances. In a little while I will post some of my thoughts on why I feel that way, no doubt in the process swan diving into the calguns autoclave. Alas, glory is so fleeting. I had so hoped to bask a bit longer in the warm glow of the Tudesko case win.

But for now, maybe give the memo a read.

Lex Arma
01-27-2010, 8:59 AM
Chuck: I can't find the article to which you refer.

I will be happy to read it when it gets posted.

I am flattered to think that you might be referring to my post about the Dangers of Divided Argument set forth here. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=263436)

I hope your article answers the questions I asked in that post.

Gio
01-27-2010, 8:59 AM
I honestly think it is a good thing to have him on our side. No better person than the one that was against the 2A, and is now fighting for it.

If I knew case law I would make more sense, just look at Roe v Wade, Roe was Pro-Choice and is now Pro-Life and puts up a fight for the Pro-Life side.

Anyways I think the NRA Legal Team took it into consideration before turning to Clements and asking him to be on our side ;)

-Gio

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 9:10 AM
Any chance we could post the memo here, where the discussions are taking place, or is this about driving up hits at www.calgunlaws.com?

Everyone seems to have opinions about NRA's participation in oral argument before SCOTUS, and using Paul Clements to represent NRA before the Court.

While everyone is of course entitled to those opinions, a substantial portion of the conclusions being drawn seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the procedural posture of these cases, of NRA's rightful status as a PARTY in the McDonald case, and of how NRA got that status.

I recognize that I likely won't change the minds of those determined to see NRA as an officious interloper in Alan Gura's Privileges or Immunities argument, but for those of you wishing to have some background before passing judgment, I have posted a memorandum about the evoultion of the incorporation cases on www.calgunlaws.com.

I tried to stay as factual as possible in that memo, recognizing that some folks will perceive me as biased to the NRA since they are a client of my law firm. Full disclosure: I am biased of course. Although I am a libertarian and would like to see the PorI argument adopted assuming it couldn't be hijacked by progressives and used against the libertarian orthodoxy (a very real danger) I nonetheless see NRA's moves as prudent under the circumstances. In a little while I will post some of my thoughts on why I feel that way, no doubt in the process swan diving into the calguns autoclave. Alas, glory is so fleeting. I had so hoped to bask a bit longer in the warm glow of the Tudesko case win.

But for now, maybe give the memo a read.

goober
01-27-2010, 9:23 AM
how about a direct link? i went to the site but couldn't find the memo in question, nor did a search for McDonald or Clements or incorporation turn up anything that might be it... (looks like maybe your search function is about as good as the one here :p )

CDMichel
01-27-2010, 9:24 AM
Bear with me as I resolve technical issues in getting the memo posted on www.calgunlaws.com. Should be posted momentarily.

Its a long pdf, but you will not have to register to read it. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if you would register when you go to calgunlaws.com so you can get our updates emailed to you. And yes, I do want to drive up the hits to calgunlaws so more people know about it.

SmokinMr2
01-27-2010, 9:49 AM
The document worked fine for me.
Thanks.

CDMichel
01-27-2010, 10:00 AM
Although Clement argued for the Govt's position in Heller, the Supreme Court will not ask him about prior positions. They have never done that. The most recent example is Ted Olson's position in the Citizens United case. He argued the exact opposite position from when he was SG arguing in favor of Mccain-Feingold.

If the Court did ask Clement, however, I expect he would respond with his client, the NRA's position: if the Court wants to go down the road of stds of review, it should give the 2d amend the same protections it has given the First Amendment.

But the Court need not go down that road at all in McDonald. As in Heller, the law in question would fail under any std of review. That is NRA’s position and no doubt Clements will, if asked, vigorously defend it. There will be no "twisting in the wind".

It is likely that the Court granted NRA’s motion (speculating, of course: no one really know why, but we can guess) because of Clement's reputation/stature, and also because NRA made the motion as a party.

But also consider that SCOTUS may very well have granted NRA’s motion at least in part because it took a long and close look at McDonald's briefing and had some issues with what it saw. If they had agreed with Alan Gura that he would adequately cover all the issues, wouldn't they have simply denied NRA’s motion?

Clement's personal views on the 2d amend are known at NRA because NRA reps in the Capital have known and worked with him for 10+ years. He's with us. In fact, so much so that Clement wrote the Members of Congress amicus brief pro bono, and I have from reliable folks at NRA heard that Clement is arguing for NRA pro bono too. He’s doing this because he believes in RKBA, not because he’s being paid to articulate a certain point of view.

Seems to me that in Heller, as SG, he said what his employer, the Attorney General (Muk asey at the time), was telling him (and paying him) to say. This time, he’s not being paid to say anything. He’s arguing our position pro bono because he believes in it.

NRA’s reply brief will be filed Friday. Clement’s name will be on it. If people want to know what he'll argue, they should read it. And also the Congressional brief Clement filed.

Here’s the link: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf

dantodd
01-27-2010, 10:02 AM
Although I am a libertarian and would like to see the PorI argument adopted assuming it couldn't be hijacked by progressives and used against the libertarian orthodoxy (a very real danger) I nonetheless see NRA's moves as prudent under the circumstances.

Thanks for posting your response. I have downloaded it but not read it yet.

I did want to say though that the above statement is troublesome to me. It seems rather contradictory to claim to be a libertarian and simultaneously argue that it would be prudent to kill part of our constitution (outside of the defined way to alter it) in order to prevent others from exercising their rights to the full extent of the constitution.

CDMichel
01-27-2010, 10:05 AM
Interesting article re: Ted Olson. Note that it does not mention that Olson previously defended the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold as SG. that's because it is simply not an issue.

Note also the amount that Citizens United seems to have paid in legal fees. clement is handling this case pro bono.

Olson's role led to landmark campaign finance ruling
Fulton County Daily Report (Atlanta, GA)
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/
January 27, 2010
Byline: Tony Mauro
FOR THEODORE OLSON, the turning point in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the moment when he thought a big win was possible, came during the first oral argument on March 24 last year.
That was when his adversary, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, under duress acknowledged that yes, a corporation-sponsored book could be banned under federal law if it contained text for or against a candidate's election. Justices were slack-jawed. They ordered a re-argument for September and, on Jan. 21, struck down the law and the precedents that supported it.
"The first oral argument was an eyeopener for everyone," the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner said the day after his stunning 5-4 victory. "It became apparent then that the government was going to have a very tough time defending the rationale of Austin [v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce] without having to acknowledge that it would authorize criminalizing books, yard signs, pamphlets and other traditional forms of advocacy."
But the crucial moment in the case may have come in November 2008, when Citizens United decided to hire Olson in the first place to argue the case at the U.S. Supreme Court. By bringing on Olson in place of veteran campaign regulation foe James Bopp Jr., the group aggressively ramped up the constitutional issues, making it much more likely the high court would make history in its ruling on the case.
At the beginning of the litigation, said Citizens United general counsel Michael Boos last week, the case was not mainly about its documentary "Hillary: The Movie," which was critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The group's main complaint was that, even if the movie was not a prohibited electioneering communication, the group might have to insert a disclaimer identifying itself as "responsible for the content of this advertising" -- a four-second message in the 10-second ads it planned to air for the movie.
In Bopp's first filing with the court in August 2008, he did not even cite the 1990 Austin decision and focused instead on a challenge to the disclosure and disclaimer requirements in the law -- which, in the end, turned out to be a losing argument.
"We have nothing but praise for Jim Bopp," said Boos on Jan. 22. "But our board of directors decided to go with Ted. He's the winningest attorney at the Supreme Court."
As soon as Olson delved into the case, he saw bigger possibilities: using the dispute as a vehicle to make the larger point that the court's precedents had the unconstitutional effect of letting the government engage in outright censorship of the Hillary movie. The biggest target would be Austin, which upheld a ban on corporations using general treasury funds for independent expenditures in campaigns.
"I believed from the moment that we were brought into this case that it could be the vehicle to challenge Austin," Olson said. It was a tricky proposition, however, because such a challenge had been withdrawn at the district court level.
But the client gave the green light. "Prior to Ted coming on the case, we never focused on Austin," Boos said. "It was Ted's perception that our strongest case was on the movie itself, not the disclaimer. ... He turned out to be right."
Olson's strategy was to make overturning Austin -- and part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) -- logical extensions of the narrower issues first placed before the court. "We sensed that we could, in that context, also urge the court that it really had to decide the core issue that was not going to go away and that would continue to chill constitutionally protected political discourse, the most important speech that a free people have."
When Olson filed a brief placing Austin front and center in the case, Robert Bauer, an election law expert who is now White House counsel, wrote a blog item calling it a "stinging attack" on campaign finance regulation, adding that "Olson is in no mood for concessions."
Because of Olson's decision to reorient the case as test of Austin, Boos said, "We got a much broader constitutional decision than we had thought we would get."
In an interview after the decision, Bopp offered a different take on the strategic choices in the case. He asserted that, even though the initial filings did not explicitly attack Austin, "we believed that issue was always in the case. When you have a case where a particular precedent is being applied, the validity of that precedent is always an issue."
That said, Bopp added, "We"ll never know" if the court would have taken the big step of overturning Austin if subsequent briefing had not highlighted the issue. After being bumped from the Citizens United team, Bopp filed an amicus brief on behalf of former FEC commissioners, arguing that the case could be decided without overruling Austin.
Bopp is happy that the court did go all the way and said, "I'm pleased I could play some useful role in the case."
Boos is glad to be "on the winning side of a landmark case," he said. But he recalled almost ruefully that the litigation could have been avoided entirely if, at the very beginning, the FEC had agreed to categorize his group as a media organization exempt from regulation. Many dollars and years later, Boos said, the group may seek that exemption again.
Though he won't break down the fees, Boos said outside counsel for the case cost Citizens United $1.25 million. "And you can't raise money on an issue like this. You talk about challenging McCainFeingold, and people have no idea what you are talking about."
The Leiter touch
Amanda Leiter was not surprised on Jan. 20 when she learned from the Supreme Court clerk's office that she had lost Kucana v. Holder, the first case she argued there, by a 9-0 vote.
Nor, truth be told, was she that upset.
The position the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law professor had argued in the case -- against judicial review of deportation orders -- had been abandoned even by the Department of Justice, leaving her, in effect, to argue for Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. in favor of a decision neither the deportee nor Holder supported.
Leiter had argued it because the Supreme Court asked her as a way of guaranteeing that both sides of a case it wanted to decide were fully aired and considered. A former law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, Leiter is the latest in a series of former clerks called on by the court to argue orphaned, and sometimes hopeless, positions.
"It was a fabulous experience, and I would be excited to do it again," she said.
When she first read the decision she was asked to defend, written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th U.S. Circui Court of Appeals, Leiter sensed immediately that the court had agreed to review it so it could reverse.
But she plunged into the project, devoting nearly all of August, September and October to preparing for argument. In the process, she said, "I had convinced myself the position I was taking was right" on the statutory interpretation issue involved. The Congress of 1996 -- the one elected with a "Contract With America" -- may well have intended to bar judicial review of administrative decisions like the one at issue, involving an Albanian immigrant under deportation orders, Leiter said.
So she was able to vigorously defend the decision few supported, and she held her own under tough questioning. Some of the sharpest questions came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she recalled. "It was interesting to be challenged principally from the left, when I think of myself as more to her side of the court."
Her co-counsel, RonNell Jones, a fellow high court clerk and now on the faculty at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, said Leiter did "a spectacular job. This was not just her first argument at the Supreme Court, it was her first argument anywhere."
The court was evidently happy with her advocacy: In the majority decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted Leiter's appointment and wrote that she "has ably discharged her assigned responsibilities." In a concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. called one of her arguments "ingenious," though unpersuasive.
Those comments pleased Leiter, and the ruling itself, favoring judicial review as a check on executive action, "accords with my world view," she said. As an administrative law professor, she is generally in favor of widening, not shrinking, jurisdiction.
Most pleased of all, perhaps, was her father, Louis Cohen, senior counsel to Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and a veteran Supreme Court advocate himself. "He doesn't have much experience with losing at the Supreme Court," Leiter said, but he commiserated. Talking to her father about the case was "one of the best parts of the experience," she said, though their interaction was limited by the fact that his firm filed an amicus brief on the side of deportees.
"It was a nearly impossible assignment," said the proud father. "Frank Easterbrook was the only person in the solar system supporting that decision."
* Tony Mauro is Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal, a Daily Report affiliate.
Copyright 2010 ALM Properties, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Document FCDRA00020100127e61r00004
c.2010 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
*** End of Article ***

CDMichel
01-27-2010, 10:08 AM
What happened on the topic of machine guns in Heller?

When I reread the transcript, seems like Clements tried to save them and Gura didn't defend them.

Seems like there's been some mis-remembering of how exactly the machine gun conversation occurred at oral argument in Heller. I was there. Some have said that “Gura was only forced to concede on machine guns because Clement raised the issue”. Not true.

The question arose during Clement’s argument of what qualifies as an “arm” under the Second Amendment. On machine guns, he responded that it would be difficult to argue that machine guns are not arms, “given that they are the standard-issue weapon for today’s armed forces and the State-organized milita” (page 30 of transcript); and that “I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is” (transcript, page 46).

Gura, on the other hand, when asked the same question – “Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that…for example, I think machine guns: It’s difficult to imagine a construction of Miller, or a construction of the lower court’s opinion, that would sanction machine guns…” (transcript, page 59); “Justice Ginsburg: But why wouldn’t a machine gun qualify? General Clement told us that that’s standard issue in the military. Mr. Gura: But it’s not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use” (transcript, page 60); and “it’s hard to imagine how a machine gun could be a ‘lineal descendant,’ to use the D.C. Circuit’s wording, of anything that existed back to 1791, if we want to look to the framing era” (transcript, page 62).

So it seems wrong to say that Clement “gave up machine guns”. He clearly did not. Gura, on the other hand, seems to have.

Here’s the link.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-27-2010, 10:15 AM
Although Clement argued for the Govt's position in Heller, the Supreme Court will not ask him about prior positions. They have never done that. The most recent example is Ted Olson's position in the Citizens United case. He argued the exact opposite position from when he was SG arguing in favor of Mccain-Feingold.

Thanks for clarifying this (I had asked about it in the other thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3707992&postcount=42)).

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Chuck, your comments imply a troubling assertion, namely, that Gura inadequately briefs both P or I and DP. Could you expand on this?

6172crew
01-27-2010, 11:02 AM
So it seems wrong to say that Clement “gave up machine guns”. He clearly did not. Gura, on the other hand, seems to have.

Here’s the link.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Yes it does. :chris:

loather
01-27-2010, 11:18 AM
\So it seems wrong to say that Clement “gave up machine guns”. He clearly did not. Gura, on the other hand, seems to have.

I think Gura understands that right now just simply isn't the right time to go after the NFA. It's definitely a harder win and frankly something that I think scares the bejeezus out of the moderate supreme court justices and absolutely terrifies the liberal ones. If voting for incorporation means "machine guns out on the streets" then I have a good feeling that we're not going to get the decision we're entitled to get. It's simply procedure at this point. I'd be willing to bet Gura has something up his sleeve to use to combat the NFA and is keeping quiet about it until such a time as we have better constitutional grounds to attack it.

While I'd like everything to be puppies and kittens with the NFA being struck down the same time as incorporation, it has about as much chance as the old adage about the girl in the bar going for anal. My hope is that they don't even touch on the subject of machineguns during the trial, but the chances of that are also slim. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 11:18 AM
Although Clement argued for the Govt's position in Heller, the Supreme Court will not ask him about prior positions. They have never done that. The most recent example is Ted Olson's position in the Citizens United case. He argued the exact opposite position from when he was SG arguing in favor of Mccain-Feingold.
That's a nice personal opinion but it has no basis in the political reality of gun cases. Are you seriously contending that Stevens will not attempt to use his prior argument against him?


What happened on the topic of machine guns in Heller?

The topic of machine guns was brought up by... .wait for it.... The Solicitor General Paul Clement in his supposedly supporting Amicus brief (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf).

So Chuck, did the executive branch royally screw NRA ILA in January of 2008 or did Mr. Clement? Either outcome is exceedingly important in understanding the quality of work at ILA.

-Gene

sbrady@Michel&Associates
01-27-2010, 11:19 AM
Wildhawker and all, Chuck is out of the office for the day. He is in San Diego on behalf of the NRA fighting for gun ranges against potentially unreasonable municipal regulation in that county. He will thus be unable to answer your questions today, but hopefully he will be available later this evening or tomorrow.

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 11:24 AM
Sean, glad to hear he's doing his job. Best wishes to that end.

Lex Arma
01-27-2010, 11:28 AM
Ok, I read the memo.

It explains why NRA might want to request separate oral argument, as a Respondent in Support of Petitioner. It does not explain why they chose Mr. Clement. If you can verify that he is working pro bono, or that he repudiates his employer's position in the Heller case, we all might feel better about him arguing for our Second Amendment rights.

Nor does it answer the most suspicous question...

When Mr. Gura coordinated the amicus brief topics, the NRA was well represented in those discussions. It was agree that Gura would focus on P & I incorporation, while adequately covering Due Process. While NRA, agreed it would focus on Due Process and adequately cover P & I.

For the NRA to make an agreement to that course of action, have Gura rely upon it, and then argue that Gura did not sufficiently cover Due Process Incorporation smacks of a double cross.

Please prove me wrong and address the following other issues:

What would be a satisfying answer to the following questions that may be posed to Mr. Clement?

“Mr. Clement, when you represented the government after an optional motion to intervene in Heller, were you taking the position that the policy of the United States is to rank the Bill of Rights in a hierarchy of importance, with the Second Amendment being less fundamental that the other enumerated rights?”

[The implication of the question being that a Republican administration stabbed gun owners in the back after insuring its election in 2000 and 2004.]

Follow up question:

“Mr. Clement, now that you represent the National Rifle Association, what is their position as to the status of the Second Amendment? Is it to be treated like the First Amendment? Or has the NRA hired you to extend your most excellent prior arguments that intermediate scrutiny is good enough for the Second Amendment?”

There will be an unasked question, asked by millions of NRA members who will listen to the taped arguments. (I know this because I attended rifle club meetings, activist meetings and informal gatherings all over the State after Heller came out to introduce and explain SCOTUS oral argument to the “unwashed masses” of gun owners.) It will be: “Is the NRA willing to gamble its member’s Second Amendment rights by hiring a hired gun (a good gun, but a hired gun nonetheless), with no history of putting his own fortune and fame on the line for a constitutional principle he believes in? Who is in fact a lawyer who argued against the NRA’s position in a prior landmark case?”

In other words, you mean to say that, Halbrook, Kates, Michel, Gardiner, Lund, Cottrol, Dowlut, Volokh, Reynolds, Lawrence, Hardy, etc…, men who have devoted years to this issue, are not competent to argue Due Process incorporation, during 10 minutes of oral argument? {Disclaimer, I speak for myself alone, none of the names mentioned herein have anything to do with my using them as an example.}

One of the oldest maxims in SCOTUS rhetoric is that you can’t win a losing case with a brilliant oral argument, but you can lose a winning case with an oral argument that goes bad.

The assumption seems to be that some friendly judge will rescue Mr. Clement from hostile questions. I have no doubt that Mr. Clement will have anticipated these questions, or ones like them. But even if Mr. Clement burns 5 minutes of his time in a jovial colloquy with the court on his “unusual” position -- that means that the Due Process Incorporation argument time gets cut in half.

So we are back to: “What’s the point?” Does anybody really believe that Mr. Gura is NOT competent to argue Due Process?

Glock22Fan
01-27-2010, 11:32 AM
I have no wish to argue with Lex Arma, who undoubtedly knows more than me. However, it is always been my understanding that a lawyer argues his client's case to the limit of his or her ability, as did Amanda Leiter in the case Chuck mentions above.

Arguing a different case on a different side is in no way hypocracy.

Whether Paul Clement will do a good job or not, I have no idea, but I suspect he will. I doubt that the Supremes will care that he argued differently a year or so ago; that was his job then and we have no idea what George Bush told him to do.

However, I can see that the NRA can be criticised for using him. Was there no-one else as good? Or maybe the NRA considered that and decided that there wasn't?

loather
01-27-2010, 11:36 AM
Wildhawker and all, Chuck is out of the office for the day. He is in San Diego on behalf of the NRA fighting for gun ranges against potentially unreasonable municipal regulation in that county. He will thus be unable to answer your questions today, but hopefully he will be available later this evening or tomorrow.

Sorry to threadjack, but do you have more information on these proposed municipal regulations? I live in San Diego, and this would directly impact me. If there's something I can do in this area to help prevent the regulations I'd like to do my part.

Back to the topic-at-hand: Gura is definitely competent enough to argue Due Process incorporation. Hell, I'm not even a lawyer, and I think *I* could make a case to argue it (frankly the prospect of me doing that that terrifies me, being that there's so much on the line to lose).

Lex Arma
01-27-2010, 11:39 AM
I have no wish to argue with Lex Arma, who undoubtedly knows more than me. However, it is always been my understanding that a lawyer argues his client's case to the limit of his or her ability, as did Amanda Leiter in the case Chuck mentions above.

Arguing a different case on a different side is in no way hypocracy.

Whether Paul Clement will do a good job or not, I have no idea, but I suspect he will. I doubt that the Supremes will care that he argued differently a year or so ago; that was his job then and we have no idea what George Bush told him to do.

However, I can see that the NRA can be criticised for using him. Was there no-one else as good? Or maybe the NRA considered that and decided that there wasn't?

I have no superpowers. I like to think that I can take criticism or argument from anyone with desire and talent to challenge me. I maintain that this is different. How?

There is difference between making an argument regarding the technical, legal territorial status of the jurisdictions Dred Scott visited during his life and then taking a contrary position in a subsequent case for another runaway slave. It is a wholly different thing to argue he is not a man, and therefore lacks standing to bring a federal law suit, hold property, serve on jury, keep and bear arms, etc….. Or that as a semi-man, he has limited rights.

The NRA and Clement can clear this up with a one page press release.

dantodd
01-27-2010, 11:47 AM
“Mr. Clement, when you represented the government after an optional motion to intervene in Heller, were you taking the position that the policy of the United States is to rank the Bill of Rights in a hierarchy of importance, with the Second Amendment being less fundamental that the other enumerated rights?”

I don't see why Mr. Clement couldn't simply respond that his client, the US executive branch, directed him to make exactly that argument and that the court properly rejected the argument his client at the time chose.


I am personally very troubled by Mr. Clement's choice to represent the NRA. As stated before I suspect the NRA is worried about other people they don't like getting benefit from P or I so they would greatly prefer Slaughter Houses not be overturned. But, after skimming and running simple searches on the transcripts of the 2 orals in Citizens United I did not see a mention of Mr. Olson's previous position as SG in defending McCain-Feingold. Did I miss something? Are there other examples of an SG arguing 2 sides of an issue before SCOTUS and getting questioned about it?

Glock22Fan
01-27-2010, 12:08 PM
There is difference between making an argument regarding the technical, legal territorial status of the jurisdictions Dred Scott visited during his life and then taking a contrary position in a subsequent case for another runaway slave. It is a wholly different thing to argue he is not a man, and therefore lacks standing to bring a federal law suit, hold property, serve on jury, keep and bear arms, etc….. Or that as a semi-man, he has limited rights.

Don, I bow to your expertise. To me, as a layman, I don't see the subtle differences you apparently observe. To me it seems that you are making the argument that many lay people make when they ask "How can a lawyer defend a client that they believe is guilty?" Does defending a guilty client on technical grounds mean that you can't, in a career change, prosecute a defendent on a different view of those technical grounds?

However, I have no wish to get into an argument with you - you might well be correct. Therefore I'm going to sit back now and see what happens without further comment.

2009_gunner
01-27-2010, 12:13 PM
I sent the NRA an email as a concerned member, and received this reply

Dear Mr. XXXX,

Thank you for your message about former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement's representation of the NRA in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which involves the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. A link to this brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf

During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA's solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.

Obviously, we realize that Solicitor General Clement represented the federal government's position in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the government took the position that the Second Amendment does protect a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, but that the Court should apply an "intermediate" standard of review, less favorable to Second Amendment challenges to federal gun laws than the standard advocated by the NRA. On the standard of review issue, we disagreed with the government's position at the time and we still disagree with it.

However, it is critically important to remember that this position was the government's, not its lawyer's. At the time, Solicitor General Clement had a duty to represent the position of his client. Now that he is representing the NRA, just as when he was recently representing a bipartisan majority of Congress, he will strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation.

Cordially,
Kaelan Jones
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-27-2010, 12:15 PM
Are there other examples of an SG arguing 2 sides of an issue before SCOTUS and getting questioned about it?

Even if there aren't, it sounds like the response would be it doesn't matter because gun cases are different. A real world example would be nice though.

Just curious, did anyone besides the Nordykes and the Brady center brief "standard of review" in McDonald?

Liberty1
01-27-2010, 12:24 PM
I don't have a problem with Clement arguing a 2nd A. issue for any client (incl. NRA). I have a problem with NRA butting in on Alan's time. Their briefs were sufficient IMO and this smacks of sour grapes since NRA v Chicago is not in the headlines as the break through case.

I also have a problem with Alan's FA stance in Heller...I hope Alan would argue differently for a FA client...

For now all I want is incorporation via PorI in June. Any incorporation will do however but PorI is REALLY interesting.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-27-2010, 12:46 PM
I also have a problem with Alan's FA stance in Heller...I hope Alan would argue differently for a FA client...

Clement's the guy you want for machine guns, Gura has machine gun baggage...and safe storage baggage...and licensing baggage...and reasonable regulation baggage...and guns on campus baggage...lol.

bwiese
01-27-2010, 12:48 PM
I
I also have a problem with Alan's FA stance in Heller... I hope
Alan would argue differently for a FA client...

At that point, Alan was arguing for the specific interests of his client, Dick Anthony Heller. His client's interest was legally acquiring/possessing a handgun in DC.

dantodd
01-27-2010, 12:53 PM
Even if there aren't, it sounds like the response would be it doesn't matter because gun cases are different. A real world example would be nice though.

Just curious, did anyone besides the Nordykes and the Brady center brief "standard of review" in McDonald?

I am sure that there other enumerated rights which have had the same person representing opposing sides over time. It's almost hard to believe that we have two examples of SGs arguing "the other side" once they enter private practice in such chronological proximity.

As for guns being different I can see that argument if Citizens United was a highly technical issue based on contract law or some such but it was a pretty obvious 1st amendment case and seems almost the best possible corollary.

dantodd
01-27-2010, 1:01 PM
At that point, Alan was arguing for the specific interests of his client, Dick Anthony Heller. His client's interest was legally acquiring/possessing a handgun in DC.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin Bill. Clement was on the wrong side of the case and specifically brought up FA therefore is worthy of a "scorched earth policy." Gura threw FA, registration, etc. under the bus but that was just because he was arguing his client's interest and doesn't warrant being subjected to "scorched earth policy."

Now. I still believe that Gura's the right man at the right time to make history and deliver a huge win to the firearms community. I also resent that Clements and the NRA are potentially FUBARing the case for P or I. After reviewing Chucks' memo and the transcripts of Citizens United I don't really buy into the assertion that Clements is carrying too much "anti" baggage to the ball though.

Lex Arma
01-27-2010, 1:06 PM
Don, I bow to your expertise. To me, as a layman, I don't see the subtle differences you apparently observe. To me it seems that you are making the argument that many lay people make when they ask "How can a lawyer defend a client that they believe is guilty?" Does defending a guilty client on technical grounds mean that you can't, in a career change, prosecute a defendent on a different view of those technical grounds?

However, I have no wish to get into an argument with you - you might well be correct. Therefore I'm going to sit back now and see what happens without further comment.

There is no CORRECT answer. As long as a lawyer zealously represents his clients in both cases (e.g., prosecutor turned criminal defense) there is no problem. When you argue factual controversies, you have to take the best possible position on the facts that favor your client without commiting perjury or offering known false testimony.

The issue is ultimately moral and based on a value judgment. I won't take a job as a DA (and didn't when one was offered) because I can't bring myself to prosecute people for simple possession of the wrong gun or the wrong drug. As a criminal defense lawyer, I have no problem invoking technical aspects of 4th Amendment Search and Seizure law to supress evidence in a gun case, which BTW is the only kind of criminal work I practice.

Could I work for the DA if they could promise to assign only me only "real crimes" like assault, rape, murder, theft, etc... Yes.

Could I represent a "known" guilty gun owner and get them off a charge of mere possession of the wrong gun on a technicality? Yes.

Could I represent Legal Community Againt Violence or the Brady Center, even if they offered an unspeakablly large fee. No.

And here is one that will really twist your noodle, Could I represent Sarah Brady on an illegal gun possession charge. Yes.

I am not saying that the lawyer who can compartmentalize his life is a bad lawyer. I am just saying I can't do it. And I guess I am saying that I need to know more about a lawyer who wants to represent me who says he can.

dantodd
01-27-2010, 1:13 PM
And here is one that will really twist your noodle, Could I represent Sarah Brady on an illegal gun possession charge. Yes.


If Ms. Brady is ever in any kind of firearms legal trouble I hope that she has the most talented and knowledgeable legal team in the field. She is the last person I want making bad firearms caselaw.

It is not the individual you are defending it is the rule of law and rights those laws describe. And I see no rights as "technicalities."

Lex Arma
01-27-2010, 1:37 PM
If Ms. Brady is ever in any kind of firearms legal trouble I hope that she has the most talented and knowledgeable legal team in the field. She is the last person I want making bad firearms caselaw.

It is not the individual you are defending it is the rule of law and rights those laws describe. And I see no rights as "technicalities."

I agree that rights are not "technicalities." The technicality gambit comes into play after recognizing a fundamental right, such as RKBA, First Amendment, Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc....

Litigating whether or not a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backpack such that a suspicionless search is unlawful -- and coming down on different sides depending on whether the backpack belonged to a student on school property vs. a non-tresspassing homeless man who lives out of his backpack, this is where we get into technicalities.

Arguing that bums have no expectation of privacy, and therefore no 4th Amendment protection because they live on the street, is a couple of orders of magnitude different.

7x57
01-27-2010, 1:43 PM
Could I represent Legal Community Againt Violence or the Brady Center, even if they offered an unspeakablly large fee. No.


Wait. How unspeakable are we talking? So unspeakable that they'd be too broke to do any mischief for a while? :43:

7x57

dantodd
01-27-2010, 1:45 PM
Litigating whether or not a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backpack such that a suspicionless search is unlawful -- and coming down on different sides depending on whether the backpack belonged to a student on school property vs. a non-tresspassing homeless man who lives out of his backpack, this is where we get into technicalities.

I fully understand your point Don. I think that colloquially "technicalities" has a much broader meaning and many people see things such as not being mirandized as "a technicality." I am admittedly a person who sees things in black and white.

Lex Arma
01-27-2010, 2:00 PM
Wait. How unspeakable are we talking? So unspeakable that they'd be too broke to do any mischief for a while? :43:

7x57

I can't see myself as Captain Ahab.

7x57
01-27-2010, 2:14 PM
I can't see myself as Captain Ahab.

Fair enough, I respect that. Please give them a glowing referral to Mr. Gorski for their high-bucks legal representation. :43:

7x57

loather
01-27-2010, 2:46 PM
Fair enough, I respect that. Please give them a glowing referral to Mr. Gorski for their high-bucks legal representation.

YES! If anyone's going to be finding the white whale, it's that particular example of headwear intended to cover the gluteus maximus.

Liberty1
01-27-2010, 4:54 PM
At that point, Alan was arguing for the specific interests of his client, Dick Anthony Heller. His client's interest was legally acquiring/possessing a handgun in DC.

And I understand all that was at stake with the individual rights interpretation in that case won by the hairs of our chiny chin chin. I just regret we had to go there (FA) at all because IF anything is protected, as Clement said, it should be LOC of a home made unregistered select fire suppressed SBR M4 (or AK flat made by my 15 yo :)). I blame the AGs Office and the White House mostly then the NRA ILA, not Clement (yet).

2009_gunner
01-27-2010, 5:05 PM
And I understand all that was at stake with the individual rights interpretation in that case won by the hairs of our chiny chin chin. I just regret we had to go there (FA) at all because IF anything is protected, as Clement said, it should be LOC of a home made unregistered select fire suppressed SBR M4 (or AK flat made by my 15 yo :)). I blame the AGs Office and the White House mostly then the NRA ILA, not Clement (yet).

Going offtopic, I'm hoping (but not expecting) it to be possible to manufacture a personal SBR M4 in Montana if Montana Shooting Sports Association et al v. Holder, Jr. is successful. Only the gun would need a "Made in Montana" stamp on it.

r/k/b/a
01-27-2010, 6:53 PM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

For that matter, I wonder how much have they paid him over the last year or two or five?

bwiese
01-27-2010, 7:12 PM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

If you think you get rich by being a state NRA counsel, you're mistaken.

I can't speak for him/his firm, there's likely some sort of retainer agreement and generally not per-item billings. But it's a bit of a labor of love by Chuck & crew, as his firm also has far more profitable specialties in other areas (environmental law, etc.)

When they do gun law, that takes away from work on these other rainmaking and moneymaking matters. And if Chuck gets some big (nongun) cases that helps out the gun side....

GuyW
01-27-2010, 8:46 PM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

For that matter, I wonder how much have they paid him over the last year or two or five?

Questioning Chuck's motives and RKBA ethics is a low blow that to my knowledge, he doesn't deserve....

7x57
01-27-2010, 9:07 PM
Questioning Chuck's motives and RKBA ethics is a low blow that to my knowledge, he doesn't deserve....

You forget the Iron Rule that the NRA is to be judged by the assumption of guilt until proven innocent, and probably not then, while other gun-rights organizations organized as private (and often, one thinks, moneymaking) venture get a pass. I actually don't recall ever hearing anyone ask on the board whether GOA, or one of Alan Gottleib's ventures might in fact have a profit motive.

Or, for that matter, whether there is anything wrong with that.

7x57

GuyW
01-27-2010, 9:21 PM
You forget the Iron Rule that the NRA is to be judged by the assumption of guilt until proven innocent,

Eh, I've participated in at least one "NRA bashing" thread here in the past....now, I'm just sitting back and watching some of the same CalGunners who said I was wrong then, bash the NRA now.

But whatever the truth about the NRA's planning and actions in this case, I don't think Chuck is a shill for the NRA....

.

Alaric
01-27-2010, 9:26 PM
Eh, I've participated in at least one "NRA bashing" thread here in the past....now, I'm just sitting back and watching some of the same CalGunners who said I was wrong then, bash the NRA now.

But whatever the truth about the NRA's planning and actions in this case, I don't think Chuck is a shill for the NRA....

.

The NRA makes mistakes, isn't perfect, etc.... but I have to agree with Guy here, Chuck is good counsel, and the NRA generally is a positive influence on our movement.

We can still bash the NRA for it's bonehead maneuvers, but let's bear in mind that they're still on our side.

Surf&Skeet
01-27-2010, 9:30 PM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

For that matter, I wonder how much have they paid him over the last year or two or five?

Wow, I thought we were all capitalists here.

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 9:55 PM
Wow, I thought we were all capitalists here.

But even capitalists do have to deal with conflicts of interest.

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:05 PM
......The proof is in the pudding....Personally, I will hold back my opinions of NRA after the SCOTUS decision comes out. I can't help but feel that NRA-ILA know what they are doing and all the nay-sayers and mud slingers will end up with egg on their face.............

As far as Chuck and his motives goes, I have known Chuck Michel personally for many years and would back his play anytime, anywhere..........We are lucky to have him on our side.......

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:08 PM
But even capitalists do have to deal with conflicts of interest.

-Gene


HAHAHA!!!......."conflicts of interest" are in the eye of the beholder........

Surf&Skeet
01-27-2010, 10:11 PM
But even capitalists do have to deal with conflicts of interest.

-Gene

Hoffmang, can you elaborate on the "conflict of interest" you are talking about? I'm not referring to Clement, I was just defending Chuck Michel's (just as I defended Gura's in my other post) ability to make money from the practice of gun law.

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 10:13 PM
......The proof is in the pudding....Personally, I will hold back my opinions of NRA after the SCOTUS decision comes out. I can't help but feel that NRA-ILA know what they are doing and all the nay-sayers and mud slingers will end up with egg on their face.............

As far as Chuck and his motives goes, I have known Chuck Michel personally for many years and would back his play anytime, anywhere..........We are lucky to have him on our side.......

I love being an NRA member and vigorously support them at every opportunity. However, this was a poor decision on every level; that is, unless gun rights isn't the primary motivator. I'll choose to believe it's incompetence.

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:17 PM
Hoffmang, can you elaborate on the "conflict of interest" you are talking about? I'm not referring to Clement, I was just defending Chuck Michel's (just as I defended Gura's in my other post) ability to make money from the practice of gun law.

I'm surprised this is unobvious. Chuck's law firm is on retainer indirectly to ILA where it used to be directly on retainer to ILA. I think that fact is advertised actually.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:18 PM
HAHAHA!!!......."conflicts of interest" are in the eye of the beholder........

Hey fellow CRPA board member - I'm not getting paid a dime? You?

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:19 PM
You sound fairly certain, Brandon.....Which leads me to believe that you are privvy to some 'inside information' that has not been revealed here??

......I will not inquire nor speculate further........

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:21 PM
Hey fellow CRPA board member - I'm not getting paid a dime? You?

-Gene

NAHHHH......I just do it for the entertainment value and it's damn good sport....!!!

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:24 PM
NAHHHH......I just do it for the entertainment value and it's damn good sport....!!!

Watching those who are supposed to be good at politics not consider the politics continues to be almost as entertaining as watching comedy central.

If only it weren't the Republic at stake...

-Gene

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 10:32 PM
Hoffmang, can you elaborate on the "conflict of interest" you are talking about? I'm not referring to Clement, I was just defending Chuck Michel's (just as I defended Gura's in my other post) ability to make money from the practice of gun law.

Maybe you could elaborate on this, as I'm pretty sure you're close to the matter and would be in a position to relate it to us. Mind sharing with us who you are and why it might be of note?

Surf&Skeet
01-27-2010, 10:37 PM
Maybe you could elaborate on this, as I'm pretty sure you're close to the matter and would be in a position to relate it to us. Mind sharing with us who you are and why it might be of note?

To be perfectly honest, I cannot elaborate on it. Maybe I am a little slow, but I still don't understand what hoffmang is talking about. I don't understand what "conflict of interest" he is talking about. And why would who I am have any relevance about my question?

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:38 PM
To be perfectly honest, I cannot elaborate on it. Maybe I am a little slow, but I still don't understand what hoffmang is talking about. I don't understand what "conflict of interest" he is talking about. And why would who I am have any relevance about my question?

From what industry does your paycheck come?

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:38 PM
Watching those who are supposed to be good at politics not consider the politics continues to be almost as entertaining as watching comedy central.

If only it weren't the Republic at stake...

-Gene

.......If the fate of the Republic is in the hands of a bunch of lawyers, we are indeed doomed.........!!!!

.......No Republic ever survived without warriors and guardians.....I am honored to be amongst warriors, here........

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:41 PM
.......If the fate of the Republic is in the hands of a bunch of lawyers, we are indeed doomed.........!!!!

.......No Republic ever survived without warriors and guardians.....I am honored to be amongst warriors, here........

Adams and Jefferson were lawyers...

At least they were actually not paid to write the Federalist Papers anonymously...

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:44 PM
Adams and Jefferson were lawyers...

At least they were actually not paid to write the Federalist Papers anonymously...

-Gene

So was Gandhi......But that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw on a loin cloth......

Sgt Raven
01-27-2010, 10:45 PM
I love being an NRA member and vigorously support them at every opportunity. However, this was a poor decision on every level; that is, unless gun rights isn't the primary motivator. I'll choose to believe it's incompetence.

"Don't put to Malice, that, that can be explained by incompetence". :p

wildhawker
01-27-2010, 10:48 PM
To be perfectly honest, I cannot elaborate on it. Maybe I am a little slow, but I still don't understand what hoffmang is talking about. I don't understand what "conflict of interest" he is talking about. And why would who I am have any relevance about my question?

I'm pretty sure you could make a case as to why it would be relevant. And if you won't, I can promise you someone will.

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:51 PM
So was Gandhi......But that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw on a loin cloth......

It's always interesting to me to compare certain comments to who is getting paid to make those comments. I think many may be surprised about what motivates some to post on this forum.

Hint: It's not all about a love of the Second Amendment...

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 10:55 PM
It's always interesting to me to compare certain comments to who is getting paid to make those comments. I think many may be surprised about what motivates some to post on this forum.

Hint: It's not all about a love of the Second Amendment...

-Gene

I completely agree.......Those who have a profit motive are often very transparent......

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 10:57 PM
I completely agree.......Those who have a profit motive are often very transparent......

Maybe we should start to cut the funding to those who are being disingenious. Do you agree or disagree?

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 11:04 PM
Maybe we should start to cut the funding to those who are being disingenious. Do you agree or disagree?

-Gene

Funding should be based on performance.....I have dealt with many people who are 'disingenious,' but very effective in achieving what they are paid for........

......Based strictly on your standard, I would disagree........It's all about results......

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 11:06 PM
Funding should be based on performance.....I have dealt with many people who are 'disingenious,' but very effective in achieving what they are paid for........

......Based strictly on your standard, I would disagree........It's all about results......

So I guess you agree Clement was a bad call since he lost on scrutiny and that handgun bans are unconstitutional.

I can count up the losses for the person in question with a couple of recent wins. I think misleading gun owners is something a Second Amendment advocate who is paid by gun owners membership organizations shouldn't do.

Do you think that misleading gunowners is ok for people on our side who are paid out of our dues?

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 11:30 PM
So I guess you agree Clement was a bad call since he lost on scrutiny and that handgun bans are unconstitutional.

I can count up the losses for the person in question with a couple of recent wins. I think misleading gun owners is something a Second Amendment advocate who is paid by gun owners membership organizations shouldn't do.

Do you think that misleading gunowners is ok for people on our side who are paid out of our dues?

-Gene

Whether Clement was a bad call or not, based on losing the 'Heller' case on behalf of the government is a matter of opinion at this point. As I stated previously, I will wait for the decision in the 'McDonald' case before I pass judgement.

As far as 'the person in question' is concerned, aside from Perry Mason, I have never heard of a lawyer who wins every case, every time and to accuse said person of 'misleading' his clients, ie; gun owners, is a very serious accusation. If you have specific examples, then by all means let us discuss them in a proper venue at the right time........I'm not willing to throw anyone under the bus based on rumour and inuendo.........That's not how we do things in a Republic..........

I have a lot of respect for Alan Gura......I certainly hope he didn't get his feelings hurt in some way over this...........Is he taking any of this personally?

hoffmang
01-27-2010, 11:38 PM
As far as 'the person in question' is concerned, aside from Perry Mason, I have never heard of a lawyer who wins every case, every time and to accuse said person of 'misleading' his clients, ie; gun owners, is a very serious accusation. If you have specific examples, then by all means let us discuss them in a proper venue at the right time........I'm not willing to throw anyone under the bus based on rumour and inuendo.........

I think you've seen me be judicious in previous serious accusations. I'll make a couple of phone calls tomorrow and then I think you'll understand my concern.

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-27-2010, 11:42 PM
I think you've seen me be judicious in previous serious accusations. I'll make a couple of phone calls tomorrow and then I think you'll understand my concern.

-Gene

Geeeee.......I can't wait.......

1JimMarch
01-28-2010, 5:24 AM
Here's the problem as I see it: the NRA has a recent history of taking positions that favor the GOP either without regard to gun rights, or in a few cases directly contrary to gun rights.

The most extreme case I know of happened in California in 1998, when NRA HQ back in Fairfax told the Cali branch to support Dan Lungren-R for governor over Gray Davis-D. Davis had never shown any major gun-grabbing tendencies and certainly never sponsored gun-grabber legislation. Lungren on the other hand was just flat-out horrible on gun issues as AG, including assisting the persecution of Chief Gene Byrd (and a lot more). But, Lungren was both a "Republican" (of sorts) and apparently just as importantly, was "pro-life".

The entire California chapter of the NRA revolted, and a cleanout of "moral majority" types back at Fairfax happened to some degree.

This was an extreme example of pro-GOP support on the NRA's side but by no means unique.

Flash forward to the present. PorI incorporation could have an effect on gay marriage. We must ask whether the NRA is waving a "pro-RKBA" banner or a "Christian Conservative" banner. They've done so often enough that it's become a stereotype, one I went WAY out of my way to personally break clear of:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4258670602_94777d6e6d.jpg

Chuck, I know you're not part of the problem here. In fact I know full well you were at least supportive of the revolt against Lungren. But for the sake of whatever deity you're into, please go tell NRA HQ to tell their shiny new gun-for-hire:

DON'T LIE!

Do NOT try and twist the truth on incorporation in any fashion that damages the PorI case. By all means support the idea that the 2nd can be incorporated under Due Process if they choose to go that way...but don't disparage PorI on behalf of religious bigotry.

We ain't gonna stand for that.

Lex Arma
01-28-2010, 7:25 AM
If you think you get rich by being a state NRA counsel, you're mistaken.

I can't speak for him/his firm, there's likely some sort of retainer agreement and generally not per-item billings. But it's a bit of a labor of love by Chuck & crew, as his firm also has far more profitable specialties in other areas (environmental law, etc.)

When they do gun law, that takes away from work on these other rainmaking and moneymaking matters. And if Chuck gets some big (nongun) cases that helps out the gun side....

In concur in Bill's statement. It is not fair to infer that Chuck is getting rich from billing the NRA. Just having a controversial client like them necessarily cuts your market share for other clients to the bone. Trust me. I know.

None of this is about money. I don't care if NRA is paying Clement, or he is working pro bono. If Mr. Clement is truly working for us for free, (i.e., no promises of future work, no exhorbitant flat fee for some trivial work, etc...) then I feel somewhat easier about his motives. But then all NRA has to do is issue a press release, joined by Mr. Clement, that he has seen the light and repudiates the position he took when he worked for the government. The Heller decision itself makes that easy for him. He can say he was wrong, Scalia opened his eyes, and he now adopts the position of his new client the NRA.

That only leaves the mystery issue of how the NRA double crossed Gura by agreeing on a division of labor in the briefs, and then using that fact to argue that Mr. Gura didn't sufficiently address Due Process.

jdberger
01-28-2010, 8:48 AM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

For that matter, I wonder how much have they paid him over the last year or two or five?

Don't confuse a difference of opinion and a vigorous discussion with a war.

Mr. Michel has been a dedicated warrior in this fight, at some personal/financial cost as alluded to above.

The innuendo was uncalled for.

But nice first post..... :rolleyes:

7x57
01-28-2010, 8:51 AM
The innuendo was uncalled for.

But nice first post..... :rolleyes:

Doesn't that show he's already fitting right in with the crowd? :rolleyes:

7x57

goober
01-28-2010, 9:12 AM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

For that matter, I wonder how much have they paid him over the last year or two or five?

i love these inflammatory first posts by brand new members... :rolleyes:

but are they really "new" folks, or just existing members afraid to say what they think in public using their true user names? :hide:

if the former, tact is seriously lacking... if the latter, integrity is absent as well.
:shifty:

Glock22Fan
01-28-2010, 9:40 AM
HAHAHA!!!......."conflicts of interest" are in the eye wallet of the beholder........

Fixed it for you. Not that my fix has anything to do with any individual on this board -- just a general observation.

wildhawker
01-28-2010, 10:04 AM
Don't confuse a difference of opinion and a vigorous discussion with a war.

Mr. Michel has been a dedicated warrior in this fight, at some personal/financial cost as alluded to above.

The innuendo was uncalled for.

But nice first post..... :rolleyes:

Doesn't that show he's already fitting right in with the crowd? :rolleyes:

7x57


This isn't fair or accurate, and you'll soon know why.

wildhawker
01-28-2010, 10:13 AM
Interesting question that needs to be answered. Since the NRA is Chuck Michel's client, it would be interesting to know how much they paid him for the memo he wrote? Or how much did he billled them for it?

For that matter, I wonder how much have they paid him over the last year or two or five?

Speaking of interesting questions, what industry do you come from r/k/b/a and how much are/were *you* paid to do it?