PDA

View Full Version : Why is the NRA supporting Bills that will moot Parker v. DC?


FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 11:03 AM
Parker v. DC is a great case for an individuals right to bear arms. Finally, we have a great case to present, if certiorari is granted, to the SCOTUS. This could be THE landmark case which finally settles the debate over the 2nd Amendment and answers the question...Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the Individual or is it Collective?

Any legislation that is passed which addresses this question will, in effect, destroy the Parker case and we will see no opportunity for SCOTUS to settle the issue.

Currently, there are bills in both the House, H.R. 1399: District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (http://http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1399) and Senate, S. 1001: A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia (http://http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1001), which will moot Parker.

Alan Gura, Lead counsel in Parker v. DC, had this to say about legislation such as the above bills....

"These bills will destroy the Parker case, plain and simple. They are totally unnecessary if we win, they will be pointless, and in the unlikely event that we lose, there is plenty of time to respond legislatively."
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/03/30/parker_counsel_agrees_with_me_on_hutchisons_bill/

With all of this in mind, we have the NRA supporting both of these bills...
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2814

Lets get the word out to the NRA and all sponsors of both of these potentially problem bills that we want Parker v. DC to play out. With such a huge opportunity in front of us I just dont understand why the NRA is taking this stance. There may be some ways to change the wording of these bills so as to not effect, moot, Parker, but I think this is putting the cart in front of the horse at this point.

This is not a "Bash the NRA" thread.

E Pluribus Unum
03-30-2007, 11:23 AM
It will not moot Parker...... even if passed it was illegal at the time of Parker and the case is still relevent.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 11:45 AM
It will not moot Parker...... even if passed it was illegal at the time of Parker and the case is still relevent.

Lead Counsel for Parker v. DC disagrees with you.

"We urge everyone to contact Congress and urge your Representatives and Senators to REJECT the Huchison and Ross-Souder bills.

These bills will destroy the Parker case, plain and simple. They are totally unnecessary — if we win, they will be pointless, and in the unlikely event that we lose, there is plenty of time to respond legislatively.

There are many ridiculous and harmful laws on the books that were not addressed in our case which Congress can and should repeal to fully implement the Parker decision. We have suggested language, which may yet be introduced, that would enable Congress to vote on the D.C. gun bans without hurting Parker.

Anyone who believes that mooting Parker will avoid a Supreme Court showdown on the meaning of the Second Amendment is delusional. Inaction by our community has led to losing the Second Amendment right at the federal level in 47 out of 50 states, because nobody controls the criminal defense bar.

Considering the aggressive way in which criminal defendants are now making Second Amendment claims, the circuit split, the DOJ’s pro-individual rights position, the level of debate in the legal academy, and the seven decades of Supreme Court silence on the topic, it is just a matter of time — and not much of it — before the issue goes to the high court.

It is Parker, or the next case. Plain and simple. You’re not going to like the next case.

It is nice that Sen. Huchison and NRA have expressed a desire to be supportive of Parker. Let’s see some conduct that is consistent with that position. This bill doesn’t cut it.

If you agree, then call Sen. Huchison, call your Senators and your Representatives, and by all means call NRA, and let them know that you understand this issue.

Thanks,
Alan Gura
Lead Counsel, Parker v. D.C.

P.S.: As for en banc, it will probably be a few months before we find out. We will probably be ordered to respond to the en banc petition. We’re confident of prevailing at any en banc rehearing and after that, if need be, at the Supreme Court."
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/03/30/parker_counsel_agrees_with_me_on_hutchisons_bill/



I just got off the phone with the NRA. They are now saying that they acknowledge that both Bills will moot Parker. They are telling me that Bush has said he will veto this bill if it does pass because of the "DC voter rights" portion that was attached to it.

My request to them was to please remove your web pages that ask NRA members to call in support of these bills. We spoke for about 10 minutes on the issues at hand....It was a good conversation and I thanked the gentleman for his time. He said he would pass along my concerns, but that I was the first to call.

Just in case others want to call...please be pleasant :)

800-392-8683 - NRA Grassroots Hotline
option 3 give you the ability to leave a message.
option 4 takes you to live person.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 1:01 PM
courtesy of Xenophobe who put this thread in archive:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=52676

the Parker Versus DC is not completely all sunshine and happy. the wording is troublesome to a lot of folks, especially the "registered handgun" part.

fatirishman
03-30-2007, 1:07 PM
Ugh - okay, this is rough, and take it with as much salt as is necessary, but the bill will not moot Parker as precedent. The DC circuit is the most influencial in the country and it would remain persuasive authority. (However, be careful with this, because there are certain lawyer words that can be used to attempt to deal with unhelpful precedent - esp. nonbinding, which Parker is to everyone who doesn't live in DC. Usually, they like dicta, but there are others.) However, it would likely, albeit not necessarily (They are the supreme court. Who is gonna review them? And, there are, admittedly obscure, doctrines that could be availiable to duck mootness for cert.) moot the case for review. What would that do? Take away a very good case and make it more likely that the 2nd/14th amendment rights of gunowners would be reviewed under a less favorable case. However, before we get too happy/sad/angry, there is one major weakness to Parker: incorporation. The court could easily take the case and decline to deal with incorporation, thus leaving those who don't live in DC in the cold, if you will. [Having said all that, I hope the case proceeds; I just want it to be clear that the situation is more complicated than either side lets on.]

hoffmang
03-30-2007, 1:16 PM
If a repeal passes before appeals are dropped or before SCOTUS rules, Parker would be vacated. That means it will have 0 precedential value. The rule on this is called the Munsingwear doctrine. Dr Volokh has covered it before: http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_11-2007_03_17.shtml#1173923543

I am hearing rumors that the new introduction as HR 1399 is being held until after SCOTUS rules but there are no guarantees on that.

-Gene

bwiese
03-30-2007, 1:29 PM
the Parker Versus DC is not completely all sunshine and happy. the wording is troublesome to a lot of folks, especially the "registered handgun" part.

Registration is far less an issue if everyone unequivocally can have firearms with few limits.

The data on registration just becomes noise - "yet another person has guns".
With 300 Million people in US and 200+ million guns, many/most pull-ups of personal data would say "has a gun" - making it normal and irrelevant.

I am not saying it's good, but it's better to have RKBA even w/registration than it is to have no reg and a threat of "we can make that illegal..."

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 1:34 PM
fatirish,

Yes, there are definitely some shades of grey in terms of the implications of these bills. People can debate whether or not it will completely moot Parker. What is not debatable, in my mind, is that any legislation that has the potential to moot Parker, as this point in time, is ill advised.

Thankfully, the bill has only been introduced and is scheduled for debate. I am confident that either language will be introduced as to NOT conflict with the progression of Parker or the bills will be shelfed for the time being.

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 1:53 PM
Just in case others want to call...please be pleasant :)

800-392-8683 - NRA Grassroots Hotline
option 3 give you the ability to leave a message.
option 4 takes you to live person.

Thank you for your post. I called and waited for about 10 minutes to speak to someone, so I just called back and left a rather lengthy message. I'll call back tomorrow morning to speak to a staffer.


the Parker Versus DC is not completely all sunshine and happy. the wording is troublesome to a lot of folks, especially the "registered handgun" part.

Actually, it is all sunshine and happy, for the most part. Military weapons as defined in Miller would become legal in nearly 20 states where such firearms are banned or severely limited by state control.

Registration is not validated by Parker, it only states that registration and training may be legal. Of course, show me any case where registration of firearms was deemed unconstitutional by the 2nd or 5th A. I'm sure you won't find such a case. Of course, the NFA of 1934 is still enforced to this day.

I guess this is where the NRA and the RKBA takes a slight split from those of us in California that will continue to deal with registration from those states where there is none. Unfortunately that puts NRA in a hard place and being a Californian, I cannot agree to their position. I see other reasons why NRA might not like Parker, but I won't post them here... I know I'm seen as being critical of the NRA, but I'm not an NRA basher.


Registration is far less an issue if everyone unequivocally can have firearms with few limits.

The data on registration just becomes noise - "yet another person has guns".
With 300 Million people in US and 200+ million guns, many/most pull-ups of personal data would say "has a gun" - making it normal and irrelevant.

I am not saying it's good, but it's better to have RKBA even w/registration than it is to have no reg and a threat of "we can make that illegal..."

+1... I couldn't agree with you more.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 1:58 PM
I just like to see the free states stay off the registration path, that's all. It's too late for California at least for the moment, but not so for the other states.

I suppose we just have to agree to disagree.

Sam Hainn
03-30-2007, 2:03 PM
Registration is far less an issue if everyone unequivocally can have firearms with few limits.

The data on registration just becomes noise - "yet another person has guns".
With 300 Million people in US and 200+ million guns, many/most pull-ups of personal data would say "has a gun" - making it normal and irrelevant.

I am not saying it's good, but it's better to have RKBA even w/registration than it is to have no reg and a threat of "we can make that illegal..."

I see your point, but I can't agree with any level of registration. Yes, I know we here in CA have the DROS which is essentially registration, and registration under Roberti Roos/SB23/AB50, but registration is just facilitation for confiscation.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 2:17 PM
I see your point, but I can't agree with any level of registration. Yes, I know we here in CA have the DROS which is essentially registration, and registration under Roberti Roos/SB23/AB50, but registration is just facilitation for confiscation.

I've heard the comment plenty before, "registration leads to confiscation", and throughout history that had been true many times.

Just for the sake of the argument, what would you say if I could tell you, unequivocally, that if we register our guns the individual right to bear arms would never again be called into question? Would you agree to registration?

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 2:24 PM
I've heard the comment plenty before, "registration leads to confiscation", and throughout history that had been true many times.

Many firearms have been registered in the US since 1934... That's 81 years that the US has gone without confiscation. Wow... it's not the end of the world, is it?


Just for the sake of the argument, what would you say if I could tell you, unequivocally, that if we register our guns the individual right to bear arms would never again be called into question? Would you agree to registration?

Yes.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 2:26 PM
Many firearms have been registered in the US since 1934... That's 81 years that the US has gone without confiscation. Wow... it's not the end of the world, is it?


New Orleans?

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 2:38 PM
New Orleans?

The PD was going through NFA lists and confiscating machine guns?

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2007, 2:38 PM
New Orleans?

In New Orleans, registration lists were NOT used to confiscate guns. They simply took every gun they came across. Vastly different.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 2:44 PM
In New Orleans, registration lists were NOT used to confiscate guns. They simply took every gun they came across. Vastly different.

exactly, even without a list they were quite efficient. Would having a list slow them down or speed them up?

I knew you guys were gonna say "but there were no lists in Louisiana". That is exactly my problem that even without registration a complete confiscation happened, and you guys are dismissing the danger of registration because....

fine, let's wait for the earthquake in California and wait for hte police to go door to door with list of handgun owners. then you would have your example of "confiscation with registration list" versus the mere confiscation without a list.

I seem to recall that in Britain, when the handguns were first registered, people said, "well, we have nothing to worry about, there has never been a ban or confiscation. it won't happen". History repeating itself.

Sam Hainn
03-30-2007, 3:01 PM
Many firearms have been registered in the US since 1934... That's 81 years that the US has gone without confiscation. Wow... it's not the end of the world, is it?

For now. It's just a matter of time. I look at forced confiscations, as with the SKS by Lungren and the Robinson m96s [which were a mistake and surprisingly not registered] so it's happened even without registration. 4473s were used and in association with cooperation by the dealers and the DROS - but aren't those 'lists'? We also live under the direct wish by living politicians for 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns'.

Just for the sake of the argument, what would you say if I could tell you, unequivocally, that if we register our guns the individual right to bear arms would never again be called into question? Would you agree to registration?

NO! Registration IS questioning the individual right to bear arms! And if registration is just a mere piece of paper, then so are laws saying there will be no questioning the individual right to bear arms. I'd rather those who would ignore the law not have something they can't ignore: registration files. What they don't know about can keep them in check.

No, 81 years on specific types of guns [NFA and what we have in CA] and it hasn't been the end of the world, but a call for registration on all guns could be the end of our country as we know it, when the time to use registration for confiscation happens. [Britian, Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico, etc.] Sure confiscation can ocurr without registration or list because they jsut take whatever they find but it's what they don't find that could prevent them taking everything and why make their job easier in doing so?

There is no argument as those who ingore history are doomed to repeat it. Hitler confiscated guns and he did it through registration. The US is a very young country and every civilized nation on earth has gone through either a major civil war, or war on its own turf, at least once per 150 years.

We are due for one - civil war, or an attack from any number of countries pissed off at us right now. Registering our guns would just help our own government or possibly even another government toward the path of least resistance. And when that happens, a piece of paper saying the 2nd amendment can't be questioned will be easily ignored.

CalNRA
03-30-2007, 3:06 PM
The PD was going through NFA lists and confiscating machine guns?

did you really think that New Orleans police chief would gladly sign off on NFA items in the first place? have you lived in the south at all?:rolleyes:

Can'thavenuthingood
03-30-2007, 3:08 PM
The government can make all the unequivical promises it wants to or needs to in order to get an agreement. However, it is the individual with the vested authority to make the decision somewhere down the line that leads to a bad decision such as in the aftermath of Katrina.

Even though it was an incorrect decision, the decision was still made to go after the weapons by the local government with the full authority of the law on its side. Only sometime later was it determined that it was inded a bad decision.

Instead of a little old lady getting tackled, what if it had been an old WWll vet and he decided that it wasn't gonna happen? Or if it was you and you decided it was unconstitutional?

An illegal action took place by the authorities.
What were the consequences?
Anything given to the government will be stretched out of shape so as to benefit those in authority.

Vick

hoffmang
03-30-2007, 3:09 PM
Registration is not a part of Parker. It is dicta. Whether registration is protected against by the right under the second amendment will be the subject of a future case and will otherwise be dictated by legislatures.

A post Parker world is not a post NRA active in legislation world at all. However, it does mean that gun bans for most all guns will be off the table.

-Gene

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 3:31 PM
For now. It's just a matter of time. I look at forced confiscations, as with the SKS by Lungren and the Robinson m96s [which were a mistake and surprisingly not registered] so it's happened even without registration.

No, 81 years on specific types of guns [NFA and what we have in CA] and it hasn't been the end of the world, but a call for registration on all guns could be the end of our country as we know it.

You're clearly confused. SKS's were never confiscated. There was a buy-back and if you have one of the ones that would be illegal, you had to give it up for destruction or sell it out of state. THERE WAS NO CONFISCATION USING LISTS OF ANY KIND!!!

M96s were indeed confiscated in small number, those sold by one retailer, and were returned. They were never registered. There was never "a list" of registered owners and they never confiscated them using such a list. They had records from an individual dealer and used those to confiscate. The DOJ also learned a valuable lesson too.

You're making up facts by distorting the history of the situation and using them to further your belief.

Please show me where a registration list or NFA list was used in America to confiscate firearms.


...when the time to use registration for confiscation happens. [Britian, Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico, etc.] Sure confiscation can ocurr without registration or list because they jsut take whatever they find but it's what they don't find that could prevent them taking everything and why make their job easier in doing so?

You do realize, if Parker is upheld by SCOTUS, there will never be a basis for infringement of the 2nd Amendment short of a Constitutional Convention.



There is no argument as those who ingore history are doomed to repeat it. Hitler confiscated guns and he did it through registration. The US is a very young country and every civilized nation on earth has gone through either a major civil war, or war on its own turf, at least once per 150 years.

We are due for one - civil war, or an attack from any number of countries pissed off at us right now. Registering our guns would just help our own government or possibly even another government toward the path of least resistance. And when that happens, a piece of paper saying the 2nd amendment can't be questioned will be easily ignored.

You should stock up on lots of Tin Foil... but for some reason I have the feeling you already have.

Sam Hainn
03-30-2007, 4:55 PM
You're clearly confused. SKS's were never confiscated. There was a buy-back and if you have one of the ones that would be illegal, you had to give it up for destruction or sell it out of state. THERE WAS NO CONFISCATION USING LISTS OF ANY KIND!!!

Sorry - some individuals were contacted directly - I know this for fact as I was personally contacted. No, they didn't come to my door - it was highly suggested I get rid of the gun or sell it back. With NO choice, that's confiscation with passivity.

M96s were indeed confiscated in small number, those sold by one retailer, and were returned. They were never registered. *** There was never "a list" of registered owners and they never confiscated them using such a list. They had records from an individual dealer and used those to confiscate. The DOJ also learned a valuable lesson too.

*** That's what I wrote - I was comparing 4473 & DROS in cooperation with the dealer to similarities of registration, and yet how much easier it will be with registration - there will be no need for tracking down and matching up files - they'll simply open a file and show up on your door-step.

You're making up facts by distorting the history of the situation and using them to further your belief.

No, read what I wrote closely - nothing is being made up, as I wrote it, is how it happened, even if for just a few cases - besides, you just said the same thing I said, rearranging it.

Please show me where a registration list or NFA list was used in America to confiscate firearms.

It will be, eventually, to a higher degree - but to patronize you, the 4473 & Dealers Record of Sale is a type of regisrtation, and therefore, the 4473 & DROS was used to track down M96 owners.

You do realize, if Parker is upheld by SCOTUS, there will never be a basis for infringement of the 2nd Amendment short of a Constitutional Convention.

I hope that piece of paper is as stong as the original piece of paper that it honors and also can't be questioned. I also hope SCOTUS writes their determination on Scotts towels! Strong stuff you know!

I hope a future government is as forgiving as our current government and honors that paper as well as they honored the 2nd amendment. I hope Hillary is not elected.

You should stock up on lots of Tin Foil... but for some reason I have the feeling you already have.

I have! So when they ban lead bullets, I'll have a good supply of soft metal alloy to make bullets. :D

mblat
03-30-2007, 9:04 PM
You do realize, if Parker is upheld by SCOTUS, there will never be a basis for infringement of the 2nd Amendment short of a Constitutional Convention.

OR SCOTUS reversing previos desicion. Not like that never happend before....

xenophobe
03-30-2007, 9:21 PM
No, read what I wrote closely - nothing is being made up, as I wrote it, is how it happened, even if for just a few cases - besides, you just said the same thing I said, rearranging it.

I did and you are misrepresenting the fact and have altered it to appear to be more than it was. There was no registration, no list and no use of a registration list to confiscate firearms.

No SKS's were confiscated due to any registration or list.

No M96's were confiscated due to any registration or list. A list was compiled by looking through the dealer's records, which is a great deal different to having a a list of registered firearms to confiscate.


It will be, eventually, to a higher degree - but to patronize you, the 4473 & Dealers Record of Sale is a type of regisrtation, and therefore, the 4473 & DROS was used to track down M96 owners.

Yes, and that is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst.


I hope that piece of paper is as stong as the original piece of paper that it honors and also can't be questioned. I also hope SCOTUS writes their determination on Scotts towels! Strong stuff you know!

I hope a future government is as forgiving as our current government and honors that paper as well as they honored the 2nd amendment. I hope Hillary is not elected.

And no matter what, unless 4473's are actually collected and a master list created, it is not registration. Registration is directly informing the government of your firearm make, type and serial number and put in an immediately accessible form so that they can look you up and know what you have.

This is not the case with long arms in California, or the rest of the US.

fatirishman
03-31-2007, 6:58 AM
I may be incorrect - and I am familiar with Volokh's argument - but Munsingwear isn't automatic since we are out of appeals by right and into discretionary appeals. For it to apply, a court would have to grant an appeal in order to vacate the judgement: any court that would do that is obviously quite hostile anyway. Like I said, there are other counter doctrines (subject to repitition, yet evading review - historically an abortion precedent, but capable of manipulation). The important thing is that the courts can, within bounds, do what they want: people on gun forums should know that better than anyone - we've seen 70 years of "shall not be infringed" turned into "government can do whatever it wants". So, I stand by my earlier statement.

P.S. Please don't misunderstand me: I want SCOTUS cert. for this case. I think it is the best shot we're gonna have for a while, both because the facts are very favorable and because I frankly don't see the court moving in our direction in the near future, in terms of composition (or, for that matter, precedent). But, I don't think that there is a legal imperative to vacate this case, even if the law is changed. (And I really don't want to get into the other Munsingwear req's, because the facts surrounding repeal of the ban are sufficiently weird - sorry, unique - that determining fault of mootness makes my head hurt).

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 8:57 AM
fatirishman,

If you look at later cases that cite Munsingwear, it is clear that if there is still a possible appeal and its mooted not by appellant's actions, then the case is vacated. Alan Gura who is lead counsel for Parker et al states clearly that the case would be mooted and he would know.

Back more on topic, Chris Cox of the NRA is quoted as saying that NRA wasn't involved in the DC Ban repeal rider on the DC Voting Rights act (which is probably unconstitutional anyway..)
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003786.php

-Gene

fatirishman
03-31-2007, 2:36 PM
I disagree, but for our purposes what seems to be the majority view can control.

artherd
03-31-2007, 10:29 PM
Parker does NOT bless registration. At best, after the end of the ruling, there is ditca that says that "maybe" registration is legal. That's a damn big 'maybe.'

If I am starving, and a whole loaf of steaming french bread falls into my lap, I'm not going to toss the whole loaf because one corner has a tiny burn mark on it.

I'm going to eat the damn loaf!

tygerpaw
04-01-2007, 5:39 PM
I don't like registration either, but I would rather be able to buy whatever firearm I want and have to register it at purchase as long as we hava a SCOTUS precedent that clarifies unequivacally that citizens in good standing have the right to keep and bear them. If the local government is corrupt, they will confiscate if they want to anyway (like New Orleans), but they'll be violating our rights and we would have relief with the feds.

chris
04-01-2007, 9:13 PM
i will never agree to confiscation no matter what gun i can have. registration leads to confication and that is a FACT. the RKBA is has nothing to do with registration.

if we have registration it will only be a matter of time before someone decides to confiscate our weapons in the name of peace or security. yeah sure. remember hillary is running for pres do you trust her? i sure as hell don't. oh yeah remember the UN? they want our guns too.

so forget registration. i would love to have the registration of what firearms i own destroyed and all copies of them too.

registration of weapons is bad news for this coutnry.

hoffmang
04-01-2007, 9:48 PM
I personally don't favor registration but I do have a question to consider.

Voters are registered and I haven't seen us confiscated yet... Granted it has something to do with owning arms, but...

-Gene

xenophobe
04-01-2007, 10:08 PM
I personally don't favor registration but I do have a question to consider.

Voters are registered and I haven't seen us confiscated yet... Granted it has something to do with owning arms, but...


Many firearms have been registered in the US for over 80 years now... So, perhaps registration does not lead to confiscation, in our lifetimes, or our children's or....

And how long have vehicles, airplanes and boats been required to be registered?

hoffmang
04-01-2007, 10:45 PM
Boat registration has existed since at least the 16th Century...

Admiralty law is some of the very oldest.

I still don't like it for firearms, but I've had to think longer and harder about it in historical context.

-Gene

bwiese
04-01-2007, 11:16 PM
Registration becomes trivial data if RKBA ensconced and guaranteed.

Since a huge fraction of population will have "he owns guns" in some data file, it'll become noise for a practical purpose.

With 200 million guns in a country of 300 million it's administratively difficult a not worthwhile.

If these such registrations would then be used to seize guns, it means the constitution has completely fallen and it's time to use them on those coming to the front door.

Can'thavenuthingood
04-02-2007, 7:46 AM
They won't come to get them all at once.
It will be 1 caliber at a time.
1 part at a time will be made ilegal.
1 scary looking sticky outy thingy at a time.

Policy regarding 'safety' and for 'the children' trumps individual rights.

We are registered to vote and we are not yet confiscated?
Have you looked at your end of the year tax totals apart from your income tax?

Vick

FreedomIsNotFree
04-02-2007, 9:25 AM
NRA still has the site up asking members to support S. 1001 and H.R. 1399.
http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx

As written, both of these bills will moot Parker v. DC. If you want to see Parker reach the SCOTUS these bills must not be passed as they stand now.

I believe it would be prudent for the NRA to stop supporting these bills until we are 100% sure there will be no conflict with Parker. I called them last week and had a good conversation with one of the Grass Roots workers. He said he would pass along my concerns, but that I was the first to raise that concern to them.

I suggest everyone that is interested in this issue to give them a call and kindly let them know how you stand. Be pleasant.

800-392-8683 - Grassroots Hotline
Option 3 gives takes you to voicemail.
Option 4 gives you live person.