PDA

View Full Version : NRA Cash Request on Heller case


DRH
09-11-2007, 5:07 PM
xyz

bwiese
09-11-2007, 5:22 PM
Some corrections are necessary.

NRA was originally worried about Parker because the composition of the court was different. Bringing up Parker then vs now is a whole different thing.

NRA did NOT try to moot Parker, that was GOA-spread misinformation. Yes, there was some proposed legislation that had a life of its own but that was not tied in with Parker. IT WAS PULLED, and Chris Cox of NRA has specifcally said to people I trust that "...NRA will do nothing to moot Parker"

NRA has links to a great team of attorneys that can really help, and there's like more financial muscle available from the NRA than from Cato. The current lawyers are a small team and 'fleshing out' the team further would be in our interests. Remember that we are going up against whole *layers* of government paid for by tax dollars.

This ain't a scam. The money WILL go to Parker/Heller-related activities. Too much is not enough.

This call to arms might not have been necessary if Gary Gorski & crew hadn't filed the near-disastrous Silviera case a couple of years ago: NRA spent upwards of ~$1.5Mil to fend off pure disaster.

CCWFacts
09-11-2007, 5:32 PM
Here's the letter I got from them about this:

http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/4401.page

I don't know enough to understand this stuff, but if you say that the NRA is on board with this, that's good enough for me.

This call to arms might not have been necessary if Gary Gorski & crew hadn't filed the near-disastrous Silviera case a couple of years ago: NRA spent upwards of ~$1.5Mil to fend off pure disaster.

And now this same Mr. Gorski is getting himself involved in CCW.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

A solo practitioner who usually takes employment cases, has no secretary and copies and collates his own briefs at Kinko's

This guy is effectively a pro se plaintiff who happens to have been to law school. And he knows that he's right, no matter what the facts are, no matter what information anyone presents to him. People like that do more harm to us than the Brady Campaign's legal team could do.

CCWFacts
09-11-2007, 6:14 PM
I (a non-lawyer) don't understand how Mr. Heller could have standing if that law passed. If Heller could have gotten a permit, then he has nothing to complain about. Likewise if the others could have assembled / functional long guns, the court doesn't have any work to do, so the case would be tossed. At least that's how I understand it, in my non-lawyer clueless way. It seems like courts enjoy throwing away cases when there isn't standing, which makes sense. Standing requires an injury of some kind. The plaintiffs were complaining of the injury of deprivation of the right to keep arms. If the law passed and they suddenly could keep (functional) arms, there is no injury, and therefore, no standing.

If anyone could further my legal education by demolishing my logic here please do so.

CCWFacts
09-11-2007, 6:32 PM
'Zounds! "Introduction of these bills poses no threat in itself to the Parker litigation." Ouch. Introduction is fine so long as they don't pass. They should have stated that clearly in the letter, and also should have clearly stated, "The NRA will not let these bills pass until the Parker case is finally resolved."