NRA survey re: Chicago case

[putput]

There’s another way to look at this. Right now MAIG and LCAV and the Brady Campaign are out there pounding the ground using a Frank Luntz “Poll” that says that even Gun Owners and NRA Members support reasonable gun restrictions.

The best way for the NRA to fight back on these things is to create a poll, and I’m looking specifically at questions 2 and 3, that creates another message. The “give money now” thing is the par for the course with the NRA.

It’s about controlling the message about what is acceptable to the constituents of a powerful lobby.

[Liberty Rules]

For those of you who would question the NRA's response pasted above, go and read the transcript of the SCOTUS oral arguments. They can be downloaded in pdf. Read them and be informed on the subject.

[freonr22]

thank you Liberty

[dantodd]

Relying unsuccessfully on that argument would have been a disaster for gun owners. Instead, we focused on asking the Court to apply the Second Amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--the avenue by which nearly every other provision of the Bill of Rights has been applied.

To make sure the Due Process issue was fully argued to the Supreme Court, we retained former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who asked for time at oral argument to address the Due Process issue. The Court granted our request, over Mr. Gura's objections.

This is "The Big Lie" to which I alluded earlier.

While Alan Gura did brief on, and believe in PorI there is no reason to believe that he was going to hang his hat solely on that option for incorporation. The time granted to Mr. Clement was also taken away from Gura. There is no way to know how much time Gura would have dedicated to Due Process had he not lost 1/3 of his time in orals. Knowing that Mr. Clement's clients opposed PorI incorporation and that he would brief solely on DP it would have been foolish for Gura to also brief extensively on DP. That is the only reason Gura didn't brief DP at all in orals and why the transcripts read as they do.

[Liberty Rules]

This is "The Big Lie" to which I alluded earlier.

I'm a big Gura fan, I've heard him lecture and I've spoken to him in person. I've read the McDonald transcripts, read the full opinion, read the main briefs, practiced law for 19 years, and I find your statement to be a gross exaggeration; you rely on pure speculation as to Gura's motives for his arguments and to support your beliefs. Gura is a very capable attorney and he did not make the claims about NRA that you are making. He told me in person that, after NRA's initial reluctance to take up the Heller cause to Scotus, the NRA was very helpful and supportive.

The transcripts speak for themselves. I encourage people to read them.

Here is a link to the full transcript of the oral arguments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

[HowardW56]

Their BS fund raising in high gear

[Wherryj]

http://www.nrahq.org/chicagosurvey/default.asp?st=1&ek=Y0JWHOSC&mid=177034547

If I'm missing something here, let me know. In any case, like Tom Gresham said on his radio show, he's mad about the NRA not giving credit for McDonald where credit is due, but realizes that we have to keep supporting them because they are on our side, too. I replied in an email back to Wayne that the NRA needs to give credit to the SAF for both McDonald and the current cases against Chicago, and gave him the "united we stand, divided we fall" axiom.

If I had the choice, I'd rather that Mr. Gura took the lead.

[Shiboleth]

I'm a big Gura fan, I've heard him lecture and I've spoken to him in person. I've read the McDonald transcripts, read the full opinion, read the main briefs, practiced law for 19 years, and I find your statement to be a gross exaggeration; you rely on pure speculation as to Gura's motives for his arguments and to support your beliefs. Gura is a very capable attorney and he did not make the claims about NRA that you are making. He told me in person that, after NRA's initial reluctance to take up the Heller cause to Scotus, the NRA was very helpful and supportive.

The transcripts speak for themselves. I encourage people to read them.

Here is a link to the full transcript of the oral arguments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

The transcripts speak to what was actually said, not what Gura wanted to be said. He has stated that he had his own due process argument that he was going to put forward without NRA interference.

I can't speak to what was or wasn't said to you personally, however Gura has been openly critical of the NRA's role in the suit. If he thought they were helpful and supportive, the NRA likely wouldn't find the need to point out that their arguments were included "over Mr. Gura's objetions".

[dantodd]

I'm a big Gura fan, I've heard him lecture and I've spoken to him in person. I've read the McDonald transcripts, read the full opinion, read the main briefs, practiced law for 19 years, and I find your statement to be a gross exaggeration; you rely on pure speculation as to Gura's motives for his arguments and to support your beliefs. Gura is a very capable attorney and he did not make the claims about NRA that you are making.

I can only tell you what I have personally seen and read including from Gura himself. If you are saying that you have asked Alan and he said that he had no intention of briefing DP at all then that is news and contrary to other things I have heard him say in the past.

He told me in person that, after NRA's initial reluctance to take up the Heller cause to Scotus, the NRA was very helpful and supportive.

I have no clue what relevance this has to the question at hand.

The transcripts speak for themselves. I encourage people to read them.

Here is a link to the full transcript of the oral arguments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

As I said, of course Gura didn't address DP, Mr. Clements was give 1/3 of the total time and was specifically addressing DP. It would be a foolish waste of time to argue the same issues that another capable attorney was already addressing.

[Maestro Pistolero]

As I said, of course Gura didn't address DP, Mr. Clements was give 1/3 of the total time and was specifically addressing DP.

It was addressed more than well enough in his brief, and when ask, Gura replied he would be very happy for the Justices to incorporate via DP. If the case hadn't been so well made for POR incorporation, then Thomas wouldn't have had nearly as much to hang his hat on. Justice Thomas, as we know, used POR to incorporate.

[Blackhawk556]

Can someone post the video of gura at the GRPC this year?
In that lecture he talks about this very issue

I'm not home so I can't post from phone.

[freonr22]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=346252

eta, there is quite a few...

[command_liner]

Although I do not know Gura personally, I have spoken to him three
times on this issue, and have listened to him talk a few times on this
issue.

On the other hand, the head of legal research at the NRA was my
roommate in college, and is my frat brother.

So I have repeated, direct, first-person information. The NRA and
Gura/SAF are all fighting the same fight, but not always with the
same tools or the same immediate goals. Think of the Marines and
the Air Force, but without a commander in chief or a joint chiefs
of staff. There is some friction amongst the team. Some of that
friction is real, and some of it is pure entertainment, red meat for
the other side.

The other side, our enemies, really like to play up, exaggerate and
distort the friction. Let them. They will loose anyway. Do not be
distracted by the loosers when we are winning.

[hoffmang]

I'm a big Gura fan, I've heard him lecture and I've spoken to him in person. I've read the McDonald transcripts, read the full opinion, read the main briefs, practiced law for 19 years, and I find your statement to be a gross exaggeration; you rely on pure speculation as to Gura's motives for his arguments and to support your beliefs. Gura is a very capable attorney and he did not make the claims about NRA that you are making. He told me in person that, after NRA's initial reluctance to take up the Heller cause to Scotus, the NRA was very helpful and supportive.

The transcripts speak for themselves. I encourage people to read them.

Here is a link to the full transcript of the oral arguments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

Let's imagine you'd decided to split argument with Respondents in Support of Petitioners and in that agreement you and your co-counsel decided that one should take one important argument and the other should take the other. Then the other counsel goes and wines to the court that you're not presenting their side of the case (which was the actual agreement.)

I'd also point something very important out. How do you count to 5 without Justice Thomas' Privileges or Immunities concurrence?

Due Process Incorporation was always a slam dunk. P or I was required to keep Thomas. If you don't believe me, go read Thomas in Raich. He's non deterministic and follows the law whether he likes it or not.

-Gene

[ke6guj]

Let's imagine you'd decided to split argument with Respondents in Support of Petitioners and in that agreement you and your co-counsel decided that one should take one important argument and the other should take the other. Then the other counsel goes and wines to the court that you're not presenting their side of the case (which was the actual agreement.)

this, if true, is playing Dirty Pool. I've heard this scenario mentioned before on how it went down.