NRA actively fought to suppress DC Gun Suit

[KBCraig]

The "wrong" ruling wouldn't change a thing.

I think it would depend upon how the SCOTUS reversed the D.C. District Court ruling. If they reversed it on some technical grounds, calling for a rehearing, that wouldn't be so bad.

In Parker, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and thus the total DC ban on ownership or possession of handguns, and the ban on possession of long guns in a ready state, was unconstitutional.

The ruling did allow for "reasonable restrictions". The highly restrictive laws of Maryland, Chicago, or NYC would have passed muster, since they're not total bans. Think about that before cheering the ruling too loudly.

Kevin

[seamusTX]

The Supreme Court has never (to my knowledge) stated clearly that the RKBA is an individual right, like freedom of speech or the right to vote. When they have overturned "gun control" laws, it was on some technical basis like overextending the commerce clause.

I think it would be a big gain to have them say it once and for all.

Chicago has laws similar to D.C., complete prohibition of handguns acquired after some date in the 1970s.

In many localities, residents need the permission of the police chief or sheriff to buy a handgun, and they can be denied for any or no reason.

Depending upon the wording of the final ruling, those restrictions could also be ended.

Knowing what I do about the Supreme Court, though, I would expect them to uphold Parker on the narrowest grounds possible.

- Jim

[RPBrown]

I have to agree with Tomneal on this.

If we were to win big, it could and very likely would cause a stir in the anti's to try to have the 2A repealed. With the 08 elections looming, do we want to push the issue?

[Liberty]

Robert Levy is not a "True Beliver" in the right to keep and bear arms. Win or lose, his life will continue unchanged.

Robert Levy is a true believer in the constitution and what it was intended to mean. He is not about just guns but about basic human rights in the United States.

Most of the folks in the NRA Leadership and reading this post are "True Belivers".

I'm not sure what they believe in. I don''t believe that the NRA has won a constitutional battle in 70 years. We now have a clear conservative majority in the court. For now !! We even have th ACLU on our side in this case. Yet the NRA is wary because we might actually win on this one. Is this why the NRA and TSRA backed away from Libertarian candidates last year?

Either a big loss or a big win could affect 2nd Amendment rights for our children and grand children. The leadership at the NRA is going to be very careful in any case apealed to the the supreme court becuase they are in it for the long run.

The NRA isn't going to have anything to do with this case. They are irrelevent from the sounds of it they are very much afraid to push on. Battles aren't won by the timid.

Alan Korwin is a 2nd Amendment writer. He speculated that if Levy pushes the 2nd as a Fundamental right, we could loose even if we win. The right to vote is a Fundamental right and is very difficult to restrict because of it. If we win big and the court says that the 2nd is a fundmental right. Nearly all gun laws would quickly become null & void. When us sheep dogs start carrying openly the sheep will start bleeting. They may bleet so loud that there is a chance that a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd could pass.

We don't want the Supreme court to get out in front of local, state, and federal lawmakers. That's one of the reasons that Roe v Wade is still being argued, 30 years later. The court jumped too far ahead.

If I am correct, the argument you present is that the NRA doesn't believe that the United States isn't ready to accept the 2nd ammendment? This sounds a like a very Brady argument.

We want the public to catch up with us, on our knowledge of the 2nd.
We know that concealed carry laws lower crime and do not cause "blood to run in the streets".
We know that gun laws protect crminals and don't reduce crime.

If the NRA hasn't been able to educate the public in all these years ... I don't believe they ever will.

If we win too big, it could hurt us in the long run.

It is thinking like this is why the NRA in the national arena has pretty much lost ground in the last 70 years. Winners are not afraid of winning.

Speculation from others:
A couple of folks in other descussions have implied that the NRA leadership want to stop Parker because they could loose their jobs.
This is wrong.
Win, lose, or draw there will be plenty of full time jobs protection the 2nd for many years to come.

I don't believe it is about jobs. It is about relevancy.
They would be embarrassed that the first constitutional victory wasn't won by them.
They might be afraid that once this major battle is won, it might be harder to get memberships. Surely some members, even now, must be wondering why they are paying dues, when their organization isn't on the forefront of this battle.

[Liberty]

I have to agree with Tomneal on this.

If we were to win big, it could and very likely would cause a stir in the anti's to try to have the 2A repealed. With the 08 elections looming, do we want to push the issue?

I am sure they might try, but I think we credit the exteme leftys with to much power and numbers to percieve them as that big of a threat.
Contitutional ammendments a hard . Very hard. There are too many of us to ever allow that to happen. We will never win if we are afraid of our own success.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Either a big loss or a big win could affect 2nd Amendment rights for our children and grand children. The leadership at the NRA is going to be very careful in any case apealed to the the supreme court becuase they are in it for the long run.

The NRA isn't going to have anything to do with this case. They are irrelevent from the sounds of it they are very much afraid to push on. Battles aren't won by the timid.

The NRA is heavily involved in the case. I know, I'm involved. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is also involved. I know, I'm on the Board of Trustees as well. I have no earthly idea what makes you believe the NRA is not a major player. Read the Parker decision, the NRA brief in Parker, the Seegars decision, and the NRA brief in Seegars, then tell me the NRA wasn't involved.

It's obvious from other posts that you were a Libertarian candidate for some office in Galveston County. It's equally obvious that you are mad at both the TSRA and the NRA for not supporting you and/or listing you in the candidate guides. That's fine. It's also fine if someone doesn't agree with an NRA or TSRA position on an issue, or the tactics we use. Reasonable minds can differ even when they are on the same side of an issue.

However, you are not stating an opinion, you purport to be giving facts that are utterly wrong. If you want to keep telling us how much you don't like or agree with the NRA or TSRA then fine, keep doing it. But I'm not about to let you keep posting blatantly false allegations of alleged "facts" without a response. I will not, however, violate my promise to keep critical information quiet unil after this case is over.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

We now have a clear conservative majority in the court.

We certainly didn't when the Parker case was filed four years ago! In fact, a Second Amendment case was a clear, hands-down loser. Even now, it's not a clear winner. You seem to forget that "conservative" justices typically vote to in support of governmental authroity, not against it.

Yet the NRA is wary because we might actually win on this one.

This is garbage and you know it.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Alan Korwin is a 2nd Amendment writer. He speculated that if Levy pushes the 2nd as a Fundamental right, we could loose even if we win. The right to vote is a Fundamental right and is very difficult to restrict because of it. If we win big and the court says that the 2nd is a fundmental right. Nearly all gun laws would quickly become null & void. When us sheep dogs start carrying openly the sheep will start bleeting. They may bleet so loud that there is a chance that a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd could pass.

We don't want the Supreme court to get out in front of local, state, and federal lawmakers. That's one of the reasons that Roe v Wade is still being argued, 30 years later. The court jumped too far ahead.

If I am correct, the argument you present is that the NRA doesn't believe that the United States isn't ready to accept the 2nd ammendment? This sounds a like a very Brady argument.

Learn the difference between a "right" and a "fundamental right" and perhaps you will understand what Mr. Korwin fears. He is correct, but the concern has nothing to do with the states "accept[ing] the Second Amendment." It has everything to do with the effect of a constitutional right being held to be a "fundamental" right.

If the NRA hasn't been able to educate the public in all these years ... I don't believe they ever will.

Castle Doctrine passed in Texas by an overwhelming majoirty, as it did in many other states. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. Emergency Powers restrictions passed at the federal level by a large majority, as it did in Texas and many other states. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. Concealed carry laws have been marching across the nation for over a decade. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. The Legal Commerce in Arms Act passed at the federal level and now stops politically motivated lawsuits whose only purpose is to drive manufacturers out of business. Similar anti-lawsuit laws have been passed in many states, including Texas. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. The overwhelming response to the Virginia Tech shootings by the general public is to support campus-carry by CHL's. This response is astounding and is the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. The Clinton Gun Ban a/k/a assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials.

If we win too big, it could hurt us in the long run.

It is thinking like this is why the NRA in the national arena has pretty much lost ground in the last 70 years. Winners are not afraid of winning.

Tell us specifically what the NRA has lost in the last 70 years. Not general or global statement, but specifics. Then, I'll tell you what we have accomplished and we can see whose list is longer.

Chas.

[Liberty]

We now have a clear conservative majority in the court.

We certainly didn't when the Parker case was filed four years ago! In fact, a Second Amendment case was a clear, hands-down loser. Even now, it's not a clear winner. You seem to forget that "conservative" justices typically vote to in support of governmental authroity, not against it.

Yet the NRA is wary because we might actually win on this one.

This is garbage and you know it.

Chas.

I am not convinced it was a clear loser. I do believe that we will never win if we don't challenge or even try. That it is not that clear to me that we would have lost it 4 years ago. You are correct in that it does seem lately that our biggest allies seem to be those with a liberal social bent, such as libertarians and ACLU.

My comment about the NRA being afraid of winning this one is based on some of defenses I've seen for the NRA's behavior.

That if we win Parker, that the repercussions could cause a constitutional amendment backlash? To me the acknowledgement and full acceptance of the 2nd amendment and the RKBA is our primary goal. It does seem to me that the NRA has kept distant from its allies in the Libertarian Party. I believe there is some professional jealousy going and that the NRA would rather lose than let the libertarians take credit for a victory.

I also believe that if we win, that the NRA would/should be embarrassed. Lets face it this one guy is doing more with his own dime for RKBA constitutional law than the NRA has done with 4 million members at 25 bucks apiece. I don't think its unusual for huge corporate identities to be afraid of success, and their reaction to Parker isn't one of embracing success. So perhaps it may seem like garbage to some members of the NRA, but from where I stand I see the NRA cheering & hoping that Parker fails either before at at the SCOTUS hearing.

[Liberty]

It is thinking like this is why the NRA in the national arena has pretty much lost ground in the last 70 years. Winners are not afraid of winning.

Tell us specifically what the NRA has lost in the last 70 years. Not general or global statement, but specifics. Then, I'll tell you what we have accomplished and we can see whose list is longer.

Chas.

Well, 71 years ago we lost the right to own machine guns and Sawed off shotguns without a ridiculously expensive tax/stamp. I can't find anywhere on the second amendment where the Feds have a right to to restrict these.

30 years ago we lost the right to purchase guns through mail and catalog sales.

about 15 years ago we got the Brady/Bill and some restrictions that prohibited mean looking guns, we did get to buy our mean looking guns with high capacity mags. Again but the precedent has been set. Oh yeah we got the NICs check. These things chipped away the 2nd amendment and were a result of the NRA compromises. On a National scale we surely have lost a lot more than we have gained.

I admit I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even an Constitutional expert. I'm just a 55 year guy who through my whole life has watched Congress and the courts piddle away our 2nd amendment rights. While the NRA keeps bragging about what a wonderful job it has done. Last Year the TSRA refused to even acknowledge Candidates who backed the RKBA unconditionally when they were running against those who only supported RKBA when it was convenient or popular. I see them now with attempts to sabotage the one court case that we stand a chance of getting the Supreme Court admit that the Right to bear arms is an individual and fundimental right.

You and others can list accomplishments a mile long, and while we have made some progress locally. at a federal level I can't believe that the anyone believes that 2nd ammendment hasn't been watered down in the last 70 years.

`nuff said.
I have said about all i have to say on this, and I think I'm quiting before I get a whole bunch of people mad at me and locking the thread for others to speak up.

[Liberty]

Either a big loss or a big win could affect 2nd Amendment rights for our children and grand children. The leadership at the NRA is going to be very careful in any case apealed to the the supreme court becuase they are in it for the long run.

The NRA isn't going to have anything to do with this case. They are irrelevent from the sounds of it they are very much afraid to push on. Battles aren't won by the timid.

The NRA is heavily involved in the case. I know, I'm involved. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is also involved. I know, I'm on the Board of Trustees as well. I have no earthly idea what makes you believe the NRA is not a major player. Read the Parker decision, the NRA brief in Parker, the Seegars decision, and the NRA brief in Seegars, then tell me the NRA wasn't involved.

It's obvious from other posts that you were a Libertarian candidate for some office in Galveston County. It's equally obvious that you are mad at both the TSRA and the NRA for not supporting you and/or listing you in the candidate guides. That's fine. It's also fine if someone doesn't agree with an NRA or TSRA position on an issue, or the tactics we use. Reasonable minds can differ even when they are on the same side of an issue.

However, you are not stating an opinion, you purport to be giving facts that are utterly wrong. If you want to keep telling us how much you don't like or agree with the NRA or TSRA then fine, keep doing it. But I'm not about to let you keep posting blatantly false allegations of alleged "facts" without a response. I will not, however, violate my promise to keep critical information quiet unil after this case is over.

Chas.

I will accept that I am wrong when i state that NRA wasn't involved. I was aware the brief that was submitted in the case. I did consider it very minor and incidental. Apparently a lot of the language used in the formal decision was that of the ACLU. Your statement is the first that I've heard that there is continual involvement, and cooperaration I have read about the attempted sabotage by the NRA to submit a bill (D.C. Personal Protection Act) which would have the effect of sabotaging the progress of the case. It all makes sense now why Mr. Levy has backed off on his statements on the NRA.

Yeah, yeah I know I said I was going to lay off this thread .. but I thought owed an explanation. for real this time.

[Venus Pax]

It has been years since I've cracked a history book (bad teacher!), but correct me if I'm wrong...
Isn't it EXTREMELY difficult to overturn one of the first ten amendments?

I think I remember reading this in high school or college, but I've definitely slept since then.

[lrb111]

Yep, takes an act of Congress....












if I hadn't said it would have been some other doofus.

[Venus Pax]

Yep, takes an act of Congress....

Smart (ten-year-old daughter rule) alec.

[GoCodeBravo]

There's one thing that seems to be missing: gun rights do not exist because of the Bill of Rights, gun rights were simply emphasized ("guaranteed" is a better word) as being very important. This particular angle of a "guarantee" is something that is almost entirely lost on the public at large, not just on the right to self defense (including gun rights, of course) but laws in general. Most of us assume that if a law is not written that "allows" or "permits" an act or course of action, that it must be illegal. The whole system has been bastardized and turned on it's head. Not sure how we got here, but we better start pushing back before it's too late. New laws mostly serve to restrict acts that often times harm no fellow citizen or possession thereof.

I wish I could recall the wisdom of some writer in the past that refers to the founding fathers, or someone of their time that said (grossly para-phrasing): "when the laws of a state/nation, are so complex that the citizens do not understand them, or run afoul of them with no ill intent (i.e. no victim, merely a technical infraction), then they have a duty to cast off those that wrote the laws, or otherwise ignore them, or in an extreme case, replace the entire system of government." Kind of harkens back to the Federalist Papers and the segway to the Declaration of Independence, doesn't it???