TexasCHLforum.com

Mother Jones wrote: MJ: In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, you wrote of repeated attempts by the NRA to derail your litigation. What form did these attempts take and why would the nation’s foremost gun lobby work against litigation that was clearly in line with its interests?

RL: I want to know too. I don’t know the answer to that, but relationships have been smoothed and we are working with the NRA now. The NRA says that they support the Parker litigation and don’t intend to do anything that would derail the litigation. They have said that they think it ought to go to the Supreme Court and that it ought to win. And I am willing to accept their words as gospel until I have reason to believe otherwise.

MJ: You say relationships have been smoothed? What were the disputes?

RL: In 2002, when we first contemplated this suit, their emissaries came to me to try to dissuade me from filing the suit. The asserted reason was they thought it was a good suit and had a good chance of winning. Therefore, it would likely go to the Supreme Court and they didn’t think they had sufficient horsepower in the Supreme Court. They didn’t want to take that gamble.

We didn’t buy that argument because we thought by the time the suit went up to the Supreme Court, the court would look a lot better. We were right. The substitution of Justice Alito for Justice O’Connor is a step in the right direction for those who believe in gun rights. The court looks better than it is going to look for a while with the likely Democratic administration.

MJ: What is the timeline for this case as it heads to Supreme Court?

RL: A petition for the case to be reheard before the full judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court has been filed. If it gets granted, that’s going to add another three to six months onto the case because a lot depends on whether there is going to be a new briefing or whether they are going to use the existing briefs. There are a whole lot of imponderables there. If it doesn’t get granted or if the court doesn’t vote to rehear the case, then the petition to file cert (a document that the losing party files asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by a lower court) will be filed and ruled on over the summer. That means the Supreme Court will hear the case sometime after October of this year and would probably decide the case between January and June of 2008.

MJ: Are you certified to go before the Supreme Court?

RL: Yes, I’m a member of the Supreme Court bar.

MJ: So, you’ll be taking it all the way?

RL: That’s our intent. And we have a very good chance. I think that it is very unlikely that five justices on the Supreme Court are going to say that the Second Amendment means nothing. That’s what they would have to say to uphold the total ban on handguns that exists in Washington D.C.

ElGato wrote:I don't see '' derail '' in that interview, to me it read's more like a disagreement in the game plan or which play to call.

jimlongley wrote:

ElGato wrote:I don't see '' derail '' in that interview, to me it read's more like a disagreement in the game plan or which play to call.

I don't see much "actively" in there either.

jbirds1210 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

ElGato wrote:I don't see '' derail '' in that interview, to me it read's more like a disagreement in the game plan or which play to call.

I don't see much "actively" in there either.

I must agree with you guys......I just didn't get "derail" out of anything in that article.
Jason

Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city's gun ban — holding that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there's no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.

Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Incredible.

When asked to clarify the NRA's position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, "You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker."

Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA's aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge "felon in possession" charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress. And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it's been for some time, and probably more conservative than it's going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

Meanwhile, if Congress wants to help, there are positive things it can do. D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can't be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.

Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.

My colleagues and I have drafted alternative legislation — now in the hands of selected senators —that accomplishes those objectives and more, without extinguishing the Parker suit.

Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is "must" legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?

seamusTX wrote:The danger of the Parker case is that the Supreme Court could uphold D.C.'s position. That would be a disaster, opening the way for any jurisdiction to ban any type of weapon.

KBCraig wrote:

seamusTX wrote:The danger of the Parker case is that the Supreme Court could uphold D.C.'s position. That would be a disaster, opening the way for any jurisdiction to ban any type of weapon.

The "wrong" ruling wouldn't change a thing. Nowhere in the U.S. is the 2nd truly treated as an inalienable, fundamental, individual right.

The jurisdictions which don't ban guns now would be very unlikely to start. Those that would ban guns already do.

The worst downside of upholding the DC position would be status quo for almost everywhere.

KBCraig wrote:The "wrong" ruling wouldn't change a thing.