Responding to Clement's remarks, Gura said, "The suggestion that I wouldn't present all the arguments to the Court was uncalled for." Gura added, "I hope that this time Paul understands that handgun bans are unconstitutional." As solicitor general in 2007, Clement filed a brief in the Heller case arguing that the D.C. handgun ban warranted heightened scrutiny but was not necessarily unconstitutional and should be remanded to lower courts for more review. [More]NRA tried to horn in on Heller and Gura didn't want them. Now they've horned in on McDonald and Gura doesn't want them. And they keep picking representatives with no core loyalties.
A telling comment at Volokh Conspiracy:
Do you understand that lawyers are advocates?Yeah, we understand that.
Do you understand that a man of principle would have quit first?
[Via Mack H]
I wonder if NRA members think their money (50 large) is being well-spent?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Gura is right. The 2nd Amendment says so, as does the 14th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAs amendments to the Constitution they both overrule anything to the contrary that might be found in the body of the 1787 Constitution.
The second Amendment acknowledges the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the 14th Amendment makes this recognized right applicable to the states under the privileges and immunities clause.
The feds are quaking in their boots because if the SCOTUS rightly acknowledges that the 2nd Amendment is recognized in the privileges and immunities clause as the congress, the states and the people intended when they ratified the 14th to begin with, the BATFU will be out of a job and Lautenberg and his cronies will have to get an honest job, if they have any skills other than lying for a living.
[W-III]
More back stabbing from nra, "fighting for your rights", what a crock! The nra quislings don't understand "shall not be infringed" any more than the jbt's, black robed dictators, or Fudds.
ReplyDeleteThe feds are quaking in their boots because if the SCOTUS rightly acknowledges that the 2nd Amendment is recognized in the privileges and immunities clause as the congress, the states and the people intended when they ratified the 14th to begin with, the BATFU will be out of a job and Lautenberg and his cronies will have to get an honest job, if they have any skills other than lying for a living.-WWW
ReplyDeleteGura is presenting a case that is almost inarguable, the outcome of which at his presentation would require the Court to acknowledge, and make the law of the land, our right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the nation; or fly in the face of the law, the constitution and the right of the people. The latter carries a great deal of risk as to the longevity of peaceful life in our society and would render the Court impotent in the minds and consciences of patriotic Americans. It would also cause a great slippage of the fetters of civilized Americans against violence in the pursuit of the restoration of the republic.
Should the court decision be in alignment with the former option and reaffirm that the right is to be exercised anywhere in the nation, then WWW's scenario above would become mostly reality. The court would find that very distasteful and needs some excuse to avoid returning to the citizen control of rights without overview by regulators appointed by elites.
And along comes NRA. Do not be surprised when once their argument has been made, a third option will suddenly be on the table, some "compromise" (nra compromise is where we give up something more and they write fund-raising letters to fight it)that prior to the NRA's involvement was not a part of the suit and therefore beyond consideration in this specific case. At least not without huge political fallout, at best.
Call me cynical, but so far, the NRA has been the only contributor to my opinion of them. You see, the fate that may completely or partially befall the groups WWW named may also cause NRA to seem less like a place to send contributions for a problem that has been solved. They can't have that.
I could be in error, but we'll find out in March, and if their history is any yardstick it would be foolish to bet any other way.
Straightarrow said: or fly in the face of the law, the constitution and the right of the people. The latter carries a great deal of risk as to the longevity of peaceful life in our society and would render the Court impotent in the minds and consciences of patriotic Americans. It would also cause a great slippage of the fetters of civilized Americans against violence in the pursuit of the restoration of the republic.
ReplyDeleteBingo!
I believe the bottom line is, critical thinking and open minded folks do not trust the nra. Not even a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI think Kerr, writing on Volokh's blog, gives us a hint at the NRA's actual role.
ReplyDeleteTheir brief is being made in order to grant the court an out so that they don't have to overturn so much US government case law restricting the right to be armed with any weapon.
In other words, the NRA is doing its usual pandering to the US government at the expense of our rights access.
The NRA has done that consistently for the last 75 years giving us such jewels as the NFA '34, the GCA '68, and the machine gun ban of 1986. The NRA supported all of those laws. They've actively opposed Gura each step of the way to the small victory in Heller.
This is another one of those time that I think the NRA is kind of like the old union shop steward who leans on the enthusiastic new guy to tell him to slow down because he's going to kill the job.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I respectfully disagree with you; laywers are advocates by trade, and the very basis of their trade is that they are not represented personally by the views of, activites of, or arguments for, their clients. An exemplar of the profession does work on principle, but not in the way you see it. Their principle is "everyone deserves legal representation."
ReplyDeleteAgain, though, let me say that this applies to examplars of the profession, not all lawyers.
A man of principle would not represent a tyrant in his quest to disarm us. Only a low down traitor would.
ReplyDeleteStraightarrow is correct, in my opinion. If the court held the rights of the 2nd and 14th Amendments to be absolute then the NRA would cease to exist or their influence would be seriously abated, therefore slowing the gravy train and possibly spilling the gravy. I have several times ceased payments of the tithes in disgust only to come back again and again because they were the best hope around. The other gun groups just do not hold the same sway with lawmakers. However, look for the NRA to put some wrench in the machinery just to get their large nose under the tent wall.
ReplyDelete