The NRA's Bungle in the McDonald v City of Chicago Case

[Feud]

Fued - go listen to the audio then tell me he did a good job. 

While there is something to be said (no pun intended) for oratory skill, at that level how someone "sounds" is much less important than what they say.  Very few will hear the person speak, when people go back to the case for study or for future law they will be reading, not listening.

Although, Sam Malloy would be nice to have around (if he weren't anti-gun)...

[Penguin]

Well this would be yet another reason I haven't renewed my NRA membership for many many years.

[Beamish]

The hiring of Paul Clement is pretty irrelevant to this case.  I am not happy about it but I am FAR more annoyed that they are taking time away from Gura at all because of the Constitutional arguments at stakes.  This is a case of "Gun Nuts vs Constitution Nuts" as Reason.com put it.

Put simply: If the NRA succeeds in limiting the Incorporation ruling to the Due Process clause then Chicago simply cannot ban guns...but they can still apply onerous licensing and registration laws, and places like NYC can maintain their absurd Sullivan Act.  HOWEVER, if Gura successfully argues for Incorporation under the Privileges and Immunities clause...well then hot-f___ing-damn.  National reciprocity of CCW?  Done.  Local Class 3 restrictions?  Gone.  Magazine limits and cosmetic rifle bans?  History.  And that is just the RKBA impacts.  Dry Towns?  Adios.  Grand Juries?  Everywhere.  The personal liberties meant to be secured to us as citizens of the United States would no longer be restricted by the States under the guise of "local concern" or any other absurd argument of parochial interest.

But the NRA is going to screw it all up.

Read this article from Reason (and better yet, read all the links therein, especially this one on Slaughterhouse):

The NRA Muscles into McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court case that will settle whether or not the Second Amendment applies to states and localities, is gearing up to radically challenge Court precedent when it comes to defending rights against state infringement.

Alan Gura, lawyer for the Chicago plaintiffs whose right to effectively defend their lives in their own homes has been abridged by the city's ban on handgun possession, previously won 2008's D.C. v. Heller, the case establishing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess weapons against federal encroachment. Gura is responsible, then, for the rehabilitation and revival of one constitutional amendment already. In McDonald, rather than merely extending the Second’s reach, he is aiming to rehabilitate and revive the 14th Amendment as well.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision in late January to grant 10 of Gura’s 30 minutes of oral argument time to the National Rifle Association (NRA) seems likely to hurt chances that the Court will take the more dramatic route laid before them. The NRA isn't a plaintiff in McDonald (though they were parties in an earlier version heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which combined separate challenges to Chicago’s gun bans), and the organization's intent is to emphasize the more limited and traditional method of incorporating the Second Amendment against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

To sum up a very complicated legal argument quickly, Gura's McDonald briefs do not rely solely on the traditional due process method. He also argued that 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause was more clearly intended to accomplish such incorporation, in terms of both legal logic and history.

More at the link.

[Skeptic49]

No it doesn't.
Arguing for a cause or a law before a court however is not a violation of rights.  If it were then we are setting a very precarious standard on what constitutes acceptable free speech. 

Absolutely WRONG! The GOVERNMENT must NEVER attack the rights of citizens in any way shape or form.  If I was a congressperson, I would immediately after being sworn in submit bills of impeachment against ALL the court justices who EVER voted against the rights of the people, starting with the Supreme Court Justices who declared the US of A a fascist slave state, in the New London Connecticut case.

Geoff
Who notes he does not believe the Constitution means whatever a shyster is paid to say it means or a judge is bribed to interpret!

[Harm]

Skeptic - thats the irony is those same Shysters as you call them, it's their job to determine what the constitution means.  So who's interpretation do you use to determine if the COTUS voted AGAINST the people's rights? 

[Feud]

Absolutely WRONG! The GOVERNMENT must NEVER attack the rights of citizens in any way shape or form.

No, I was right, but that's ok, I'll be happy to correct you.  

If someone breaks any law and claims it was within their right to do so, a prosecutor must never question or argue before the court that perhaps they didn't have a right to do that in the first place?  If I graffiti a house that isn't mine and claim free speech the prosecutor can't argue that my right to free speech does not supersede the property rights of others?  If I take your gun illegally then I can't be charged with theft because that's an attack on my 2nd Amendment rights?  If I resist a lawful arrest can I not be charged since that would be the government arguing that I didn't have a right to liberty?

Your comment is silly because you are ignoring that rights do not exist within a vacuum, but rather there are various rights that come into conflict on any given legal issue and it's through the court process that we determine whether a claimed "right" actually exist, which apply in a given case, and if two or more rights are valid which are more important.

If the government can't argue in court that certain "rights" don't exist, or are negated by certain actions, then legal justice could not exist.  All criminals would claim a right to what they've done, and it would be impossible to prosecute them.

[Skeptic49]

Skeptic - thats the irony is those same Shysters as you call them, it's their job to determine what the constitution means.  So who's interpretation do you use to determine if the COTUS voted AGAINST the people's rights? 

Wrong again.  It is the job of the supreme court to apply the law and the constitution to an individual case.  When they over reach themselves, example "Roe vs. Wade" they MUST be stepped on HARD by the Congress.  They were NOT and the Federal Government is now doing many things the States and the States alone should handle.

The New London case said for any reason at all a Government at any level can seize your land.  Which means we no longer have private property in this country, just private ownership and total Government control, which is the classic definition of fascism.

Geoff
Who notes the Judge lawyers have been out of control for years, and Congress fails in it's duty to check and balance the courts.  But, Congress has been giving away their power and responsibilities for so long, and is now so totally corrupt, I am hardly surprised.

[Skeptic49]

No, I was right, but that's ok, I'll be happy to correct you.  

Your comment is silly because you are ignoring that rights do not exist within a vacuum, but rather there are various rights that come into conflict on any given legal issue and it's through the court process that we determine whether a claimed "right" actually exist, which apply in a given case, and if two or more rights are valid which are more important.  If the government can't argue in court that certain "rights" don't exist, or are negated by certain actions, then legal justice could not exist.  All criminals would claim a right to what they've done, and it would be impossible to prosecute them.

I would say you are mixing the law, criminal acts and rights.  Most cases are not a conflict of individual rights.  When the Government attacks the rights of an individual, the Government is wrong.  Cross reference gun laws in NYC, WDC and Chicago.  Admittedly WDC is a special case, since the Government of the District of Colombia IS the Congress and they have devolved their responsibilities to an elected government.

Geoff
Who will always be on the side of maximum freedom with a minimum of control and doesn't like living in a morass of lawyer generated laws no human can comprehend.

[Feud]

Most cases are not a conflict of individual rights. 

That depends on who you ask, it is less risky in most cases to try to avoid conviction by routes other then appealing to an issue of "right" as a result of people realizing that if they claim a right the government will argue that right either does not exist or does not justify the action.

Every case in which life, liberty, or property may be denied is by nature a conflict of rights, and any criminal proceeding is one in which the government argues for the limiting or suspension of a persons rights.  It's what makes the justice system work.

[akodo]

Illinois is unique among the states in that there is absolutely no form of open or concealed carry. And in Chicago and Oak Park, a western suburb, residents have no right to even own any firearms.

Last year, the State Legislature decided to change that and managed to get a bill through the House and the Senate that would have allowed concealed carry for residents of the entire State with the exception of Cook County. That bill was going to get through because ther State legislators from Cook Country were not going to stop it.

But the NRA did.

The NRA, taking the stand that there is no good pro-gun law unless it includes all of the residents of a State. actually campaigned against the bill using it's lobbyist to brow beat legislators into voting against it because "the NRA does not feel it is a good law".

The Senate and the House, those who support the NRA and its efforts, decided to follow the NRA's lead and throughly defeated the bill. A bill that had already been guaranteed to pass and half of the State's residents would have their Second Amendment rights restored.

But it didn't happen because the NRA didn't like it.

I ended my NRA affiliation when that happened.

This is the kind of bind the NRA gets itself into.  IF the NRA helps push through a law that prevents half the people from getting CCWs, but half the people DO get CCWs, they are accused of being compromisers.  If they take a stand and go 'all or nothing' a different set of people accuse them of blocking what progress there was to be had.

Let's say a new bill comes that bans Hi Cap magazines, lets say it wants to put the limit at 10 rounds per mag and it has a lot of support.  Some people would want the NRA to do a full frontal opposiiton, even if it was futile, others would want the NRA to try and work out a comprimise, allowing 15 shot mags, but still banning the feared 'banana clip' of the AK and AR.

It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'

[HiVelSword]

Anyone seen the CNN article about this case?

They say the law was enacted in 1982 and then states this shortly thereafter:

"Officials here point to a 10 percent reduction in the murder rate in the past two years as proof that the handgun ban is beginning to work."

Lessee....enacted in 1982.....rates gone down in past two years....that's 26 years.

At that rate there should be zero handgun deaths by the year 2244! 

[tuts40]

The ONLY reason I maintain my NRA membership is that someone at the outdoor gun club I belong to here in eastern NE (Eastern Nebraska Gun Club) decided an NRA membership is required to join the club...  I've sent a letter or two recommending that because of the NRA's record of compromising that we be allowed the choice between GOA, SAF, JPFO or the NRA as a condition of membership.  Alas, there must be some sort of financial gain or program /competition support or such between the NRA Compromisers and the club.

I know, I know, JPFO is not an lobbying group but they do a great job of disseminating information. 

BTW, can you imagine, for just a moment, how gun control would be so much less of a problem if GOA and/or SAF had as many members/supporters as the NRA does!!!

[JesseL]

What kind of insurance coverage do GOA, SAF, or JPFO extend to all their members?

[Molson]

What kind of insurance coverage do GOA, SAF, or JPFO extend to all their members?

There it is. As much as the NRA annoys me on the political front sometimes, they have fantastic social programs, for lack of a better term. The range I belong to requires membership in the NRA as well, and that is because the NRA provides a really good deal on insurance, among other things.

[Bo Smith]

The NRA has the fringe benefits, no doubt, but when it comes to gun control, I don't care. I'd rather give my money to the organization that doesn't compromise away my liberty incrementally.