Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too. If the Court does to the Second Amendment what Roe v. Wade did to the sanctity of life, the issue of confiscation will be immediately be on the table. Imagine a majority opinion written by Ginsburg-it would be the death knell of gun rights and the Constitution. The liberals would like nothing better than to test our 'from my cold dead fingers' resolve, if they could get armed BATF agents to do it for them.
The NRA is a very powerful organization but they have a history of appeasement. IMO, they have encouraged the lefties tactic of incrementalism.
The NRA does good things of course but the GOA is less likely to compromise.
I think that this is the most likely answer. And I have been a life member for over 20 yrs.
I hadn't realized this was the case, but I think you could argue it either way.
Give the NRA credit, it's doubtful that Al Gore would have been beaten in 2000 if not for the gun issue. That was certainly one of the things that tipped the balance. Democrats who ran that year as vociferous gun grabbers were creamed at the polls, and they've been a lot quieter and more careful ever since.
I'm more familiar with the ins and outs of the pro-life movement, and what that tells me is that in a major cultural war it takes all sorts of different organizations, each doing its own thing, to move the battle forward, from picketing to legislative pressure to education campaigns to billboard trucks driving around the country, to youth groups speaking on campuses.
Maybe both these organizations are right.
ping for later
Help correct my memory if I have this wrong. Isn't this the same supreme court that upheld gun owners rights against confiscation in LA after Katrina?
All I know of Alito in this regard is his dissent in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); he questioned the Constitutionality of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, but *NOT* with respect to the Second Amendment - he made the case for his dissent ONLY on Commerce Clause grounds. Anything more recent (that is easier to read Alito on)???
Roberts...his two year prior federal judge history does lend much information. Jones v. Flowers was a major letdown, but is not necessarily relevant here.
Regardless, unless the NRA knows something that is not a matter of public record, I see no reason for having not supported this case.
That's from page two of the decision. I thought AZRepublican wrote that he read the decision when he called it terrible on one of my earlier threads. This is just more slander against the NRA.
An even less charitable interpretation is that the NRA depends on the Brady bogeyman and the threat of future laws or confiscations to retain its membership, clout, and contributions. Many might have to find other jobs if a sweeping pro-2A SCOTUS decision were to come down.
Because the NRA doesn't believe we'll win a Supreme Court decision right now. They don't believe the current judges can read English anymore than some Freepers can.
It's been clear for quite some time that the NRA has been heavily infiltrated by Brady Bunchers.
---anybody that trusts the Supreme Court should remember what it did with McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment--
Funny that this article just got posted. I was looking at the documents under "Consolidation / Recusal / Disqualification Dispute" at http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm and sent some unfriendly messages to the NRA and Stephen Halbrook for trying to subvert and undermine the case.
There may be a legal reason that the NRA is opposed to this.
Odd logic. For 70 years, the Justice Department supported the idea that the 2nd Amendment applied to organizations, not individuals. Now at first, this benefited the gun controllers in outlawing several weapons. However, over time, the pro-gun forces turned this idea on its head, in essence saying "Because the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias", the government is limited in how "well regulated" individual gun ownership could be.
But then, George W. Bush ordered the Justice Department to change their stance, and to say that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual rights.
AT THAT TIME, the NRA came out and was apprehensive, because they were afraid that if the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment was applied, it would be interpreted in the courts as "any restrictions the government wants it can have."
That is, you can have a gun, but you can't use it, keep it on your property or on your person, can be heavily licensed and registered, etc., ad nauseum. All part of "regulation".
Now this sounds weird, as if the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights would be utterly corrupted into a gun control and prohibition act, but stranger things have happened.
But push has come to shove, and now we get to find out, in a pretty irrevocable way, what the SCOTUS thinks. But that may not be the end of it.
Even if it is a "win" for gun rights, immediately the gun control organizations lawyers will try to use the "well regulated" angle to create a gun control regime. In the long run, then, winning might be losing.
I'd really like to see us have one more justice before this goes to SCOTUS. Right now we have 4 that should be on our side and maybe we can pull it off, but I really don't want to bet my gun rights on all 4 of the conservative justices voting for us and one of the liberal ones crossing over to our side. For the most part our justices are young and healthy and theirs are sick and old. We have 2 more years of Bush and we very well might win again in 2008. Time is on our side. Sooner or later this will have to go to the SCOTUS, but I'd rather it waited a couple more years.
Their key assertion, of which they offer no supporting documentation: "When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception."
This wasn't brought out by the "Agitator" blogging quoted in the original posting, nor was it brought out that the NRA also filed its Jordan lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on Second and Fifth Amendment grounds, and also on civil rights law.
From page 73 of the June 2003 issue of the American Rifleman:
District Residents Demand Second Amendment RightsI think this Agitator piece is simply wrong to condemn the NRA as "[t]he organization has fought this suit every step of the way"; it clearly did not do that. The Parker lawyers have asserted that the NRA tried to in some manner sabotage the case by bringing in more issues than just Second Amendment issues, but to cast that as more than simply lawyers having different opinions as to the strongest way to present a case is wrong in my opinion. If the NRA didn't support the case I don't think that they would have filed their amicus brief.NRA is actively supporting a lawsuit filed by five Washington, D.C., residents who seek to regain their Second Amendment rights, including the right of law-abiding citizens to keep handguns in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.
Commenting on the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ILA Executive Director Chris Cox said, "The core of any substantive policy designed to reduce violent crime ought to be on disarming criminals. The current District strategy is senseless. Law-abiding residents have to contend with a draconian law that leaves them defenseless when confronted with a violent criminal. In our nation's capital, the criminal has the advantage over the victim. That is unacceptable, and it is deplorable."
Plaintiff Absalom Jordan, Jr., who like all his fellow plaintiffs is eligible to own a firearm under federal statute, echoed similar sentiments: "Law enforcement is overworked and by definition, arrive after the crime has been committed when it's too late. Why can't I have the right to protect my family? The Mayor and all the VIPs on Capitol Hill get abundant protection from their respective security details... and at taxpayer expense! Why are their lives more valuable than those of my children? All I want is a means to protect my family, should the need arise."
The lawsuit also raises Fifth Amendment concerns, taking the position that District law deprives residents of liberty and property by authorizing them to possess pistols on the condition that they are registered, but simultaneously prohibiting them from registering those same pistols [see D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)].
The complaint further cites The Civil Rights Act of 1866 that provides in part: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory... the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens... ." This was intended to protect the same rights as its counterpart, the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 which guaranteed the right "to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [estate], including the constitutional right to bear arms."
The case has taken so long, no one could foresee the changes in the courts.
I think it time we pushed this to the limits.
The NRA needs issues to keep the $$ flowing. I'm not so sure they're looking for solutions anymore.
Unfortunately, the NRA is to the Second Amendment what National Right to Life is to the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.