[neverdem]

"Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal."

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.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was established by the NRA Board of Directors in 1978 to become involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think you're on to something here. It's interesting a website says the NRA tried to block the lawsuit but in further reading, find they lent support to the lawsuit.
It's also interesting the original poster doesn't agree with the decision.

[AZRepublican]

Interesting, the NRA's amicus curiae states: "The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund did not file an amicus auria brief in the district court."

[tpaine]

neverdem wrote:

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.

The NRA has made a lot of mistakes worthy of criticisum. But to slander the US Constitutions clear intent protect our individual right to keep & bear arms.. -- To say that only States can protect that right. -- that sticks in my craw.

AZRepublican insists:

"-- It's a militia amendment, not a personal guarantee. Rights and liberties were left with the people to define and protect under their own constitutions...national govt had no power over personal liberties.
I think it is a terribly flawed decision. It makes Roe v. Wade almost respectable. --"
 Posted by AZRepublican to neverdem On News/Activism ^ 03/16/2007 7:01:44 PM PDT