"I think that's a mischaracterization"
You are right, it was a mischaracterization for me to say the N.R.A. would have nothing to do with the D.C. case. They actually opposed it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803404/posts
The NRA wants to get the most important gun rights issues before the SCOTUS after one of the other libs croaks. It is a strategy, but they certainly have lobbied forever to kill the DC gun control regime.
Interesting link, I just checked the NRA website under news releases, it would appear that they applaud the ruling.
I logged into the member section to find any comments attributed to the claim that they fought the case.
Nothing.
Usually the ILA wing of the org would issue a presser to answer such claims but so far, I can't find anything.
Very intertesting indeed.
They didn't oppose it when they were trying to commandeer it.
The NRA didn't oppose it. There may have been different opinions on strategy. Check the second page of the decision.
The GOA was AWOL again just like during the Katrina victims lawsuits.
They answered that in court, there is no guarantee who will win and there is always a chance that they will lose. If they lose a case in the Supreme Court, they risk having all U.S. case law say that the second amendment means nothing. Up until the current court, I'd call that outcome highly likely. Now, with O'Connor gone, I'd call it possible.
N.R.A. has maintained its position of working within the legislatures. In other cases, we agree with this. I don't like their avoidance of the courts, but I understand it. I've been analyzing the district court cases about the second amendment and the stuff in those rulings is twisted logic and bs. There is always the possibility that bs will win.
Was it you who posted about the book "Supreme Conflict?" If it wasn't I recommend it. I got it from Amazon for fifteen bucks. It's up there with Mark Levin's "Men in Black."
But in the end they filed an amicus brief in support of it at the Circuit Court level.