Conversely, FReepmail me if you want to be added.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Posted on 05/07/2003 4:54:52 AM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative
NRA Counsel Charged with Professional Misconduct & Damage to Case
by Angel Shamaya
May 5, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com -- On the 17th of April, 2003, the National Rifle Association's attorneys -- Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner -- tried to bull their way into the CATO Institute's Second Amendment lawsuit. NRA filed a MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE in attempt to force unwanted consolidation of CATO's case (Parker v. District of Columbia) with the NRA's later, grossly inferior case (Seegars v. Ashcroft).
CATO attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy appear more than a little upset about the NRA's invasion of their lawsuit. On May 1st, they responded rather bluntly with the following:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF COUNSEL
This motion in opposition to NRA's attack is 22 pages. First Paragraph:
"The motion to consolidate should be denied because it is untimely, ill-conceived and inappropriate. Allowing the Seegars plaintiffs to join this litigation would substantially and unnecessarily complicate what is presently a straightforward single-issue case. By adding a variety of extraneous claims to a case that is nearly ready for summary disposition, the Seegars plaintiffs would impede this court in resolving the narrow issue presented in the Parker litigation and substantially prejudice the Parker plaintiffs by delaying resolution of their claim." [emphasis added]
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF COUNSEL
First Two Paragraphs:
"COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom G. Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, and George Lyon, by and through undersigned counsel, and move the Court for an order recusing counsel for plaintiffs in Seegars v. Ashcroft, 03-834-RBW. The motion is made on grounds that counsel for the Seegars plaintiffs, Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner, are barred from engaging in that representation by D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, and 3.2." [emphasis added]
"As demonstrated below, the Seegars plaintiffs' attempt to participate in this case is motivated not by a bona fide desire to adjudicate their claims, but by the improper strategic goals of their sponsor, the National Rifle Association ("NRA"). See Exhibit A. Finally, as further documented below, the Seegars plaintiffs' counsel, Stephen Halbrook, has refused to recuse himself from this action, despite the fact that he is now taking a litigation position that is materially adverse to his own former clients, Parker counsel Robert Levy and the Parker plaintiffs." [emphasis added]
Read the whole Motion. It reveals the nature of the NRA's First Allegiance so profoundly we hope every gun owner in America reads it.
DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. LEVY
A brief sworn statement detailing how NRA counsel Stephen Halbrook and his handlers at NRA apparently have no concern for the effect that their intrusion into the CATO case will have on CATO's plaintiffs. NRA's people seem willing to sacrifice a good Second Amendment lawsuit (Parker) for their own questionable reasons.
DECLARATION OF ALAN GURA
A brief sworn statement detailing how NRA counsel Stephen Halbrook and his handlers at NRA apparently have no concern for the effect that their intrusion into the CATO case will have on CATO's plaintiffs. NRA's people seem willing to sacrifice a good Second Amendment lawsuit (Parker) for their own questionable reasons.
COMMENTARY
WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?
The CATO lawsuit was already tackling the D.C. gun ban -- the redundancy, coupled with the complication NRA brought in, will cost time and allow anti-gunners to rally against us. CATO's suit didn't go after Ashcroft and thus won't bring the full weight of the Justice Department and their competent attorneys with unlimited resources in as defendants. Is NRA really this stupid? Or do they actually need help on their case -- help from the superior legal team at CATO? Or, worse yet, are they deliberately trying to sabotage the CATO case? Few could deny that NRA is seeking to hog some credit for the good work of others -- especially so since the NRA hasn't filed a pure Second Amendment case and pursued it to the Supreme Court since their founding in the late 1800's. Perhaps it's all of the above.
DEJA VU!
This situation is reminiscent of the NRA's incompetent attempt to kill the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit being funded by the good supporters of KeepAndBearArms.com. NRA and their operatives didn't invent it, so they want to kill it -- or at least inflict as much damage as possible under the guise of helping. We are used to betrayals by the National Rifle Association. Now the good people at CATO are finding out what informed gun owners have known for many decades.
NRA's version of the Second Amendment is contrary to that of our nation's Founders, so let's hope the judges throw them out of this Consolidation Farce. Kudos to CATO's attorneys, Robert Levy and Alan Gura -- we applaud your "high road" approach to dealing with the politicians pretending to be patriots at the NRA. We are behind you 100% and wish you complete success in your case.
CATO states in the memorandum:
"Aside from the delay engendered by resolving this claim, plaintiffs (CATO) have another reason to distance themselves from the NRA theory.
The term “reasonable and usual” may be similar to the “rational basis” standard under which some enactments are reviewed for constitutionality.
Such a deferential test is not typically appropriate for rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.2
Although plaintiffs (CATO) maintain the challenged laws could not survive even rational basis scrutiny, the use of a similar test in a case involving a fundamental constitutional right is needlessly confusing and prejudicial to Parker’s (CATO) core claim.
Arguments on the “reasonableness” of the law would reduce the litigation to a mere policy debate, rather than the indispensable debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban."
The words and phrases, highlighted above, are the core basis for arguing the supremacy of a citizen's individual "right" over our government's disparaging and denial of a citizen's individual "right" via enacted legislation.
I have argued with many a "conservative" that they and the NRA need to quit arguing about a "right" within the context of "reasonableness." This stance by the NRA is why I have a less than enthusiastic membership with the NRA.
In particular, the NRA's mantra about how gun ownership has "saved lives" by being a force against armed crimminals is a "policy debate," not a debate on the constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment.
The "...right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with the "rational basis" saving lives in crimminal confrontations.
This is how the gun grabbers, Fienstein, Schumer, et al., have incrementally diminished our constitutional right to "...keep and bear arms..."
The NRA's first capitulation to the "reasonableness" argument of a right the NRA's support the 1968 Crime Control Act which contained "reasonable and common sense" gun control measures.
And finally, the phrase "Such a deferential test (reasonableness) is not typically appropriate for rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights"is also a stinging rebuke to all of the federal judges who do not have the courage to rule that eneumerated rights are absolute and not subject to what is "reasonable" by the tyranny of their personal standards or the tyranny of the majority standards, so typical of fellow citizens who think we live under the rule of a "democracy."
Here's why:
The NRA national convention was just held in my home state of Florida. I have a web business, www.0cents.com, which includes a lot of Second Amendment products.
My company has bought table space at dozens of gun shows in three different states in the past four years.
I applied for a 20' booth at the NRA Convention in Orlando. That was $ 2500 rental if I recall correctly.
I was rejected.
I called and spoke to the head honcho, who referred me to a gal who is the Southeast Regional Director. After I gave my pitch to her that I was shocked that I was rejected and that I have never been rejected by anyone before and been to so many gun shows, she told me the following:
1. The NRA National Convention in Orlando, FL is NOT a gun show!
2. My products are "too political" and that the NRA is NOT a political organization!
Conclusion: Larry Pratt's GOA now gets my money.
Followup: At last weeks Tampa gun show, which was held the same weekend as the NRA National Convention, I had several people ask me why I didn't go to the NRA show (presumably a bigger & better business op). When I told them that I was rejected, they were flabbergasted. They also told me that the hall was not entirely sold out. What business/organization in their right mind turns down people who want to pay the rent?
Conversely, FReepmail me if you want to be added.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
"No politics", eh? I'm dissapointed, especially since CCRKBA/SAF had a booth there. Maria Heil was there, too -- I finally got to shake that fine lady's hand!
Go CATO! Go CATO!
That would not be the time to sell but rather the time to put them to use.
I live in the Orlando area and my husband and son went out to the convention. My one request was that they pick me up a politically incorrect pro-gun shirt, but they could not find any. Of course, the NRA was selling their shirts and hats and etc. Perhaps they did not want the competition.
The following weekend, I'll be at the Orlando Gun Show at the Fairgrounds.
Basically, this means that he gives me permission to use his art for commercial use in return for a 10% royalty on all sales.
BTW, this Contributing Artist concept is open to all artists. Just visit the above link. I'll always looking for good designs to put on 0cents.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.