search
top

Legitimate Differences

Jeff links to this article in the November ABA Journal via this piece and asks whether NRA tried to deliberately scuttle Parker. There’s little doubt in my mind that there was an attempt to undermine Parker. There is disagreement as to the wisdom of pursuing relief through the courts. It’s legitimate disagreement. The NRA-bashers offer it up as evidence of trying to scuttle the case to keep gun control alive for fund raising purposes (A silly argument. A loss at the Supreme Court would be far better for fund raising and membership numbers than keeping the DC gun ban), when the real purpose is because losing is a real risk. I’m sure there’s also some ego issues at play, but I think that’s the case on both sides of the coin.

NRA was wrong to try to undermine Parker. The attorneys in the case make a good point that second amendment’s time of reckoning is here, and we probably won’t see a better case under more favorable conditions on the court. Nonetheless, it’s a real risk we’ll lose in the end. If Heller prevails, Levy, Gura and the rest of his team will be everyone’s hero. If not, we’re all going to have to eat crow and tell the Parker detractors they were right.

9 Responses to “Legitimate Differences”

  1. anon says:

    Isn’t this old news? NRA wanted to fold the Parker case into their Seegars case – or get them to drop it in favor of their Seegars challenge.

    Good thing they failed, as Seegars was denied standing…

  2. Sebastian says:

    Old news… new accusations coming from the ABA.

  3. kaveman says:

    We will not lose at SCOTUS.

  4. Sebastian says:

    You sure? I think there’s a really good chance we’ll win, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.

  5. Jim W says:

    Yes, I know the guy who was in charge of the legal sabotage. They have since backed off and now support the case.

    The supreme court looked a lot different back then. With O’Connor replaced with Alito, the case has a much better chance of winning.

  6. countertop says:

    My fear is we get a court that sidesteps the issue driving our passion and instead presents a very narrow question instead of the broad inquiry into the 2nd Amendments overall reach.

  7. kaveman says:

    Nothing is a slam dunk, but when Paul Helmke throws a fit that this is the case which goes to the supremes considering it’s current population.

    I’ve read through the Parker decision 4 times now, it would be difficult for SCOTUS to knock it down.

    We’ll find out on 11-09-07 whether or not they actually hear the case, I hope they do. A win from SCOTUS would be better then a default win by declining to hear it.

    here’s Paul’s quote…

    The Brady Bunch is also concerned:

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was quite direct: “We’re very concerned about this case because if it’s allowed to stand, and if it becomes the law of the land, it places in jeopardy just about every other gun law you can think of.”

    But Helmke also said: “The D.C. law is an easy one to shoot at. Factually, it’s a tougher one to get behind and defend. Background checks and assault weapons ban — you can defend all day long. . . . Why is this the one we’re going to be taking up to the Supremes?”

  8. PN NJ says:

    The NRA may have been thinking that “strategic ambiguity” provides gun owners with more maneuvering room than a possibly adverse SCOTUS decision. However, Parker/Heller is probably the best test case we could hope for.

  9. straightarrow says:

    (A silly argument. A loss at the Supreme Court would be far better for fund raising and membership numbers than keeping the DC gun ban), ……

    It would be a silly argument if that coin did not have and obverse, but it does, a win could possibly work in the opposite direction and sow apathy among gun owners. Which most probably will happen under either a denial of cert. or a hearing and confirmation of the lower court’s ruling. That’s two chances out of three that NRA has a funding and membership downside. I think I’ll trust the history of their past actions rather than blind faith in an organization that has already lobbied against my civil rights.

top