search
top

Some Misconceptions about Motion for Divided Time

There’s been a few things I’ve seen floating around that probably could use some clarifying, about the NRA’s Motion for Divided Time that I spoke about here and here. Some folks in the comments were wondering why NRA can’t ask for some of Chicago’s time. The short answer is that they can’t. They are Respondents in Support of the Petitioner in this suit, meaning they are arguing against Chicago and in favor of McDonald’s position. Obviously the Court doesn’t allow the opposing sides in a case to divide each other’s time. If NRA wants time before the Court, they have to motion to divide Alan Gura’s time, not Chicago’s.

Second argument I’ve heard, reported on by Christopher Burg, is that there’s some other nefarious conservative concern at work here in regards to gay marriage. I can assure you that NRA is pretty singularly focused on the Second Amendment, and aren’t going to waste their time and resources with these kinds of ancillary concerns. As I’ve said, I think the motion is a mistake, but I do believe the NRA doing is what they think is the right thing.

7 Responses to “Some Misconceptions about Motion for Divided Time”

  1. Carl in Chicago says:

    I can assure you that NRA is pretty singularly focused on the Second Amendment, and aren’t going to waste their time and resources with these kinds of ancillary concerns.

    Unlike a group such as, say, the Gun Owners of America.

  2. Noops says:

    Jeebus: The religious right needs to get over gay marriage. Seriously: My don’t-give-a-shit-meter is officially pegged on gay marriage. I say go for it. All the hand waving, angst-ridden, teeth-gnashing PSH on that issue makes me want to support gay marriage even more.

    “Oh mah gawd! The black helicopters and teh gays are watching you with satellites right now. Just like Major League Baseball!”

    And to those who are even stop defocusing the issue. IT’s a second amendment issue.

    This is the perfect example of what W. F. Buckley said, “”I’ve spent my entire lifetime separating the right from the kooks.”

    Bleg

  3. Sebastian says:

    It is kind of funny how they can take even this and think it’s some kind of nefarious plot to impose gay marriage. I doubt the Court is going to be no more willing to visit that with P or I on the table than they are now.

  4. Melancton Smith says:

    I certainly don’t accuse NRA of anything nefarioius. This is simply a boneheaded move that could cost us. Gura needs to be focusing on the Chicago brief and the 16 amici for Chicago so that he can write an effective Reply brief, the due date of which is rapidly approaching.

  5. I can assure you that NRA is pretty singularly focused on the Second Amendment …

    Seems someone might disagree:

    Seegars was designed to raise issues we had rejected in our case, in an attempt to have the courts avoid interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    It was not a coincidence that the NRA had failed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents in court for over twenty-five years, but suddenly sponsored a copycat action immediately upon our having filed suit.

    So, if the NRA is singularly focused on the second amendment, why would Gura make this statement?

    It’s my opinion that the NRA is focused on the 2A in a legislative way, but not in court.

  6. Sebastian says:

    Packetman:

    Because prior to the changes on the Court, with the retirement of O’Conner and death of Rehnquist, it was my understanding that Parker was going to lose if it went to the Court.

    If NRA had good reason to believe that a case was going to go to the Supreme Court and lose, would you want them to just let it go forward?

    Gura’s timing was perfect on the case, but I don’t think he could have known that ahead of time, though I suspect he probably had an idea there would be some retirements. I would also point out if we had lost one justice, Heller would have lost. It was a close case.

    Ultimately I switched from opposing Gura’s case to supporting is because Gura made the very good argument that if he didn’t do it, someone else would, and with a shittier case. Given that he put together a very good case, I couldn’t really argue with that. The gun had been loaded with Emerson and Silviera creating a split, and I really only had a choice between an incompetent marksman and a competent one.

    I would also point out that NRA dumped a lot of resources into Heller once the court changed and it became apparent this was the case.

    As I said, I think NRA is being boneheaded here, but they are guilty of thinking like a lobby shop, applying that thinking to the legal process. They also might be guilty of poor judgement in trying to deal with something they can’t really, and shouldn’t really, try to control. NRA has a lot of institutional biases that, in my opinion, will cause it to make stupid decisions like this sometimes.

    It’s not that I don’t trust Gura. I think he’s done a fantastic job for us so far. But I also think NRA is important in this fight too.

  7. Melancton Smith says:

    I agree. I think NRA initially opposed it thinking it would lose. I’m not so sanguine about the attempt to moot it via legislation, though.

    I have mostly praise about NRA’s efforts legislatively. They have done some things I oppose in IL, but overall they wield a big hammer.

    Also, I appreciate the legal help they give when innocent gun owners fall afoul of bad laws.

top