Keep your membership and vote. Quitting accomplishes nothing, and really, NRA is the only gun rights group with serious muscle in DC and most state capitols.

I am not happy with all they do either, and I think there are a number of problems with the board. There are good directors on the board, who are engaged and doing things. There are also passive members on the board who are not, and a few who I would say shouldn’t be there.

Elections are coming up soon, where I’ll be discussing how the board works, and making a few recommendations.

It is possible that Clement made that argument as his duty to the Government rather than from his personal belief. I hope so.

I would hope so too – otherwise Clement would have a serious malpractice not to mention ethical issue on his hands.

When you serve as someone’s attorney, your personal opinions are meaningless, you are simply making their case the best you can.

I’m not entirely sure that the oral arguments are all that determinative, frankly. I attended Heller and it seemed to me from the questions that the justices had their minds made up. There was certainly a moment early when Kennedy asked his first question that it seemed apparent Heller was going to prevail. You could sense the air of defeat coming from Dellinger and the excitement of Gura.

But argument time is extremely scarce. I can see why the Court didn’t think it would add much to let the state AGs chime in at oral argument.

Finally: I agree with Melancton Smith — I would feel happier with Halbrook up there for NRA, given Clement’s willingness to water down the standard of review in Heller. Of course, in Heller, Clement was acting as DOJ’s lawyer.

If Clement stands up strongly for a *meaningful* incorporated 2A in this argument, and incorporation prevails under a combination DP / P or I theory as predicated above, then NRA will look sensible. But if Clement sells out the standard of scrutiny by making overbroad concessions at oral argument, then NRA will (rightly) face very serious recriminations and loss of confidence from the gun rights community. Clement needs to tread carefully.

As for the denial of the state AGs’ motion for argument time, that’s not too surprising. The Court probably viewed that as a mere “me too” request. Since NRA’s motion for argument time was granted, the Justices could have confidence that the substance of the arguments for incorporation — under both P or I and DP — was now going to be fully presented by Gura and Clement.

At that point, it wouldn’t really add anything substantive to let someone then stand up on behalf of the state AGs and basically tell the Justices, “Yeah, what they said.”