NRA Not Quite So Confident?

Robert Levy wrote, Instapundit and SayUncle linked it.   Levy asserts that the NRA’s actions make it appear that they want to derail Parker by pushing the D.C. personal protection act.

I understand why the NRA is doing this: Parker vs. DC could backfire on us in a big way, and a legislative remedy is the safer short term option.   But I’m more open to Alan Gura’s argument that the Supreme Court is going to hear a second amendment case soon in any regard, and we might as well make the first case a good one.

I’m as nervous about the case as the NRA is, however, and even if Parker gets a favorable ruling, I’m really nervous about the aftermath.  But to use warfare as an analogy, a general doesn’t always get to pick his battlefield, and this is quite likely where circumstance is going to demand that we roll the dice with The Court.  I’m nervous but optimistic.   I’d really like to understand why the NRA isn’t, and hear their point of view, their real point of view, not just the official line.

2 thoughts on “NRA Not Quite So Confident?”

  1. I am a bit of a cynic, but I see a SCOTUS hearing on Parker as a win-win situation.

    Outcome A: The court agrees with Silberman and a million gun owners/activists start shooting holes in 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws.

    Outcome B: The court agrees with the District, that the Second only applies to National Guard troops while they are on duty and 10 million freshly minted and enraged gun owners/activists start shooting holes in gun-grabbing politicians.

    Okay, I’m pretty sure that no one would actually start shooting, but Outcome B would suddenly bring home to tens of millions of complacent hunters that their bolt action deer gun is actually a “high-powered military-style sniper assault weapon” and that their semi-auto duck gun is actually a “high-powered military-style street-sweeper” and that their single shot 12 gauge can fire “a half-dozen .32 caliber rounds with a single shot” (00 buck) and that their long-barrelled hunting revolver is a handgun and hence “designed solely to kill” … shall I go on?

  2. I guess I don’t have quite that much faith in gun owners. It’s pretty clear right now their right is in sorry shape, and I don’t see it motivating them very much. I also don’t have any faith that a positive Parker ruling will be broad enough that the circuit courts won’t say “Well, it’s an individual right, but anything short of a general ban on guns is just fine by us”

Comments are closed.