Kurt Hoffman has been among the bloggers doing an admirable job presenting the other side of the coin when it comes to political action against Holder.Â Regarding NRA’s letter to Congress opposing the nomination, which mentioned Project Exile, he had this to say:
Every time the NRA advocates â€œenforcing existing gun laws,â€ they surrender the Constitutional high ground. How can they, with a straight face, argue that the Constitution prohibits all federal gun laws, except the ones that they endorse? How does that differ from rank hypocrisy? Finally, how dare they demand that the citizen disarmament advocates have any more respect for the Constitution than they do themselves?
If thatâ€™s an example of the (dare I say it?) pragmatic approach, Iâ€™ll stick to tilting at windmills.
I don’t think NRA has ever taken the position that every federal gun law is unconstitutional.Â Even I don’t agree that every single one is unconstitutional on its face.Â No constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights has ever been held to be absolute.Â Even the First Amendment, which is fairly broadly protected, probably more broadly these days than the founders ever envisioned, has exceptions (not all of which I agree with).
Even if you argue that the commerce clause doesn’t give the federal government the power to regulate, say, possession of arms by convicted felons, which I would agree with, the commerce clause isn’t NRA’s issue, and do you really want NRA to come out and say that they support gun rights for felons?Â I doubt even most NRA members would be happy with that.
There seems to be a constant desire among some in the movement, to continue using the belabored combat metaphors, to plan for the sack Rome when we haven’t even pushed Caesar out of Gaul yet.Â With Ceasar’s legions regrouping to come at us yet again, I would rather focus on defending against the main attack, rather than getting distracted by diversions, or dreaming of sacking Rome.Â Rome might be the prize we seek in the end, but for now there is a battle coming.