NRA’s Position on the Motion for Divided Time

I spent about ten minutes talking with Chris Cox, Chief Lobbyist for NRA-ILA, about this Motion for Divided Time that was filed with the Supreme Court in McDonald, asking for ten minutes of the Petitioner’s time during oral arguments. Needless to say, it’s not often I raise a concern with NRA that I’m in a phone call with the head of ILA a few hours later, so NRA is taking the issue seriously, and taking blogger concerns about the motion seriously enough to give us that consideration. I will share with you what Chris did clarify with me, quoting:

NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. To that end, we fully support the Court incorporating the Second Amendment through either the Privileges or Immunities or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief NRA filed last November presents a clear roadmap to the Court for incorporation under both a Due Process and Privileges or Immunities analysis.

We believe the Court should reach the same conclusion — that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the States — under either provision of the 14th Amendment. NRA, as a party to the case, has asked for the opportunity to participate in oral argument to ensure that all options for incorporating the Second Amendment are fully considered.

Again, NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to see the Second Amendment incorporated against the States, whether through the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

I did convey to him that while I understood and could appreciate NRA’s core concern, that I did not think this motion was the appropriate vehicle for expressing that concern. I still stand by that. But this gives you some insight into NRA’s reasoning straight from the top. For the reasons I’ve already outlined, I’m not going to stand on NRA’s side in regards to this motion, but nor am I going to accuse ILA leadership of trying to ruin the case, sabotaging the Second Amendment, or other such nefarious motives people like to attribute to them. I believe their concern is real, but the manner they chose to raise it was inappropriate. I’m also cognizant of the fact that if it wasn’t for the groundwork laid by NRA and the people close to it over the past several decades, we never would’ve won Heller.

Over the three years I’ve been blogging, I’ve gotten to know a number of people at NRA. A few of them well enough that they’d be folks I’d be comfortable inviting out for a drink if I were in town, or inviting them to my house if they were in town. Meet a dozen people at NRA, you’ll get a dozen different perspectives, a dozen different sets of skills, strengths and weaknesses. I no longer think of NRA as a monolithic entity — some giant brain in Fairfax of singular thought and mind — either to be loved or hated, promoted or resisted. It’s an organization made up of people as distinctive and individual as you see on the many gun blogs around the Internet.

But most importantly, NRA is made up of us, the membership, volunteers, and donors, in addition to the staff and board members. If you’re going to set out to be a voice cheering NRA when you think they do right, and to try to convince and influence them when they do wrong, you have to first start with a realistic view of what NRA is, and what NRA is not. Next, you need to get involved, and for that there are many paths one could take. Get to know any board members in your area if you can. Get to know some staff. Become an EVC, or help out your EVC. Run a few local matches at your club. Get involved with a local club. Keep your membership current, become a voting member, and for God’s sake, vote in Board elections, and encourage your friends to vote too.

Every once in a while, NRA is going to do something we don’t agree with, which is inevitable, and understandable. The question is whether that disagreement is going to be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, or whether you will have a real voice. NRA is a membership driven organization, ultimately, but in order for that to work, members have to be involved to a greater degree than just receiving the magazine, and paying their 35 dollars every year.

A Favor to Keep Friendly Relationships

NRA is throwing its support behind an effort to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows retired and off-duty police officers to carry their firearms nationwide. I know this is not hugely popular among some of the grass roots, and even I have some reservations about whether it’s constitutional, but it’s important to keep law enforcement rank and file on our side. Remember the last time we lost support of the Fraternal Order of Police? It was the early 90s, and I don’t think too many of us need a refresher on what happened then. Consider this a favor in order to keep friendly relationships. I’ll support law enforcement in this, as long as the FOP keeps supporting us, especially on the Tiahrt issue, which MAIG and Brady are directly opposed to, and which the FOP favors.

Harold Ford Now Anti-Gun Enough for NY

Harold Ford, based on NRA grades, was never a gun owner’s best friend. But as a C rated candidate in Tennessee, that’s not nearly anti-gun enough for Manhattan. Via Dave Adams at @VSSA, we find out that Ford is now declaring that record to be not representative of his new views.

I remain committed to promoting gun safety and handgun control, and I look forward to working with Mayor Bloomberg and Newark Mayor Corey Booker and their coalition to reduce handgun violence in cities across America.

Purple Menace

Great Satan Inc has a rifle that would make Mayor Bloomberg’s stomach turn. Not only is it purple, in defiance of Mayor Mike’s crusade against colored guns, but the thumbhole stock makes it an evil assault weapon under some definitions, including New York City’s, I believe. The magazine that goes into the firearm is illegal in New York City (limited to 5 rounds).

That’s what Mayor Mike means when he speaks of common sense laws to fight illegal gun trafficking.

More Pain in the Gun Control World

Days of our Trailers has done a good job of covering this last week, first with some of the local Illinois groups also merging, and consolidating under umbrella groups, like we saw with CeaseFire New Jersey merging under a peace group umbrella. Also, he’s found that Joyce is cutting VPC’s funding by a fairly significant amount.

It’s going to be painful days ahead for the gun control movement, as their funding dries up. This does not mean the gun control movement is going away, or that we can declare “Machine guns for everyone!” and wrap this whole thing up in a few years. The gun control movement is reinventing itself, as it has many times throughout its history. Expect more groups appearing under the MAIG model. Not necessarily with mayors, but in terms of rebranding their same gun control proposals as a crusade against “illegal guns” and “illegal gun trafficking.” Will it be any more successful than the current banner they march under? Who knows. We can’t take any chances, however. I will say this, MAIG has shown themselves to be smart enough that when the pendulum swings back, it’s going to swing hard. Our job is to make sure it never swings back.

New Jersey Pols in McDonald Case

Cemetery points out some New Jersey pols that have signed up to oppose McDonald, in response to Bitter’s list of Pennsylvania reps who either joined, or who did not take a stand in the case.

Even in New Jersey, they could only get three Congressmen who wanted to go in record in favor of gun bans. I should also note that New Jersey had three Congressmen who joined the Congressional Brief supporting McDonald, and standing up for the Second Amendment, those reps are:

If you live in New Jersey, be sure to thank them. Even in the Brady Paradise of New Jersey, the anti-gun forces still couldn’t outnumber pro-Second Amendment forces.

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.

More on the NRA Motion

Today Alan Gura filed an Opposition to NRA’s Motion for Divided Argument, as is reported by SCOTUSBlog. A few things to clarify from the previous post. NRA is asking for 10 minutes out of the 30 allotted to the Petitioners, not for half the time. But also keep in mind that the State Attorneys General have also filed a Motion for Divided Argument, asking for ten minutes themselves. It is exceedingly unlikely that the Court will grant two motions of this type, and also unlikely they will expand oral arguments.

I don’t think NRA filed this motion out of any foul intention, or with the idea in mind to throw a monkey wrench in anything. That said, while I understand and recognize the legitimacy of NRA’s likely concerns, I do not agree that filing this Motion for Divided Time was an appropriate outlet. Let me briefly explaining my reasoning.

  • The Motion itself is very unlikely to succeed. The Court typically only grants these types of motions under pretty limited circumstances, and after reading NRA’s Motion and the Petitioners opposition to the motion, I think that NRA is on shaky legal ground. The long odds on the success of the motion make its use as any kind of vehicle suspect.
  • Even if the Hail Mary tactic works, what does it really get you in relation to your core concern? So the National Rifle Association gets Clement 10 minutes of time before the Court. It’s not like Clement gets to make a ten minute speech on the merits of due process. He’ll pretty much be answering questions posed by the justices just like anyone else who would occupy that hot seat.
  • At this point in the case, Alan Gura really needs to be spending his time and energy responding to Chicago and all the briefs filed in support of the respondents. I don’t think spending time and energy writing oppositions to motions that he did not invite into his case is really the best use of his time.

Ultimately my concern is that this jeopardizes relationships that are going to be important for NRA going forward after McDonald, and without much to show for it when all is said and done. I might reconsider my opinion if the Court, against all odds, grants the motion (because of what that might hint at), but I don’t think that’s likely at this point. There’s been a lot of speculation about what the court was hinting at when it granted cert for McDonald and kept NRA on hold. You can see some of that here. On what strategy would be best for McDonald, I think reasonable people can disagree on, but the Supreme Court granted cert on this case. Our rights are now in Alan Gura’s hands, which I think are quite capable. I think NRA has already brought much to this case in terms of laying a strong political basis for gun rights, getting the right people elected who put the right people on the Court, and in terms of bringing resources to bear to aid Heller and McDonald. These are commendable and worthwhile contributions. I don’t think this Motion for Divided Time fits within that, and seems to me to be not be very well thought out.