[Vir Quisque Vir]

http://www.examiner.com/a-653443~Robert ... fate_.html

This was interesting reading from one of the attorneys involved in the initial case. From this reference and similar incidents, you can see why Heller v. D.C. might want to use their own attorneys and not depend on the NRA for anything other than a supporting brief. These two were clearly NOT on the same page in the early fight. I agree with postings on this site indicating that these 6 people in Parker, et al. v. D.C. is the very best case to take to the Supreme Court on the 2nd. You have to look very carefully at the fiduciary and just who and what each party in the case represents. They are NOT always the same, and their agendas are not quite the same. They pull great in the harness when they are pulling the SAME wagon in the same direction.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Alleged? :lol:

 

[Vir Quisque Vir]

OK, now offering slightly stronger language, that is the problem with a conservative, that is, they tend to be, well, conservative

1. Possible interference by NRA in the case

2. Probably interfered

3. Dead certain tried to sabotage the case and should not be trusted to co-chair Heller v. D.C. at SCOTUS. Take your pick, 1, 2, or 3.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

:lol:

 

[Wiley]

VQV,

If you haven't already read it there is a thread here http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=344 that goes over the original case (Seegars v. Ashcroft) and the background and the NRA's involvement in it, and why they tried to derail Parker, and why they desperatly want to be associated with a, probable, Heller victory.

It's a long read.