[Malum Prohibitum]

Here is the response I received from the NRA:

QUOTE
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. NRA is committed to repealing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, whether in the courts or through the Congress. We applaud the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in the Parker case, and hope that decision is allowed to stand.

While we await further appeals in Parker, we are seeking congressional support for S. 1001 and H.R. 1399, by Sen. Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Reps. Ross (D-Ark.) and Souder (R-Ind.) respectively. Currently, 69 House members have cosponsored H.R. 1399 and 41 Senators have cosponsored S. 1001.

Introduction of these bills poses no threat in itself to the Parker litigation. To the contrary, sponsorship of these bills provides members of the House and Senate with an opportunity to express their continued support for restoring the Second Amendment rights of District residents.

Sincerely,

Amanda Millward

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Huh?

 

[Gunstar1]

If they cause the parker case to be dismissed, I have a feeling the NRA is going to be in a lot of trouble with its members.

 

[Gunstar1]

http://instapundit.com/archives2/003858.php

Maybe good, maybe bad...

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Maybe good, maybe bad...

There is nothing good.

If Parker loses in the S. Ct, i.e., no individual right, then Congress can pass the DC Personal Protection Act after that happens. Then nothing will be mooted.

Passage of this legislation now would moot the case.

This legislation might be passed with Democrat support. Democrats could decide to go along with it to prevent the case from being heard in the S.Ct. Many Democrats who say they "support the Second Amendment" will notice that the legislation only allows functioning firearms in the home, and not carry. To some of them, that is acceptable (and how many do the Republicans need to go along with them to pass this?)

I think this is a real threat.

 

[kkennett]

I think this is a real threat.

Agreed. The NRA can lean on the 'Blue Dog' democrats to show their colors and possibly get this thing passed. Nancy might even let it on the floor if she predicts a loss at the Sup Ct. Hard to know if John Conyers et al are smart enough to make this play or not.

 

[Gunstar1]

Maybe good, maybe bad...

There is nothing good.

I was paraphrasing the article. That was not my opinion.

 

[ber950]

NRA Reply

http://www.packing.org/community/general/listview/22345

Chris Cox Called

First, thanks to PDO poster Varminter 22 and to Cam Edwards of NRA News for arranging the conversation.

Chris and I spoke for nearly 30 minutes about my concerns about the NRA's handling of the Parker decision and the related bills introduced in the House and Senate which, if passed and signed, would moot the Parker decision.

He and I agree that Parker represents an "almost unimaginable opportunity" to change for the positive the course of firearms matters for decades to come.

Chris confirmed the NRA position is to do nothing which would damage Parker's potential, nothing that would make the matter moot. Given my own confidence (optimism?) on Parker's eventual treatment en banc and before the Supreme Court, Chris' thinking is very reassuring. He agrees, too, that the case will go all the way to SCOTUS.

I believe that Wayne LaPierre told Robert Levy,
"You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker.â€
I also believe he means it.

I can accept that there were differing opinions at the beginning of the case four years ago over whether the timing was right or not given the make-up of the then Supreme Court.

I can also accept Chris' professional opinion that it remains important to continue to push on the legislative side, to continue to line up your friends as well as your enemies on the issues on a constant basis, if for no other reason than to have the politicians on record when the next election rolls around. He points out that legislation moves at a glacial pace, that it took seven years to pass the bill protecting the manufacturers from malicious litigation.

I am struck by the intellectual firepower Chris and his team have devoted to consideration of the various trade-offs, how to maximize the upside and balance the downside. These guys know what they're doing and are intent on succeeding. Their definition of success matches my own. They want to win. Widely and well.

Most impressive. More power to them.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am an Endowment member, my wife is a Life member and our 8-year old daughter is an Endowment member.

Next month our two little boys will become Life members, too.

GlockFamilyMan
http://www.Canticle4Leibowitz.com

 

[ber950]

Basically the NRA is saying it will never pass before Parker is heard.

 

[Taler]

The conversation with Chris Cox that was related is reassuring... NOT!

There is nothing about continuing to pursue a legislative remedy for D.C. that seems supportive of seeing Parker before the SCOTUS.

Now, if Mr. Cox, and LaPierre are confident that they can KILL the legislation by flexing their muscle, which certainly has not been stated, I'd be more supportive of the direction the NRA is taking.

Cox's statement(s) sounds like what I call a "non-answer" answer.

 

[Rammstein]

I heard them say they don't want the legislation they helped introduced to pass.

What I want to know, and I think everyone and especilly NRA members need to know, is WHY DID THEY DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

 

[Taler]

I heard them say they don't want the legislation they helped introduced to pass.

Can you provide a reference please, Ramm? I've not heard that stated plainly, though I'm hearing an implication.

 

[Tinkerhell]

And this is why I am hesitatnt to support the NRA and is likely to be a really good litmus test for me to decide to join or not.

Any chance we can either get an offical GCO rep (someone I trust) to personally (not email) discuss this with an NRA officer? Maybe USMCR can do so on the behalf of GCO?

It's pretty clear that supporting the Bills and supporting Parker in SCOTUS are basically mutually exclusive. The folks in charge of the NRA policies are not stupid. If they support the Bills then I have to believe they are intentionally undermining Parker.

What are the time lines we are talking about here - assuming all went as we would hope it to, when could we reasonable expect Parker to be heard & ruled on by SCOTUS? When would it be reasonable to assume that the Bills might pass? My thought after reading other articles is that SCOTUS would definately not be heard before the Bills pass but is my thinking correct on that matter?

Today I'm not a happy camper as far as this goes.

 

[USMC - Retired]

Folks,
I just got off the phone with a representative of the NRA-ILA. We discussed at length the issue at hand and he passed a few things to me that some of you may not already be aware of.

First off, NRA support of these two bills is not new. They were both introduced last year and failed to pass. The NRA is not adding any additional support to these bills, they are simply still endorsing the bills they had already endorsed, and to do otherwise would certainly be hypocritical and perhaps send the wrong message. There is no indication that these bills have any more chance of passing this year than they did last year. To withdraw support could endanger them in the future. Something that would be unacceptable should Parker fail to live up to our hopes.

Secondly, as it stands now, the Parker case only affects the Citizens of D.C. If these bills were to pass they would provide relief for folks in other restricted cities throughout the country.

Also, there is no guarantee that Parker will make it to the Supreme Court and if it does, that it would win. SCOTUS has not heard a Second Amendment case during our lifetimes and there is no indication that this would be any different.

When he finished describing the NRA’s position on this I asked him to pass a message upline for me. I told him that the folks at the grassroots level need the NRA to put out an press release discussing the issue and giving an overview of the NRA’s position. By necessity the NRA can not go into detail about their strategy since this would only help the other side prepare their attacks. He assured me that the NRA is very concerned with both the Parker case and the two bills in question and that they were committed to get the best results possible. Were they to do otherwise they would certainly be committing membership suicide and they fully realize this.

He has my contact information and will keep me advised on the progress of my request. I will in turn keep you all advised as to what I hear.

 

[Taler]

Thanks Gunny,

Standing by.

 

[Tinkerhell]

Indeed thanks for the info!