NRA solicitation for Supreme Court legal action

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by pro2am, Sep 6, 2007.

  1. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    Has anyone else received the solicitation for "the biggest Second Amendment court battle in history"?

    Apparently four years ago six law-abiding citizens from Washington DC filed suit against the city...and guess what...its going all the way to the SC!

    Anyway, the NRA is asking for a one-time donation to cover the millions of dollars it will take for "us" to continue the battle.

    Is this referencing Parker? Who knows...I can't find ANY mention of the original plaintifs by name. When did the NRA become involved?
     
  2. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Do they promise to not try to sabotage it this time?

    laugh. The NRA tried to kill this court case. Now they want to help? I say they need to gtf out of the way and let better men than them handle this.

    Depends on your viewpoint. If you like the NRA you think they because involved when they filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs. If you see the NRA for what it really is, then they became involved when they tried to get the case dismissed.
     

  3. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    The letter and accompanying reply letter for the donation is littered with "we" and "us". I almost forgot the part where it states "...pay for the huge costs of this battle -- and to help other organizations join in this case --..."

    I am kind of disappointed that they make it sound like they were behind the whole idea and actions.

    Nothing like {trying to} taking credit for someone else's work.
     
  4. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    You could always send them a letter asking why you should give them money when they tried to sabotage the case...
     
  5. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Not saying that they haven't tried to sabotage it, but do you have a link to the info on this?
     
  6. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Most certainly.

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3175
     
  7. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Thank you kind sir!
     
  8. Vir Quisque Vir

    Vir Quisque Vir New Member

    703
    0
    0
    NRA tried to join another case to the original one. They tried to have a vote to repeal the D.C. ban, at least supported it earlier. That act would have made the D.C. appeal to the Supreme Court moot. However, my take on it is that the NRA is forced to defend the 2nd amendment and keep the ban overturned as per the appeals court. So, it looks like they are pulling in the same direction, finally in my opinion. I too received the request for support. There was a report that the attorneys for the initial plaintiffs that the NRA did basically try at every turn to sabotage the case, that is, after they tried to persuade Parker, et al. not to sue in the first place. A ruling of a collective right would be disastrous. I agree with other postings on this site that this is about as good a case as could be taken to the Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment and denial of citizen's rights in D.C. I may get yelled at a little (okay, a LOT), but I would support gun-rights organizations on this important case, and that would include the NRA. Interestingly, the D.C. v. Heller case attorneys for the plaintiff do not want the NRA lawyers to argue the case. In view of their earlier experience with the NRA, this seemed like a good strategy. It looks like to me, as a non-lawyer, that the NRA will file a strong amicus brief in support of the case and may argue on the points of their brief only. If anyone else has the skinny on this, please chime in.
     
  9. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    After what happened here in GA earlier this year with HB 89 and now this, it seems to me that they don't want anything done unless their name is on it.
     
  10. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,585
    7
    38
    Haven't got this one yet, but I did get one on HB89. Now that they have screwed up our bill they want me to send them money.

    :roll:

    Shredder food.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,419
    113
  12. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    heh.

    I'll represent myself. :D
     
  14. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Isn't there an old saying that anyone who represents themself has a fool for a client?

    :wink: :lol:
     
  15. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    You want confirmation of that thesis? Look no further than the gun confiscations in New Orleans and the lawsuit that followed. 2 gun groups sued New Orleans (both representing their members as plaintiffs in 1 lawsuit), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the NRA.

    randomly picked SAF News releases about the lawsuit and any mention of the NRA.
    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=211
    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=206
    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=200
    And on and on, nearly every release mentioned the NRA (I would say everyone of them did but I could have missed one)

    Now lets read a few random press releases about the New Orleans lawsuit from the NRA and see how often they mention the SAF...

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=8039
    no mention

    http://www.nraila.org//news/read/NewsRe ... px?ID=7272
    no mention

    http://www.nraila.org//news/read/NewsRe ... px?ID=7468
    no mention

    http://www.nraila.org//news/read/NewsRe ... px?ID=8905
    no mention

    and on and on, kind of the exact opposite of SAF. The NRA may have mentioned them once, but I dont remember seeing it.
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,419
    113
    Someone posted one here where they mentioned SAF.
     
  17. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Sounds like the NRA is taking lessons from the Brady Campaign when it comes to sending out fund-raising letters...

    As for the NRA trying to derail the original case, if the SCOTUS rules the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and all local gun laws are invalid, the NRA is pretty much out of business.

    Cynical and depressing as it sounds, I'm beginning to think the NRA really doesn't want to win big at the SCOTUS level as it would dry up their funding and most of the leadership would be looking for jobs.
     
  18. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Not so sure I agree Mack. There would still be activist judges and local folks who would do things in violation of what's been ruled by the courts. Just look here in GA at the probate judges and cities passing legislation and/or acting in violation of laws. The NRA would still be around to influence those in office not to mess with the ruling.
     
  19. Vir Quisque Vir

    Vir Quisque Vir New Member

    703
    0
    0
    "Not so sure I agree Mack. There would still be activist judges and local folks who would do things in violation of what's been ruled by the courts. Just look here in GA at the probate judges and cities passing legislation and/or acting in violation of laws. The NRA would still be around to influence those in office not to mess with the ruling."

    I agree that this is only a very large round one in the fight to preserve the 2nd amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms. What I mean is that I fully expect to have to fight for these rights, the rest of my life, that of my son and son-in-law and all their children too.

    The NRA did not mesh well at all and was anti with respect to D.C. v. Parker except at the very end. It will take the NRA, GCO, you and me and a heck of a lot of other people to keep these guarantees. Remember the article I gave the URL for, it was decided by the health care system to rid the U.S. of private ownership of firearms by 25% around 1976-1979!!! If I were Heller's attorneys, I would be VERY careful about having the NRA present much other than an amicus brief of their own. That is, I would NOT have the NRA argue the case on the basis of what I know about the original filing and the attorney statements for Parker, et al. These same firearms are the "uniquely dangerous" firearms D.C. v. Heller is talking about. With the dumb rogue BATFE (ATF), closing gun shops for firearm forms not in alphabetical order and other insignificant nonsense, about 1/3 or the gun shops are already closed. D.C. took handguns away in about 1976, Chicago was not far behind, NY, you name it. My sense of it is that we should in NO WAY consider these firearm issues, irrespective of the way the Supreme Court might decide, OVER. They are going into round one with SCOTUS. It is usually a 10-round fight, but some boxing bouts as you know, were won in the 13th round. Keep active and informed. Talk to anti-gun folks one on one and be nice. You get a lot more bees with honey than vinegar.
     
  20. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    BINGO!!!

    Big +1