Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: 'NRA wants time at podium. Different emphasis in gun laws case.' Lyle Dennison at SCOTUSblog.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/nra-wants-time-at-podium/

    The National Rifle Association asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow its lawyer to take part in the oral argument March 2 in the case testing whether the Second Amendment restricts the power of state and local governments to pass gun control laws. It sought 10 minutes of time allotted tothe individuals and groups that are pursuing the Amendment’s extension, to put more stress on an alternative constitutional argument. The request, the NRA noted in its motion [1], is opposed by the lead parties in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago (08-1521). Those parties are expected to file a written opposition shortly. The Court will considerthe NRA request at its private Conference on Jan. 15.

    The Court in the McDonald case will considertwo main arguments for applying the individual right to possess guns to state and local laws: first, that gun rights should be protected at those levels by the 14th Amendment’s “Privileges or Immunities” clause; and, second, the protection should come under the Amendment’s Due Process clause. Both of those arguments are at issue in the question]http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/08-01521qp.pdf]question presented [/url] [2]by the petition. The NRA said it wants to put stress on the due process argument.

    In their merits brief in the case, the NRA noted, Otis McDonald and the others appealing “have concentrated their argument on a Privileges or Immunities Clause theory that would require overruling at least three of this Court’s precedents.” And, the motion added, only 7 pages of the 73-page McDonald brief discuss the Due Process Clause.

    The Due Process Clause, former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in the NRA motion, “presents the most straightforward and direct route to reversal of the decision” of the 7th Circuit Court against extending the Second Amendment to the state and local level. “Because the Due Process Clause represents a route to reversal that does not necessitate the overruling of this Court’s precedents, it would be particularly unfortunate if that argument was not adequately presented at oral argument.”

    The NRA maneuver brings further out into the open the strategic differences in pursuing the two alternative arguments.

    A leadingreason for pressing the Privileges and Immunities Clause approach is that it could give the Court a chance tooverrule the 1873 ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases — a ruling that made a nullify of that Clause. It has long been a goalof some advocates to revive that Clause, as a firmer foundation for weighing government power against individual rights. Conservative advocates, in particular, argue that the use of the Due Process Clause has given judges too much latitude to invent new rights that exist nowhere in the Constitution.

    The leading reason for pressing the Due Process Clause is, as the NRA motion noted, that the Court could do extend the Second Amendment without having to overrule prior decisions — something that the Court usually does reluctantly. Moreover, the Due Process approach has been the one that the Court has routinely taken in extending most of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local levels. The NRA motion pointed to that, saying the issue in McDonald is “whether the Second Amendment is somehow bizarrely limited to the federal government and federal enclaves or whether it is a fundamental guarantee of liberty that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment envisioned.”

    The NRA motion is one of two requests before the Court to divide the argument time on the Otis McDonald side. Thirty-eight states, led by Texas, have asked [3] for ten minutes of time to argue from what they say is the states’ special perspective. That has the support of theMcDonald petitioners. Whilethe city of Chicago and the village of Oak Park, Ill. (on the other side of the case) do not oppose giving the states some time to argue, Chicago and Oak Park have filed a response [4] to the Texas-plus motion disputing some of the 38 states’ claims as to the interests they seek to represent.

    If those states are concerned that local governments will curb gun rights, they already have the power to stop that without needing the Supreme Court’s support to do so,the response argued. The city and village also noted that not all states share the views of those 38, saying that the state of Illinois is going to enter the case to support Chicago and Oak Park, and may be joined in that by additional states.
    Normally, the Court gives each side 30 minutes in an oral argument. And, normally, when it divides one side’s argument, it does so for only two counsel — one for 20 minutes, the other for 10. However, the Court also has the option of expanding the hearing beyond an hour to provide additional time for a case to be heard.
    The NRA is in the McDonald case as a party supporting the petitioners. Earlier, it had sought review of its own petition (08-1497). The Court considered that along with the McDonald petition in September, but opted to grant only the McDonald filing. The NRA petition thus is on hold.

    SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "NRA wants time at podium", url: "http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/nra-wants-time-at-podium/" });
    Article printed from SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp
    URL to article: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/nra-wants-time-at-podium/
    URLs in this post:
    [1] motion: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...e_argument.pdf
    [2] question presented : http://origin.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/08-01521qp.pdf
    [3] have asked: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...e_argument.pdf
    [4] response: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...setoTexas1.pdf

    ================================================== ==========
    Comments

    The NRA has quite literally had decades to bring a case before the Supreme Court and argue it any way they wanted. But they waited for someone else to do all the dirty work and now want to horn in at the end. If it were me, I'd tell them to bugger off.

    I would be hesitant for the NRA to horn in at this time unless I knew what they were going to say, given their extensive history of throwing the 2nd and us under the bus in the name of 'saving us' with compromise.

    As the old saying goes, "follow the money!"
    Unfortunately, the NRA's revenue stream is based on the status quo with fear of further inroads against our 2A rights a motivator for increased donations to the organization. Resolving issues at the Supreme Court level is not in their best interest financially speaking.
    The NRA is a useful tool that accomplishes many helpful things, but expecting them to act against their nature or best interest will only end in disappointment.



  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/nra-wants-time-at-podium/

    [Lots of stuff]

    ================================================== ==========
    Comments

    The NRA has quite literally had decades to bring a case before the Supreme Court and argue it any way they wanted. But they waited for someone else to do all the dirty work and now want to horn in at the end. If it were me, I'd tell them to bugger off.

    I would be hesitant for the NRA to horn in at this time unless I knew what they were going to say, given their extensive history of throwing the 2nd and us under the bus in the name of 'saving us' with compromise.

    As the old saying goes, "follow the money!"
    Unfortunately, the NRA's revenue stream is based on the status quo with fear of further inroads against our 2A rights a motivator for increased donations to the organization. Resolving issues at the Supreme Court level is not in their best interest financially speaking.
    The NRA is a useful tool that accomplishes many helpful things, but expecting them to act against their nature or best interest will only end in disappointment.
    The Negotiate Rights Away does have such a history, but their position here seems unable to do such a thing.

    They are correct in asserting that the McDonald plan of action requires overturning precedent, and that their route is more direct. Overturning that precedent being part of the objective...

    I see it more of a Plan A and and Plan B. If the Big Deal doesn't work, we might fall back on the more direct approach and not lose everything. This seems to be their useful idiot function here.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Damn you NRA!!!

    The Majority would not say that the 2nd only applies to the states.

    The Privileges & Immunity is aBIG win.

    Due process is at best, half a loaf.

    NRA - again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    (But NRA will claim it was victorious if the court give gun owners a Due Process "win".)
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Be careful here. I honestly agree with most of the NRA-hate here, but they're on to something.
    Due Process IS an easier win and it would work just as well. Citizens of Chicago have been denied the Liberty to acquire Property without any semblance of Due Process. That's a VERY easy argument.
    WE all may agree that they're violating a Privilege and Immunity here, but several of the Justices may not see it that way and even Scalia hates to reverse a long-held set of decisions.
    Plus, the SCOTUS extended argument time in Heller, so they may here too. I hate to see Gura's time cut too, but all that not withstanding, I want a win!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Would be nice if we could have it both ways P&I and Due Process.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    I don't know how many of you are actually NRA members. It is a love hate relationship at best with them. But they will listen IF it is in their own best interests.

    Start NOW

    Get active and let them know how you feel. Tell everyone at the range and local shops etc to get active as well. Flood them with letters, phone calls, and emails.

    Tell the NRA to either back off, or get on board with the P&I argument. Let them know that membership could and will suffer. Do not threaten. No one listens to threats. But DO let them know that anything less than their full support of this issue and the P&I argument will cause people to second think their future support of the NRA as a 2A organization.

    A handful of letters and calls will be no big deal to them. But if they get enough from across the country, they WILL listen.

    It is everyone's responsibility to act on this now. Save the whining for later. We have a very narrow window of opportunity here but it IS possible.

    Tell them what you think. If they believe their membership will suffer, and therefore their pocketbooks, they will listen. Always follow the money.

    Gulf Coast Gunman


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    The NRA gets their time in front of the SCOTUS:
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5347

    Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2. The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court
    ...
    During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    ufcfanvt wrote:
    The NRA gets their time in front of the SCOTUS:
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5347

    Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2. The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court
    ...
    During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.
    Probably a good thing. Would love to see a P & I Clause with teeth. Trouble is, this court is likely to sink its teeth into the wrong things and send us careening back to the 1930s.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I really think that the NRA is only out for their coffers. I don't know what has a better return giving money to the NRA or putting your money on the roll next to the toilet. It really seems that the NRA likes to take the path of least resistance as it is better for their bottom line. They may be big but you cant stay that way barking like a puppy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •