Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Gura V. NRA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    I just sent the NRA an email asking them to support Gura in his Supreme Court Case, instead of trying to take it over. I hope others will do the same.

    Thanks Larry

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Need more details, please? What'd I miss?
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Need more details, please? What'd I miss?
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/37862.html

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    The High Court NRA, onetime ally feud over next big guns case to go before Supreme Court

    By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, February 8, 2010
    The National Rifle Association was on the outside looking in when the Supreme Court handed gun rights activists a landmark victory in 2008.
    After the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership and that the District's handgun ban was unconstitutional, it was an upstart band of libertarian lawyers that celebrated on the marble steps and received the glory for the breakthrough decision.
    The NRA, the nation's premier and most powerful gun rights group, has worked hard not to be in that position again. And because of an unusual intervention recently by the justices, its attorney will be in the mix when the court considers the next big guns case next month.
    The case is McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge of gun laws in Chicago and its suburbs that are strikingly similar to the Washington handgun ban. It asks the court to decide something left unsettled in its landmark ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia: whether the Second Amendment offers protection against actions by state and local governments, not just the federal government and its enclaves.
    The attorney for those challenging the laws is Alan Gura, an Alexandria lawyer who successfully argued the Heller case. But the court, without explanation, granted the NRA's request to give its attorney time at the podium as well; the court sliced Gura's time by a third and gave it to the NRA and its recently hired attorney, Paul D. Clement, who was solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration.
    The decision has brought howls of complaint from those who support Gura and underscores the bad blood between the erstwhile Second Amendment allies.
    Ilya Shapiro, a Supreme Court scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, where Gura has ties, wrote, "NRA prefers to seek glory for itself rather than presenting the strongest case for its purported constituency of gun owners." He said in an interview that the NRA's decision to seek time at oral arguments March 2 was "about fundraising, not lawyering."
    NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam responded: "Our client is the Second Amendment. We wanted to make sure that all avenues were addressed and all bases covered" in convincing the court that the amendment applies to state and local governments.
    To anyone who is not a constitutional scholar, the idea that the Bill of Rights applies only to actions of the federal government might seem illogical. But the court has decided that each amendment must be applied, or "incorporated," to the states through specific decisions. The court has done that with most of the amendments -- but not the Second -- relying on the "due-process clause" of the 14th Amendment.
    Gura says that using that path would be fine but that the best way to make the decision is through another clause of the 14th Amendment, one that forbids states from passing laws that would dilute the "privileges or immunities" that come with U.S. citizenship.
    In a way, Shapiro said, the differing approaches distinguish "gun nuts," whose sole interest is a protection of Second Amendment rights, from "constitution nuts," who think the case offers a chance to reassert the importance of the privileges-or-immunities argument.
    In arguing to the court that it needed to hear from him, Clement said that only seven pages of Gura's 73-page brief dealt with the due process clause. Because that is the most "straightforward route" to deciding the case -- the other would require the court to overturn three of its precedents, he said -- Clement wrote to the court, "it would be particularly unfortunate if that argument were not adequately presented at oral argument."
    Gura bristles at "the suggestion that I wouldn't be prepared to make that argument." He added: "They're not bringing anything substantive to the argument. The NRA is principally interested in taking credit and fundraising." The NRA and Gura's group petitioned the court to hear the review of the Chicago law, and the court picked Gura's argument.
    The NRA's fourth-quarter decision to bring in Clement adds another interesting element to the case. He is a widely admired practitioner and seems to be a favorite of the court. "I think the only reason they granted the NRA's petition is because Paul Clement's name was on it," Shapiro said.
    But Clement has not always been popular with gun owners. As solicitor general during the Heller arguments, he took the position that the lower court's reasoning in striking down the District's gun law was so broad that it could threaten federal restrictions, such as on the sale of machine guns. He advised the justices to send the case back. Conservatives were outraged that was the official position of the Bush administration, even though Clement also agreed that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right.
    Bygones, the NRA's Arulanandam says now. As solicitor general, Clement had to protect the government's interest. "We're pleased we have him on our side," he said.



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020702401.html


    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    IN news & Political Alerts NRA buttng in the Gura supremeCourt Case...Iveread other reports on this, although this is just the quickest linkI could find. Lawyer Fight! Plot Thickens in Huge High Court Gun-Control Case' Ashby Jones Blogs.WSJ.com/law



    Enjoy Larry

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    D**N I really wasn't quick enough, you guys arejust too fast!

    Thats what happens when you type with 2 fingers, and on a good day they are both STUPID!



  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Does anyone recall the PDF that some lawyer (think he was an attorney for the NRA) put out explaining in infinite legal detail why the NRA has standing and therefore deserved time at the bar?

    He did a fairly detailed discussion of the various cases NRA had started in Illinois and went through so much legal pettifoggery I had to refer to my manuals to follow along - and still needed to draw charts and geaneology trees to keep up with him.

    Class? Anyone? Beuler??

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Does anyone recall the PDF that some lawyer (think he was an attorney for the NRA) put out explaining in infinite legal detail why the NRA has standing and therefore deserved time at the bar?

    He did a fairly detailed discussion of the various cases NRA had started in Illinois and went through so much legal pettifoggery I had to refer to my manuals to follow along - and still needed to draw charts and geaneology trees to keep up with him.

    Class? Anyone? Beuler??

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I don't know if it's here, but this is where I would start looking:

    http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?...ity_of_Chicago

    TFred

Posting Permissions

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