The Cato Institute brought Heller, the Second Amendment Foundation had nothing to do with it.
The Second Amendment Foundation used the same attorney, Alan Gura, to argue McDonald.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Will not renew membership
- Thread starter James
- Start date
The Cato Institute brought Heller, the Second Amendment Foundation had nothing to do with it.
The Second Amendment Foundation used the same attorney, Alan Gura, to argue McDonald.
Cite?
You can look at the wikipedia pages for the Heller and McDonald cases, or google to your heart's content. Look at the original federal court filings for each case read up on who vetted plaintiffs and funded the cases.
I could write a book on this and not be done citing how it all happened. Don't just beg for people to "cite". I could cite reputable looking sources that will tell you that little green men made the pyramids and populated the earth.
If you are sufficiently intrigued on a topic of interest, go forth an study the topic. It sure is a lot more easy now that we have the internet than it was even 15 years ago. I will cite obscure details and where statistics are derived from but this is well beyond.
Cite that Patton had a feud with General Montgomery... It's not a sentence in a book, it is a history lesson betrayed the attention that it is due if one were to only make mention that it happened and move on.
How the Heller and McDonald cases came to be is too important to simply cite in a footnote.
TFred
Regular Member
eye95
Well-known member
When one makes a very specific assertion, one should post a very specific citation when challenged.
Asking the challenger to do his own research or citing a general reference such as a wiki adds zero credibility to the assertions. Indeed, it subtracts credibility.
I challenge the two posters who made the very specific assertions to post very specific citations to back up those assertions.
Walt_Kowalski
Regular Member
Am not and will not support the NRA, since they did not support our rights as they are being slowly stripped away:
* The National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on 26 June 1934
* The Gun Control Act of 1968, signed by president Lyndon Johnson on October 22nd 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213
* The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Public Law No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986)
* The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104-208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) was an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996
I look each of these as major failures in action, from an organization that claims to be "an American non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization which lists as its goals the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights "
* The National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on 26 June 1934
* The Gun Control Act of 1968, signed by president Lyndon Johnson on October 22nd 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213
* The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Public Law No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (May 19, 1986)
* The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104-208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) was an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996
I look each of these as major failures in action, from an organization that claims to be "an American non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization which lists as its goals the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights "
I am extremely sorry I missed the request for the cite of my claims. I am still trying to figure out how I sent up email notification to replys on threads I post in
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[52] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[53] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[54] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[6]
Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment—including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[55]
Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[52] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[53] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[54] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said. Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[6]
Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment—including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[55]
Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Last edited:
oak1971
Regular Member
NRA has a lot of pull, but they are too FUDdish for my tastes. If I were to support another national org it would be GOA. Right now I only support WCI.
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
NFA was done before they were involved in politics. In fact it was what caused them to get involved.
the gun control act was done and a few years later they started the ILA part. Yes at this point they were completely ineffective.
The firearm owners protection act is a good thing that had a spec of pure evil inserted into it. That act is a major part of what limits ATF from harassing gun manufacturers and sellers. The machinegun ban was one tiny amendment inserted under dubious conditions and was probably thought to be a poison pill to kill the bill. Do you like being able to bring your firearm through states that would like to ban them and arrest you for doing so? well this law protects you.
The violent crime part... well yea NRA had no excuse there.
wci?
oak1971
Regular Member
Wisconsin Carry Inc.
It is one thing to be cautious but to intentionally try to and sabotage the case because they felt that way crosses the line plain and simple. Yet in the end they act all buddy buddy with the Heller team and publicly respond like they were always behind the case. If you ask them about how they treated the Heller case they will not talk about it or they give you a "we always supported that case." nonsense. And recently they tried to get themselves exempt while leaving the rest of the gun rights community on their own while watching out for just for their own org. speak volumes. As for it being a close call, I am reminded of a cheese movie line....It does not matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winnings winning.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
Semantics. Were they actually trying to sabotage the case, or were they trying to prevent it from being heard because they believe it would have been lost?
Stare decisis can be a bear.
TFred
Doug Huffman
Banned
WCCA, WGO, WRPA, WI-FORCE, WCI, AAFCI, WI Pats, ad nauseam, all begging for dollars - ricebowl politics. Wanna see some Dicks' deadeyes, find WI Wheelmen. I wouldn't be in the same room, armed or unarmed.
oak1971
Regular Member
Little stingy are we?
Doug Huffman
Banned
Yep, and, since we're getting personal, wealthy too, by your standards. Truer words were never spoken, "a fool and his money are soon parted."
Another way to put it to you;' if it's OK for them to try to buy votes with other's money, why don't they come try to buy mine?
Last edited:
oak1971
Regular Member
Line your coffin with it if you so choose, small good it will do you.
Simply support the case or don't support the case, don't get in away of those who are trying to protect our rights. The last major Supreme court protections that have come about have not been by the NRA or most gun right org. It has been by the PEOPLE. When you compromise you get no where but play with peoples rights and instead of standing firm, they have allowed politicians to chip away at our rights. Again it is simple stand with the millions of gun owners and support and back cases like HELLER to give it every chance of the court to rule in our favor for gun owners. If you don't believe in the case instead of causing problems like they did with heller STAY THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY. The last few years the NRA and other groups have shown their true faces and its not to protect all gun owners rights. Its about $$$$$$.
Last edited:
David Roach
Regular Member
The NRA guilt trip
I received this in a letter the other day.
"Dear David:
Your Second Ammendment rights are in grave danger. This is because some NRA supporters like you have not renewed your memberships."
This sort of 'it's all your fault, guilt tripy writting is why I don't renew my NRA membership.
David
I received this in a letter the other day.
"Dear David:
Your Second Ammendment rights are in grave danger. This is because some NRA supporters like you have not renewed your memberships."
This sort of 'it's all your fault, guilt tripy writting is why I don't renew my NRA membership.
David