In post #2 of this thread, I said:
For several years now, the Law Firm of Gura & Possessky, PLLC have had a website that included a page with all the pleadings, available for download. It was http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm. It has been the site from which I and many others have gotten our information on this from. The pleadings included all the filings of both the plaintiffs and defendants, from the original compliant onward. Also included are the details of the NRA's attempt to derail the case by consolidating it with Seegars.
For the benefit of Fremmer and any others who don't believe or aren't aware of this, I will now outline what happened.
In 2003, the NRA sought to consolidate their
Seegars case with
Parker. The NRA has a long history of not trusting other attorneys who bring 2A cases before the courts that they themselves do not initiate.
Part of the reason, I believe, stems from what I would call the "prosecutorial mindset." That is, a prosecutor will routinely fling as many charges as possible at a defendant, in the hopes that one or more charges will stick, should the case go to court.
So it is with many of the cases that the NRA has brought. They are rife with different issues, in the hopes that one or more of the issues will be adjudicated fairly by the Courts.
So it was with the
Seegars case.
In any event, the NRA's lead attorney, Stephan Halbrook, was ordered to try and consolidate the two cases.
On Feb. 10, 2003, suit was filed in the District Court of the District of Columbia Parker, et al v District of Columbia and Anthony Williams (then, Mayor).
On April 4, 2003, the NRA filed its
Seegars case. The NRA's case was not a "pure" 2A case. That is, there were several avenues in which a court could use to either uphold or deny the suit (
Seegars challenged the same three on 2A grounds, but also challenged the same statutes on the grounds that they violated D.C. Code § 1-303.43 (an actual act of Congress), The Civil Rights Act of 1986, and also on 5th amendment grounds.
Seegars also included the U.S.A.G. as a defendant). Whereas, the
Parker case had only one question and was a pure 2A case.
At virtually the same time, the NRA filed a motion to consolidate the cases. This first motion was denied as it was filed in the improper Court. Nor was
Parker notified of the consolidation motion as required by local judicial rules.
The NRA continued to pursued this and a second motion was also denied. This time based upon an apparent conflict of interest by the NRA council and the appellants in
Parker, it too was denied on July 8, 2003.
All the while that the two cases were progressing through the judicial system, the NRA continued to lobby the Congress for a repeal of the disputed statutes... A sound policy, if there is any doubt that your case will not stand on its merits. In fact D.C. Personal Protection Act was suddenly proposed by Sen. Orin Hatch on July 15, 2003.
As it was, not only did
Seegars fail (due to standing), it provided the Circuit Court an avenue to slightly enhance the already draconian standings issue that was made precedent in
Navegear. This would play in the final resolution of
Parker.
On March 9, 2007, the Circuit Court held for the appellants. The NRA at about that time, increased its lobbying efforts to have the laws overturned by Congress (That would have had the effect of mooting the entire case and the Precedent it established) all the while publicly applauding the win (a legislative remedy is the safer short term option).
I can understand the hesitation and apprehension of the NRA prior to the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. The Rehnquist Court had lost its power to further enhance 10th amendment issues and the liberal side was having a virtual field-day in enhancing federal control (with Scalia playing both sides of the fence). I can even understand being apprehensive afterwards, since they were unknowns (and to some extent, still are).
It wasn't until Robert Levy personally visited with Wayne LaPierre, last June, that the NRA finally came fully onboard with the
Parker case, as it was now certain that it would head to the Supreme Court. I strongly suspect that the huge number of members that called for the NRA to cease and desist, also had an affect upon the NRA's decision to back off the legislative angle.
All in all, it does suggest, as Robert Levy has remarked (paraphrasing the NRA) in 2003,
"If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."