First Freedom magazine... NRA said nothing about DC Ruling

azredhawk44

Moderator
Looking at their "Freedom Index" article that runs every month, I took a macabre delight in noticing that they did not mention the DC Ruling in favor of CATO and the 2nd amendment.:rolleyes:

Not only that, they were gleeful in pointing out Marion Berry's proposal to open a new DC gun registration window for a measly 90 days:barf: , applauding the "baby steps" by which the district is progressing.

I am extremely suspicious that former Mayor Berry's proposal goes hand-in-hand somehow with the legislation that Senator Orrin Hatch is proposing regarding firearms registration relaxation for DC, thereby striking down the SUCCESS of CATO and the possibility of using the CATO precedent at either SCOTUS or any other 2nd amendment case.

Disappointing.:(
 
Perhaps the magazine's lead time didn't permit inclusion of the story about the DC decision. My guess is you'll see something in the next issue, because the NRA website, which can be updated nearly instantaneously, has an article about the decision, so there's really no reason not to include it in the magazine as well.
 
Perhaps the magazine's lead time didn't permit inclusion of the story about the DC decision

Bingo. You can rest assured a LOT of hay will be made of this in next month's issue, which is now being compiled.
 
One could argue that the NRA sought to undermine the case - and I won't argue the point because a) I don't know enough of the details, and b) I suspect it's true - but I doubt the NRA will ... stick to its guns on that approach now that the case has been decided. It is smarter and easier for them to move on and proclaim victory. At least, that's what I gathered from their coverage of the decision on the NRA website, which definitely isn't trying to hide it. To have First Freedom take a different tack at this point wouldn't make much sense.
 
The lead time for something to get into a magazine is at least one month, generally 2 months and sometimes longer. I suppose it will depend on whether NRA can get it in as next months type is probably already set, possible the magazines printed.
 
This deserves to be reprinted here as the archives of newspapers fall off while those of TFL remain for all to see.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm

Battle of the gun ban

By Robert A. Levy/Gene Healy

Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.

Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.

Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.

In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.

Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?

Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.

Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.

Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."

Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
 
#1- I'm a member of the NRA.
#2 - I'm not a life member. I join when the political atmosphere is hostile to gun owners, and when it's not I let my membership lapse. When it turns hostile, I rejoin. <-- I'm one of those *a million new members joined the NRA in reaction to _______(fill in the blank)* statistics.
#3 - The NRA is the 600lb gorilla in DC as far as the gun lobby goes.
#4 - Being a gun lobby, it's in their best interest to have gun issues remain unresolved for as long as possible.
#5 - The anti side is just as bad in this respect.
#6 - A clear definitive answer- based on a 2nd ruling,,no matter which way it goes,, puts an end to the "gravy train" on both sides.
#7 - See #2. Repeat as needed.

Addendum - sorry I quit giving/contributing to "the cause".
I simply can't afford it anymore.
 
#4 - Being a gun lobby, it's in their best interest to have gun issues remain unresolved for as long as possible.
#5 - The anti side is just as bad in this respect.
#6 - A clear definitive answer- based on a 2nd ruling,,no matter which way it goes,, puts an end to the "gravy train" on both sides.
Yep, follow the money. And if there's suddenly no money to follow ... well, now that's a big problem for folks who make their livings at this kind of thing.
 
If the firearms issue went away the Brady Campaign would not disappear. They would simply morph into the next cause du jour -- Brady Campaign for Childhood Obesity; Brady Campaign Against Drunk Driving; Brady Campaign for the Mitigation of Global Warming -- or whatever.

It is, indeed, the money -- on both sides.
 
Hal:

I am also a yearly member for this reason. I don't want $750 going wasted as the NRA sits idle.

I rejoined after the November elections puting democrats back in power in congress.
 
Hal- my thoughts exactly. The NRA makes money when gun rights are in jeopardy.

I wish they provided more support to the regular ol' shooter. Their magazine (rifleman) has improved dramatically over the past few years, but it still lacks a lot to match it in the 1960's. I love the old issues that taught you something rather than tried to sell new guns to folks. I only need a few guns, but the guns I need have needs of their own such as ammo, nice display cases, restocking, gunsmithing and yes- nice new stocks and grips.

The old mag used to tell you how to do a lot of that yourself. It isn't cheaper or better to do it yourself, but it is more fun and you have more pride in the final outcome.

I joined the NRA again just to get into THE Houston Gunshow for free. That reduced my price to something like 17 dollars. A good price I'd say.
 
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker.

This statement appears to be based on the following:

1. Senator Hatch introduced legislation, instead of a "less important" Senator introducing the legislation;

2. The NRA supports Senator Hatch, and Senator Hatch supports the NRA. [Although the NRA supports many other senators who, in turn, support the NRA];

3. The NRA predicted that the case was not strong enough to obtain a favorable result [note that no specific person who made the statement is mentioned, and that other than the 5th Circuit, all of the other circuit courts of appeal have not recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms];

4. The NRA was concerned about the case if it went before the Supremes [which is not unreasonable; who knows how the case will turn out, it might be decided by Justice Kennedy's vote, and who knows how he'll rule];

5. The NRA wanted to consolidate their case with this case, so that it could help other gun owners [but wait, I thought that "someone" in the NRA didn't want the case to proceed -- "someone" must have changed thier mind];

6. The author of the article didn't like who the NRA was trying to sue, and the judge denied the NRA's motion to consolidate.

Based on these purported "facts", the NRA was in a scheme (with a United States Senator, no less :rolleyes: ) to kill the lawsuit....Hogwash! Sorry, but these "facts" are way too weak to prove the alleged NRA conspiracy.
Nice to see that the NRA bashers have not given up.
 
Join the NRA today

The NRA is one of the best weapons against the anti-gunners, I did not say the only weapon but rather one of the best weapons. United we stand, divided we fall..........

I am the NRA

Semper Fi
 
Questionable logic

I am also a yearly member for this reason. I don't want $750 going wasted as the NRA sits idle.

Thus virtually guaranteeing that you will not get the required 5 consecutive years of membership required for voting privileges, meaning you won't get any voice in how the NRA is run. Rather counter-productive, don't you think?

I rejoined after the November elections puting democrats back in power in congress.

Which is to say, after the fact and after your membership and dues could have helped influence those elections. How does that "day late and a dollar short" strategy achieve your objectives of preserving gun rights?
 
Back
Top