Richard Feldman just published a book called Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist that acuses the NRA of becoming increasingly about money. I just finished it a few days ago. It's more about his career but the NRA is still a big player - it's pretty interesting. BTW he's still very pro-gun, just disheartened with the NRA. He relays some very interesting NRA conversations about what the latest "gun crisis" would mean for fundraising. I do wonder sometimes if they've avoided the big cases due to self-preservation.
Legal/NRA: NRA originally against DC HG ban case?
- Thread starter theinvisibleheart
- Start date
I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but I can see how many would.publius42 said:
Ah, but it includes the part of the Circuits ruling that said that appellant Heller subsumed the claims of the others:
Which is the heart of the dispute.Parker Court said:
One would certainly hope for this.publius42 said:
Eghad, I'm not at all sure that's the prime motivator. While it is easier to lobby the Congress for changes in the law, we must also realize that any law passed, can be later rescinded.Eghad said:
Judicial rulings, on the other hand, are harder to get and harder to take down.
The very real fear is that a Supreme Court ruling that has a solid majority and is adverse to gun owners will most likely never be overturned. Precedent is almost a sacred object to many jurists.
The tactics that the NRA has been using for the past 20 or so years has, for the most part, worked. Before one dismisses the NRA, at least acknowledge that part.
Without the work of the legislative lobbying efforts of the NRA, we would be in a much deeper hole than we now are.
The whole idea that the NRA is trying to protect its money-base is absurd on its face. This one decision, should it be favorable, and I believe it will be, is just a foundation stone for erecting a more sturdy building. There will be lots left to do. Both for people like Robert Levy and the NRA.
And that's part of what I think Jeff was trying to put across.
Sylus, your post on Feldman deserves a separate response.
Before you go touting the merits of this man, you need to stop and consider what he is. In a word, he is an "Appeaser." He is also a media darling, as the following event that he fell for shows:
He was played... He didn't disappoint the Brady's, but he did disappoint the American Shooting Sport Council, of whom he was their chief lobbyist. Ultimately, he was forced to resign.
He is a man who got too close to the enemy and began to sympathize with them, creating deals that were for their benefit and not those he worked for. There is a psychological disorder that describes this type of thinking: Stockholm Syndrome.
Look it up and then do some research on Feldman. You will see exactly the type of man he has become. You will also see the ax he has to grind. Touting his new book, is giving this man exactly the "coverage" he is endeavering to achieve.
Before you go touting the merits of this man, you need to stop and consider what he is. In a word, he is an "Appeaser." He is also a media darling, as the following event that he fell for shows:
Even before the summits began, Sarah Brady, Handgun Control Inc. (HCI), sent a note to Feldman, acknowledging his presence in town and challenging him to meet her in the emergency room of the District of Columbia General Hospital to see, in her words, the suffering caused by Feldman’s efforts on behalf of the gun industry.
Feldman accepted the challenge and arrived at the hospital at the appointed hour, but Brady did not show. There were, however, members of the news media present, waiting to record the showdown. Rather than touring the hospital, Feldman sent Brady a note stating he found it “inappropriate to subject the hospital’s patients to a media event which might cost lives. You, more than most, can appreciate the personal trauma of an injured or ill loved one, and how wrong it would be to be used as a media prop at this vulnerable time. An emergency room is not an appropriate place to debate solutions to our nation’s crime problem.”
Feldman accepted the challenge and arrived at the hospital at the appointed hour, but Brady did not show. There were, however, members of the news media present, waiting to record the showdown. Rather than touring the hospital, Feldman sent Brady a note stating he found it “inappropriate to subject the hospital’s patients to a media event which might cost lives. You, more than most, can appreciate the personal trauma of an injured or ill loved one, and how wrong it would be to be used as a media prop at this vulnerable time. An emergency room is not an appropriate place to debate solutions to our nation’s crime problem.”
He was played... He didn't disappoint the Brady's, but he did disappoint the American Shooting Sport Council, of whom he was their chief lobbyist. Ultimately, he was forced to resign.
He is a man who got too close to the enemy and began to sympathize with them, creating deals that were for their benefit and not those he worked for. There is a psychological disorder that describes this type of thinking: Stockholm Syndrome.
Look it up and then do some research on Feldman. You will see exactly the type of man he has become. You will also see the ax he has to grind. Touting his new book, is giving this man exactly the "coverage" he is endeavering to achieve.
Antipitas said:
Maybe I'm being blind, but I don't have any real fear about this case any longer. What is the worst thing that could happen?
The worst answer I can think of is: "No, those sections don't violate the 2A rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, because individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia don't have any second amendment rights in the first place."
But isn't that where we already are today, for all practical purposes? We can argue that Miller means something else, but that's not what most courts have said.
In a manner of speaking, yes you are blind.publius42 said:
Consider; Everything the NRA has done is prefaced (ultimately) with a Supreme Court question that is extremely different from the one that was granted cert. Viewed in that light, their reasoning makes some sense.
With the current question to be decided, you are correct. But, that question wasn't defined in Parker.
A legislative action that would nullify (moot) the case.
That's why I said "any longer" in the post above. The question to be decided is about the best one we could hope for.
OK, that's true. The politics would get quite interesting if an attempt were made at this point.
But I was talking about what decision could the SC reach which would be worse in any practical way than the situation that exists today. Citizens in the 5th Circuit and DC would no longer be living under a Circuit Court ruling which conflicts with the rest of the judiciary, but that doesn't affect most of us. Considering what we have to gain, it seems a small risk to me.
So what are the bigger risks I'm missing? Why are people so afraid of a bad ruling on this question? To me, it seems a lot like the bad rulings in Raich and Kelo: both ratified the existing state of affairs. It seems to me that the worst the Court can do in Heller is to ratify the existing state of affairs for everyone outside the 5th and DC.
Pretty much impossible without the support of the NRA, I would say.
I know they supported that in the past, but things are different now, and the NRA is supporting the Heller case. Would they try that route again? Would it be a popular solution with gun owners at this point? I don't think so, but maybe I misoverestimate some gun owners.
Just a quick note before I head back to work...
The Democrats in Congress could (would?) do it, just to avoid the Supreme Courts decision. Much like the AG transfered Padilla to civilian control to moot (and avoid) the issue.
As I said, a legislative solution is much easier than a Judicial solution.
The Democrats in Congress could (would?) do it, just to avoid the Supreme Courts decision. Much like the AG transfered Padilla to civilian control to moot (and avoid) the issue.
As I said, a legislative solution is much easier than a Judicial solution.
When there are 10 people in a group, you can be as nuts as you want ... when there are more than 4 million, you have to be a bit more conservative ... I've been a member of the NRA for years and while I don't agree with everything they do, I think they have been invaluable in protecting the gun rights of Americans and expanding those rights where possible; witness the quick expansion of Castle laws. The DC case, while it holds great hope, is fraught with danger if we lose. As others have said, you can go broke real fast betting on how the Supremes will rule on any issue, and I'm sure that was in the minds of NRA leaders who were not immediately enthusiastic about the DC case.
---
when they kick at your front door
how you gonna come?
with your hands on your head
or on the trigger of your gun?
---
when they kick at your front door
how you gonna come?
with your hands on your head
or on the trigger of your gun?
Bikerbill,
What kinds of dangers to you see if we lose?
I suppose that is possible, but see several problems.
One, it leaves the District Court decision in place, something that they don't want. The transfer of Padilla from military to civilian control was rightly seen as a defeat for the Bush administration, and acknowledgment that they were likely to lose in court. A legislative mooting of Heller would similarly be seen as acknowledgment that they had a weak case.
Two, pulling the rug from under this case at this time would, I think, piss off gun owners even more than the passage of the AWB, which cost them Congress, according to noted political expert Bill Clinton.
Three, if they pass a law, it has to be veto-proof or signed by the President, neither very likely IMO. That's especially true if the NRA would no longer support a legislative remedy.
What kinds of dangers to you see if we lose?
Antipitas said:
I suppose that is possible, but see several problems.
One, it leaves the District Court decision in place, something that they don't want. The transfer of Padilla from military to civilian control was rightly seen as a defeat for the Bush administration, and acknowledgment that they were likely to lose in court. A legislative mooting of Heller would similarly be seen as acknowledgment that they had a weak case.
Two, pulling the rug from under this case at this time would, I think, piss off gun owners even more than the passage of the AWB, which cost them Congress, according to noted political expert Bill Clinton.
Three, if they pass a law, it has to be veto-proof or signed by the President, neither very likely IMO. That's especially true if the NRA would no longer support a legislative remedy.
Nope. It moots that decision also. That was the fear by Gura & Levy, after the en banc refusal.
I would lay odds that many, if not most gun owners haven't even heard of the case... This is based upon all the local conversations I've had in my own community.
I believe the NRA would still support it, if it was to be presennted and passed (like some questionable legislation has) rather quickly. This belief is based upon current NRA alerts where they are still touting that a grave danger is posed by this case, should the Court decide against us.
Which goes to more fully answer your question of what would be so bad...
Should the Court decide in favor of the individual right but not find it is a fundamental right, then they can (and probably would) apply the rational basis test. Almost no legislation is ever deemed unconstitutional under rational basis.
OK, then I don't understand how this works. Why do they still treat Lopez as if it is precedent, when the law which they tossed has been rewritten? I know that the change in the law had the practical effect of mooting the Lopez decision, but did it mean Lopez should no longer be treated as a precedent?
When has a law been deemed unconstitutional under the existing interpretation of the 2A? The way I see it is, we could go from a situation in which gun control is all OK because the states can still keep militias to a situation in which gun control is all OK because it passes a rational basis test. Cutting off the reasons from that sentence, we could go from a situation in which gun control is all OK...to a situation in which gun control is all OK. Did things really get worse there?
Publius ...
I could be wrong ... not a lawyer, thank God ... but if the court overturns the lower court decision, in effect ruling that the 2nd Amendment means only that a militia can arm its members, the gun-grabbers will declare open season on everything we hold dear -- ownership of self-defense weapons, my Texas CHL, etc. I'm not saying they will get everything they want ... but if the court's ruling is broad enough, it will render moot most arguments against Feinstein, Kennedy, et al in their efforts to end our ownership and carry of self-defense weapons.
I could be wrong ... not a lawyer, thank God ... but if the court overturns the lower court decision, in effect ruling that the 2nd Amendment means only that a militia can arm its members, the gun-grabbers will declare open season on everything we hold dear -- ownership of self-defense weapons, my Texas CHL, etc. I'm not saying they will get everything they want ... but if the court's ruling is broad enough, it will render moot most arguments against Feinstein, Kennedy, et al in their efforts to end our ownership and carry of self-defense weapons.
Thanks for your input, but I don't think you're right about that, biker. Most arguments do not have to do with the second amendment at all, except for the occasional rhetorical statement that we have a right to keep and bear arms. The political arguments are about "sporting uses" and self defense and fighting crime. I think the politics of a bad SC decision might just work out well for our side, because most Americans don't know about the whole collective vs individual rights debate, but have some vague notion that they have a right to own guns. If the Supreme Court comes along and says in no uncertain terms that we don't have that right, I'd expect some backlash from that decision.
How the political climate might go is anyone's guess, but that's mine.
I was asking more about how the legal climate might go, and from my perspective, given the question the Court will answer, I can't see the legal climate getting any worse than it already is (except in the 5th Circuit and in DC, of course).
Levy says this, Levy says that. 
I don't see how the use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 42 constitutes trying to "hijack" a case. After all, Rule 42(a) expressly provides that cases involving common questions of law or facts may be consolidated:
If the NRA's case had been consolidated with the instant case, Mr. Levy's lawyers wouldn't have been fired and/or lost the ability to proceed with the case. Consolidation doesn't do that. Mr. Levy could have still "bankrolled" the lawyers representing the plaintiff in the case. Consolidation would not have prevented Mr. Levy's lawyers from filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, or from taking the case to trial. Consolidation does not mean "hijacking" under the federal rules of civil procedure.
Mr. Levy just doesn't like the NRA, which is fine, but to spin that the NRA doesn't want a good result in his case is a misrepresentation.
I don't see how the use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 42 constitutes trying to "hijack" a case. After all, Rule 42(a) expressly provides that cases involving common questions of law or facts may be consolidated:
If the NRA's case had been consolidated with the instant case, Mr. Levy's lawyers wouldn't have been fired and/or lost the ability to proceed with the case. Consolidation doesn't do that. Mr. Levy could have still "bankrolled" the lawyers representing the plaintiff in the case. Consolidation would not have prevented Mr. Levy's lawyers from filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, or from taking the case to trial. Consolidation does not mean "hijacking" under the federal rules of civil procedure.
Mr. Levy just doesn't like the NRA, which is fine, but to spin that the NRA doesn't want a good result in his case is a misrepresentation.
From the topic article:
When the NRA was objecting to the Silviera vs Lockyer case, the position was this:
OK, great. They wanted a pure 2A case (like Parker). Then Parker came along, and what did the NRA do with the Seegars case?
Suddenly, piling on every possible tangential issue is a GOOD idea?
When the NRA was objecting to the Silviera vs Lockyer case, the position was this:
OK, great. They wanted a pure 2A case (like Parker). Then Parker came along, and what did the NRA do with the Seegars case?
Suddenly, piling on every possible tangential issue is a GOOD idea?
Brett Bellmore
New member
It does in this instance. Central to Gura's litigation strategy was to craft a case where there was absolutely no issue involved except the 2nd amendment, so that if the Court took it, they would HAVE to rule on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
While the NRA's aim was to inject, against Gura and his plaintif's wills, extraneous issues, in order to give the Court a way out of ruling on the 2nd amendment. A way they would almost certainly take.
There is no question at all that the NRA was attempting to sabotage Gura's litigation strategy. That is reasonably described as "hijacking".
But the NRA wouldn't be representing the original plaintiff even if the case had been consolidated. The NRA's plaintiffs might have alleged additional violations of constitutional/civil rights, but those claims would not diminish the allegation regarding the violation of the original plaintiff's second amendment right to keep and bear arms. The trial court would still have to adjudicate that matter, and it's decision could still have been appealed.
Does anyone here actually possess a copy of the order denying the consolidation? It would be interesting to see.
Violations of constitutional rights are not mere 'tangential issues'. If DC's gun laws violate any part of the constitution, they ought to be struck down, and a court can't find a violation unless that violation is specifically alleged. As stated above, the original plaintiff's claim that the law violated his second amendment constitutional rights would still have been adjudicated if the case had been consolidated.
Sorry, but a motion to consolidate is not a nefarious scheme by the NRA (or by any other ligigant in federal court). No 'hijacking' or 'piling on' would have occurred with regard to plaintiff's second amendment claim, and none of it would have prevented a ruling addressing the second amendment.
Does anyone here actually possess a copy of the order denying the consolidation? It would be interesting to see.
Violations of constitutional rights are not mere 'tangential issues'. If DC's gun laws violate any part of the constitution, they ought to be struck down, and a court can't find a violation unless that violation is specifically alleged. As stated above, the original plaintiff's claim that the law violated his second amendment constitutional rights would still have been adjudicated if the case had been consolidated.
Sorry, but a motion to consolidate is not a nefarious scheme by the NRA (or by any other ligigant in federal court). No 'hijacking' or 'piling on' would have occurred with regard to plaintiff's second amendment claim, and none of it would have prevented a ruling addressing the second amendment.
Last edited: