NRA-ILA letter claims credit for CATO's PARKER victory.

A

azredhawk44

Moderator
The NRA-ILA just sent me a newsletter.

It spoke with glowing praise of the recent Parker v. District of Columbia landmark second amendment ruling.

NRA-ILA said:
On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a landmark ruling known as Parker v. District of Columbia. That ruling overturned the ban on personal ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. --a decades-old gun ban that also required long guns to be stored locked or disassembled, and thus outlawed the right to self-defense in our nation's capitol city.

This was a great victory for the citizens of Washington, D.C....

...But more importantly, this District Cour ruling was a huge victory for gun owners across the country.

This is the very first time in our nation's 230-year history that a federal court has overturned a gun ban specifically on Second Amendment grounds.
Click to expand...

I am SO horribly offended by this. The NRA did everything in its power to scuttle this court case and AVOID a second amendment derived decision.

As referenced here by CATO lawyers, the NRA deliberately attempted to derail a decision based on 2A grounds, and also attempted to hijack the case from CATO by means of filing for consolidation.

All this occurred prior to July 8th, 2003.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3175
Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy said:
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 Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining 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, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, 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.
Click to expand...

One week later, under direction of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced this bill on July 15, 2003.

http://www.gunweek.com/2003/dcban0810.html

The intent? To deliberately derail Parker before it can reach the Supreme Court.

NOW THE NRA IS ASKING FOR MONEY BASED UPON THE MERITORIOUS DECISION THAT CATO OBTAINED IN THE PARKER CASE!

Chris Cox said:
And I need your financial commitment as well, to make sure that NRA-ILA can take immediate and effective action to defeat gun-ban legislation in Congress during the dangerous weeks and months ahead.

That's why I'm urgently requesting that you and other NRA-ILA leaders pledge a special contribution of $45 or, if it's more convenient, $15 per month for the next three months.

You can use the first envelope, marked "May," to forward your very generous $45 gift. Or, you can use each of the three envelopes I've enclosed to send a $15 contribution in May, June, and July.
Click to expand...

I think all TFL members should send a copy of this post, or a similar letter, back in the NRA-ILA envelopes (all three are postage paid) WITH NO MONEY.

The NRA cannot be allowed to lie to us, attempt to derail promising Second Amendment cases, then ask us for money.

It is dispicable.

Shame on you, Chris Cox.
 
I've done better than that!!
I let my NRA membership die years ago.
They STILL send me stuff!!!
That was the primary reason WHY I let it lapse, namely, all the junk this group filled my mailbox with!! Every damn day!! I figured that if they were actually fighting for my rights, then they would have taken all the money that they spent on mailings and put it to use hiring lobbyists, lawyers, or something!!
 
I've posted twice about how the NRA tried to squash Parker. And now..to think that they are trying to take credit for the voctory is repugnant to say the least...
 
The NRA does a lot of things that irk me, too. Often they seem like false opposition. To them, guns in the hands of citizens are either for fun and games or, at most, for defense against crackheads. They really play down the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

Their primary function seems to be shilling for the GOP, even though Reagan signed the 1986 machine gun ban into law, Bush Jr. said he'd sign a new AWB into law if Congress brought it to him, and currently leading GOP candidates like Giuliani and Romney are as anti-gun as the Democrats. If they really cared about gun rights, they'd be demanding the repeal of laws already on the books such as import bans, full-auto bans, and noxious state laws in places like CA. And they'd be supporting candidates like Ron Paul or even the Libertarian Party.

Here's an example of past NRA support for unconstitutional legislation:

NRA helped to write the federal law prohibiting the manufacture of handgun ammunition capable of defeating bullet resistant vests. The anti-gun lobby lies when it claims NRA opposed the law.
Click to expand...
http://www.nracentral.com/armor-piercing-ammunition.php

I'm only still a member because my shooting range demands it. I don't depend on the NRA or any other lobbying group to protect my guns, since I will keep them anyway or die trying.
 
The assertion that the "NRA-ILA ... claims credit for CATO's PARKER victory" is not demonstrated by the letter in the post. Perhaps the view that the NRA has "implied" that it is responsible can be rationally supported, but I do not see any "claim" of responsibility on the part of the NRA.

Also, such a case going to the Supreme Court is both a source of considerable hope and trepidation. Whether or not it would more prudent to delay pressing the issue until the character of the high court is more favorable is certainly an issue that is debatable by the intellectually honest.

That said, I do not disagree with much of the general criticism of the NRA. I would rather the NRA was scrupulously honest, held a hard line stance concerning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and spent less resources on soliciting contributions. One becomes somewhat suspicious of the NRA's motivation when it becomes clear that a substantial 2nd Amendment victory in the Supreme Court would likely lead to a substantial financial loss to the advocacy groups that are campaigning for our rights whereas a legislative approach to the same problem, the approach taken by the NRA, is indefinitely sustainable as their will always be legislative threats to our rights, including our 2nd Amendment rights.

If the NRA-ILA was completely successful in securing our right to keep and bear arms, then what work wold be left undone? What would motivate millions of conscientious Americans to make monetary donations to the organization? As an organization, it is not in the best interest of the NRA-ILA to be victorious.

Best Regards,
Richard
 
Last edited:
Should the Court get and take the case, and should the Court affirm the decision in Parker, it will not immediately impact any of the current Federal or State laws in effect, other than the two statutes the D.C. Circuit overturned.

It will be years of litigation to take down even some of the Federal laws. It will be years to even incorporate the 2nd into the 14th, in order to negate some State (or local) laws.

The NRA-ILA will still have a long life ahead of it.

As for the assertion in the OP, unless there is something else in that newsletter, it simply doesn't say or even imply that the NRA had anything to do with the case. If anything, they are busy back-peddling.

I get the NRA grassroots letters and nothing there has hinted that the NRA is somehow involved in this case.
 
Should the Court get and take the case, and should the Court affirm the decision in Parker, it will not immediately impact any of the current Federal or State laws in effect, other than the two statutes the D.C. Circuit overturned.
Click to expand...

Yup pretty much the Cliff Notes Version. The ruling affirms that the right is an individual one but that the state and federal government can regulate the sale and purchase of them. if gun sales occur in DC in the future they can still be regulated.
 
Here's an example of past NRA support for unconstitutional legislation:
Click to expand...

Just in case you missed it, the original version of the legislation would have banned any round capable of penetrating a vest, thus banning most every round in existence. The NRA saw that some legislation was going to be passed, so crafted it to restrict ammunition that was already tightly controlled.

As for the assertion in the OP, unless there is something else in that newsletter, it simply doesn't say or even imply that the NRA had anything to do with the case. If anything, they are busy back-peddling.

I get the NRA grassroots letters and nothing there has hinted that the NRA is somehow involved in this case.
Click to expand...

Parker scared them, and rightly so. Given the court the decision came out of, it probably should have gone the other way. But, having this miracle handed to them, they are using the momentum and have learned. That's a good result, even if some disparage them for it.
 
Eghad said:
So I guess after Parker the NRA should be dismantled and put away since it obsolete?
Click to expand...
One would hope that that was sarcasm. I know that I didn't say that, quite the opposite, in fact.

After Kelo, Raich and Oregon, anyone should have been greatly concerned how this Court would rule on Parker. What actually came down from the Circuit was totally unexpected by the NRA.
 
Given that it's still, more or less, a free country, individuals and or groups can make pretty much any claim they like. Said claims can be valid, invalid, open to question or obvious baloney. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the claims can still be made. People can judge their validity or lack thereof for themseves.
 
NRA helped to write the federal law prohibiting the manufacture of handgun ammunition capable of defeating bullet resistant vests. The anti-gun lobby lies when it claims NRA opposed the law.
Click to expand...

And how is a ban on armour piercing handgun ammo unconstituional?

WildtherighttokeepandbeararmourpiercingammoAlaska
 
"The assertion that the "NRA-ILA ... claims credit for CATO's PARKER victory" is not demonstrated by the letter in the post."

TWEEET. 15-yard penalty for using facts.

Don't you know this is the web? Raw emotion and half-baked tall tales are the only way to go.

John
 
It will be years to even incorporate the 2nd into the 14th, in order to negate some State (or local) laws.
Click to expand...

Golly Al you mean that even when the Court finds that the 2nd is an individual right it only applies to federal law? Ya mean all of those "oppressive"state laws are still going to have to be challenged?:D

WildwellireckonthatthefolksherearejustliningupatthecourthousestochallengethoselawsarenttheyAlaska
 
I do not see the NRA claiming victory for it. I see them celebrating it certainly but that is something different.

The NRA opposing the case is simply a situation where they thought the potential downfall of a loss and likelyhood of a loss outweighed the benifits of a win. Every time someone plays the lottery they take a chance against the odds but it is only a dollar. The NRA was uncomfortable with the gamble in this place and time so they tried to prevent a decision.

The NRA was wrong in that the case won, but that does not change the justification for their decision. I may congratulate someone who wins the powerball lottery while still not agreeing with their $100 a week obsession.

Personally I think the NRA should have been behind this but I do understand their position. We can ALL celebrate the victroy though.
 
Golly Al you mean that even when the Court finds that the 2nd is an individual right it only applies to federal law? Ya mean all of those "oppressive"state laws are still going to have to be challenged?
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose I shouldn't speculate so much, Wild... Sometimes, I really can't help myself. Ya know? :D
 
Not a bad bash, if I do say so myself.

Even Senators are involved in the conspiracy. :eek:

And the NRA is asking for money. :eek:

Just like GOA and NOW and the DNC and all of the other groups do. Yawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top