NRA's next target: Re-arming Chicago

bugaboo

New member
:D

Thursday, June 26, 2008



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
WorldNetDaily
NRA's next target:
Re-arming Chicago
2nd Amendment lawsuits
take aim at firearms limits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 26, 2008
6:39 pm Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily


U.S. Supreme Court

The National Rifle Association, with today's U.S. Supreme Court opinion rejecting the District of Columbia's handgun ban, has launched plans for further legal challenges in cities like Chicago and San Francisco where other bans now exist.

In its first conclusive interpretation of the Second Amendment, the high court affirmed it includes an individual right to own firearms, not merely a right for states to form armed militias.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.

"We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling today. This is a win for all Americans, and it vindicates the individual's right to keep and bear arms," Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the NRA, told WND. "We are now going to go after other cities' laws that unlawfully ban gun ownership by law-abiding people."

The bull's-eyes will be on Chicago and San Francisco first. "We will be going into those cities looking to overturn their bans," she said. "We're going to be filing lawsuits."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told Fox News the lawsuits also will be filed in various Chicago suburbs.

"To make sure every American everywhere [has access to guns for self-defense], he said.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Parsons noted the highly charged issue comes to a resolution during an election year.

"I certainly will let you know Barack Obama has an F-rating with the NRA. He's never voted for a piece of pro-gun legislation," she said. "John McCain, prior to 2000, had a very pro-gun record. Then we had two highly publicized disagreements withi him, over gun shows and campaign finance. But since 2004 he's voted with the NRA 100 percent of the time."

Alan Korwin, whose Bloomfield Press publishes gun law, called it a "great day for America, for human and civil rights."

He noted one of the footnotes in the court's majority opinion said the Second Amendment should be given equal emphasis as the First Amendment, which provides for free press, free speech and free exercise of religion.

However, he noted the minority in the 5-4 split was only one vote from being the decision.

"A lot of people hold with what the dissenters say. They will continue their fight to deny our rights," he told WND. "I don't think a Supreme Court decision will prevent that."

The district's law barred handgun ownership by residents who did not own one before the law was enacted in 1976.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, came to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the ban unconstitutional, reversing a U.S. District Court decision.

Security guard Dick A. Heller, 66, was one of six district residents who filed the challenge to the ban. The others were determined by the appeals court to not have legal standing.

The district required residents who owned handguns or rifles before the 1976 ban took effect to keep the weapons in their homes. Any legal firearms had to be kept unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled.

McCain: Gun ownership 'sacred'

McCain called the decision a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

The Republican presumptive presidential nominee signed a friend-of-the-court brief in the D.C. case affirming his belief the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms.

He criticized his Democratic Party rival, Obama, for refusing to sign the brief.

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.

Obama has sidestepped the issue. In an April debate, he was asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considered the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms.

"Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence," Obama said.

The Illinois senator has said the Second Amendment provides an individual right but insists it is not absolute. The Constitution, he has contended, does not bar local governments from enacting "common sense laws."

ABC News reports the Obama campaign is disavowing an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Obama as believing the D.C. ban was constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the statement to the paper was inaccurate, because the senator has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law violates the Second Amendment.

The Nov. 20 Tribune story quoted the aide saying Obama "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the White House is "pleased by the decision upholding Americans' right to bear arms."

"With this decision, the Supreme Court has aligned itself with the intent of those who drafted our Constitution," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "The right of an individual to own a handgun is protected by our Bill of Rights. To decide otherwise would have undermined the rule of law."

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms "applies to every law-abiding American, not just those who live and work in Washington, D.C."

"'Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition' is the best way to describe today's decision," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. "The right to self-defense is a liberty at the core of the American Revolution. It was ordinary people who defended life and liberty against organized tyranny."

"Every American has the right to defend his/her self. Our Founders believed that; now even anti-gun extremists must accept that truth,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute.

"This is a great day for law-abiding citizens of the nation's capital who have unjustly been denied their full right to protect themselves and families for over 30 years," said Deneen Borelli, a from the Project 21 leadership network. "The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right of citizens to arm themselves for self-defense and not become easy prey."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68093

The days ruling made my day. But this is just the beginning. We must keep on fighting for are RIGHTS.
 
The Only way this thread will remain open is if it sticks to what the NRA may be doing.

If it goes to the general discussion of the Heller decision, it gets locked.
 
"We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling today. This is a win for all Americans, and it vindicates the individual's right to keep and bear arms," Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the NRA, told WND. "We are now going to go after other cities' laws that unlawfully ban gun ownership by law-abiding people."

The bull's-eyes will be on Chicago and San Francisco first. "We will be going into those cities looking to overturn their bans," she said. "We're going to be filing lawsuits."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told Fox News the lawsuits also will be filed in various Chicago suburbs.

"To make sure every American everywhere [has access to guns for self-defense], he said.

This is a totally logical next step for the NRA. Having the Heller ruling in our pocket, now is the time to go on the offensive and take back what we have previously lost. For these many years we have been in a defensive posture, trying to slow the erosion of our rights with a few victories here and there. With an established individual right, we will have more leverage in the courts to push back the more extreme provisions, starting with the outright bans now in place.
 
This is the next huge step. Attacking laws such as in Chicago must be done with the Heller decision as grounds for the attack. Go after Chicago. Go after NYC. Go after CA. Building up precedent on the back of a solid 2A individual rights ruling from the SCOTUS is the key.

The fight is not over, it is just beginning. We wiped out a pit of vipers, now we need to eliminate all those which were spawned from it.
 
The next step, Chicago is the logical starting point, is incorporation.

It has been reported that a suit was filed by the SAF, the ISRA and 4 individuals. The NRA may or may not ask to be part of this suit. I suspect they will be asking.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago. SAF press release is here.

Attorney Alan Gura (Parker v. DC/DC v. Heller), will represent the four individuals.

Part of their strategy, beyond incorporation via the 14th is best stated by Alan Gura. From the SAF press release:
“Each time,” Gura said, “a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted. A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough.”
Read the above quote slowly, and absorb the implications, for those of you that dissed Gura in his arguments about registration.

The SAF, in co-operation with Gura & Possessky, have launced a new website for this case: http://www.chicagoguncase.com
 
To make a battle analogy, the Heller decision was a direct hit, blowing a huge, gaping hole in the collective rights theorists' defenses. The individual rights fighters are going to be exploiting that gap and are already advancing through the broken line of defense. The battles are just beginning, but our side, with the NRA, GOA, SAF, and other pro gun rights organizations, are now on the offensive.
 
Still it is too early

in the interpretation phase for any real fights in court. What good is going into court going to be if the decision of the case is based on interpretation of the Heller Decision when the interpretation has not been complied. The NRA has had months to plan a strategy on what to do as soon as Heller was decided. You can bet the NRA had multiple positions on what to do based on how the decsion came down.

The NRA filing multiple cases across the country is only good as a publicity stunt. I believe we would all be far better off to see some selective action by the NRA dealing with very specific issues rather than the Carte Blanch approach being described by so many individuals.

I'd prefer to see the NRA start with simply getting laws around the country that prohibit having a firearm in your home, requiring trigger locks or any other restriction removed based on the Heller decision. Those who believe all those laws are going to go away without fights are mistaken. It not going to be beneficial to see one bad law replaced with another bad law on the belief it will comply with Heller.
 
The NRA filing multiple cases across the country is only good as a publicity stunt. I believe we would all be far better off to see some selective action by the NRA dealing with very specific issues rather than the Carte Blanch approach being described by so many individuals.

I'd prefer to see the NRA start with simply getting laws around the country that prohibit having a firearm in your home, requiring trigger locks or any other restriction removed based on the Heller decision.

:confused:

That is what they are doing.

Look at the laws they are challenging. They are the most outrageous ones out there which are the most blatant violations of the 2A when accepted as an individual right.
 
I'd prefer to see the NRA start with simply getting laws around the country that prohibit having a firearm in your home, requiring trigger locks or any other restriction removed based on the Heller decision. Those who believe all those laws are going to go away without fights are mistaken. It not going to be beneficial to see one bad law replaced with another bad law on the belief it will comply with Heller.

They did go after those laws. Chicago, Morton Grove, IL, Evanston, IL, New York City, etc. Those cities prevent people from having firearms in their homes. I haven't seen the NRA file a suit against the NFA or the 86 ban. I think they are hitting the high priority targets first. Good for them.
 
not as I see it

they are ready to take on cities before the see the actions of those cities. Not that I doubt the City fathers will all comply with changing the law without a fight. But you have to allow them some time before you run of and file a case against them.

Meanwhile the issue NRA needs to address is all the laws that are in error across the country. The NRA should be compiling action plans for every member to organize an attack on local and state laws to force the needed changes to the forefront. Individuals are not going to organize a campaign to their state legislature on this without a lot of guidance. The NRA should be providing that guidance.

What does Heller means and how it affect existing laws is a different issue than working to remove all firearms restrictions in place across the country.

You don't have to read a lot these past two days to see an onslaught of issues that Heller may not cover and some if definatly does not cover. Leadership and direction is what I'd like from the NRA.
 
they are ready to take on cities before the see the actions of those cities. Not that I doubt the City fathers will all comply with changing the law without a fight. But you have to allow them some time before you run of and file a case against them.

I could not disagree more. If anything is evident it is that cities such as NY and Chicago do not roll back gun laws. If they really want to they can and doing so will end the case. That is not going to happen. They are going to fight and if we wait a day or a decade that is not going to change.

I say pound them now and pound them hard. If they fight take it to the SCOTUS as quickly as possible by going through the chain of courst so that Scalia can beat their backsides and send them home raw.
 
I think Mayor Daley of Chicago already got out front on this and pounded his stake into the ground. He is not budging on the laws in Chicago. If no one files a suit against them, why would they ever change? Just because the Heller decision makes them feel sorry for all of the gun owners whose rights they've been trampling on for all of these years? Not hardly.

I agree that I'd like the NRA to go after and lead the charge against many different laws. Keep in mind however, that they are the biggest target for the anti gun media to smear and misrepresent. They have to be a little careful in how they play their hands. When Ted Kennedy and other anti gunners wrote a law to ban "cop killer" bullets, they wrote it so broad that it would have outlawed most common ammunition. When the NRA opposed it, they were labeled as being against the police because the NRA wanted to keep "cop killer" bullets legal. We know that wasn't the case, but the media and the anti gun politicians ran with it in an attempt to smear the NRA.
 
What the NRA is doing here is absolutely the necessary next step in response to the Heller decision. Laws don't get changed as a result of a SCOTUS or State SC decision unless there is a legal challenge for the courts to take up and apply the new case law. However, as these laws are tossed out in various municipalities, they will push new laws to the new limits. This was is far from over, but Heller v. DC is an important new strategic advantage.

Chicago and San Francisco are obvious targets not only because they are two of the biggest offenders, but because they have enormous legal and monetary resources. If the NRA can beat them (and it looks now like they have a pretty good shot at it), then smaller cities and towns with shallower pockets and any kind of sense will fold at the filing of the suit.

A lot of people have turned their back on the NRA because "they didn't do anything about X legislation," or "all they do is compromise." I can't wait to see what excuses they contrive when this NRA-ILA steamroller is moving at full tilt.
 
Dave85 said:
I can't wait to see what excuses they contrive when this NRA-ILA steamroller is moving at full tilt.
  • Heller has not established incorporation.
  • No city will rollback its laws unless incorporation is established and they are defeated in court.
  • Chicago, currently, will not budge - Nor does it have to, regardless of any time "given" them.
  • NRA has not filed suit, nor was it ready to do so.
  • Gura began finding the appropriate clients for the Chicago suit immediately after their writ of certiorari was filed (if not before).
  • Gura with the SAF and the ISRA, were ready and filed suit against Chicago in Federal Court immediately after Heller was announced.
Now this is not meant to hijack the thread nor is this meant to denigrate the NRA.

But there is a point to make. Like any large corporation, the NRA does not and can not change directions on a dime. While the NRA is certainly happy with the outcome (as are we all), they have not done any preparation for what comes next.

Because of people like Alan Gura, Alan Gottlieb (SAF) and the ISRA, individuals and small organizations (in comparison to the NRA), they can take the offensive much quicker than the behemoth that the NRA has become.

In this, the NRA is going to be playing catch-up for a while. Perhaps a long while.
 
The NRA should foster and garner public support and move at a moderate pace. If not, the NRA could be viewed as radical by moderates who might have otherwise supported reasonable gun law reforms.
 
you must strike while the iron is hot, right now joe citizen is with us all they know is banning guns is unconstitutional and from what I see here in Chicago they know gun bans don't stop criminals and are open to change of policy.
 
As I i understand this thing: The Heller decision applies to Washington, D.C. but (maybe) not to other states/cities. To apply to them, the Court has to "incorporate" the Second Amendment under the umbrella of the Fourteenth. To do that, a case has to be filed (and won) in Federal Court against some city/state that presently has a law on the books similar to that just struck down in D.C., hence the recently filed suits against the city of Chicago, et al.

Heller, which had many (including the NRA) quaking in their boots over the slim majority held by conservatives on the Court, is merely a stepping-stone to repeal of many of the most repressive gun laws around the country. It seems that Feinstein, Lautenberg and their ilk really do have something to worry about now. If a 'class of weapons' cannot be outlawed, what does that say about assault weapons bans or bans on saturday night specials?
 
Once again, I'm wrong. Glad of it, actually.

From this NRA-ILA post, the NRA has filed a suit against San Francisco, Chicago, the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Oak Park, yesterday (Friday the 27th).

They have linked to the complaint of SF, here. No links yet to the complaints filed in Illinois.
 
It took me awhile to remember it but the title of this thread reminds me of the opening scene in "Lord of War."

"How do we arm the other eleven?"

That's what it is going to take too. Until there is some balance of power there will always be tyranny and subjugation.

Okay, back to the original thread
 
Back
Top