NRA Cares More about NRA Than Gun Rights

[granuale]

Just like they tried to do in Heller, the NRA is once again fucking with Alan Gura and the team that won us the greatest 2nd Amendment victory ever.

From here.

NRA Cares More about NRA Than Gun Rights, Liberty, Professional Courtesy

Posted By Ilya Shapiro On January 26, 2010 @ 8:53

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted [1] the NRA’s motion for divided argument in McDonald v. Chicago. What this means is that Alan Gura’s 30 minutes of argument time on behalf of Chicagoland gun owners just became 20, with 10 going to former Solicitor General Paul Clement, whom the NRA hired at the last minute to pursue this motion and argument. (Full disclosure: Alan Gura is a friend of mine, and of Cato.)

The NRA’s motion was premised on the idea that Alan had not fully presented the substantive due process argument for selective incorporation of the Second Amendment — presumably out of an outsized concern for the Privileges or Immunities Clause arguments about which I’ve previously blogged [2] and written a law review article [3]. This is a highly unusual argument and is a facial slap at Alan’s abilities as an advocate. Sadly, it’s also typical of how the NRA has behaved throughout this case and before that during the Heller litigation — sabotaging Alan at every turn and showing again and again that, even in the face of winning arguments that fully support its legal positions, the NRA prefers to seek glory for itself rather than presenting the strongest case for its purported constituency of gun owners.

Alan rightfully opposed the NRA’s motion because the group’s participation at argument adds nothing substantive to the case. No one will ever know why the motion was granted, as the Court need not (and did not) provide any reasons. Nonetheless, it’s a safe bet that this is solely a testament to Clement’s talent and reputation (notably, the motion was not filed by any of the NRA’s other excellent attorneys, who briefed and argued their case in the lower courts and in a cert petition and brief before the Supreme Court).

I have great respect for Paul Clement, and have worked with him by filing amicus briefs in two cases he’s already argued this term, but I do take issue with his repeated suggestion that the motion’s purpose — and the reason behind its granting — was so that “all the avenues to incorporation, including the due process clause, are fully explored at the argument [1].” This kind of comment — again impugning Alan’s litigation strategy — is uncalled for, and renews concerns over the NRA’s conduct.

Throughout this case, Alan has consistently and forcefully advocated for the Second Amendment’s incorporation under the Due Process Clause. That didn’t change when his case was taken up by the Supreme Court. The thing is that the due process arguments are not all that complex, and simply do not merit the same care and attention in the briefs as arguments based on the Constitution’s actual text and history. A first-year law student who’s taken constitutional law – let alone a Supreme Court clerk – could write a due process incorporation argument in her sleep! In any event, the oral argument will be driven by the justices’ questions, not by any long soliloquies by counsel. Alan’s — and all attorneys’ — job is to be ready for anything.

If the NRA were concerned about the final outcome of the case, it would be unlikely to attack Alan’s strategy or question his preparation (an odd way to be “helpful” to one’s side). It is not a stretch to predict that this case will be favorably decided at least in part on due process grounds, however, so what we are seeing here is likely an attempt by the NRA to position itself as responsible for such a victory – and that Alan isn’t.

Ultimately, then, the NRA is engaging here in fundraising, not liberty-promotion or ethical lawyering.

[Curmudgeon]

It pains me to say it, but this should come as a surprise to no one. Interesting times we are living in.

[LittleRedToyota]

man, i really lovehate the NRA.

if only the JPFO has as many members and as much pull...

[MOUNTAINORACLE]

That's a fact of life that I have known since the late 1960's


oracle

[Chip W]

I joined the NRA a few months ago and I have been thoroughly amazed at how many emails or letters I have received since asking me to donate money or extend my membership for another two years etc.
I am still learning what they do (or try to do as the case may be) for the rights of us gun owners and do not doubt that legal counsel etc is a very pricey thing but asking me for more money only 2 weeks after first joining had me raising an eyebrow.

[Paradigm]

I was behind a car this evening with a "NRA for Altmire" sticker. I'm sure he's helping the cause while he's serving as one of Pelosi's lapdogs.

I simply don't trust the NRA. They are a political group, first and foremost.

[son of the revolution]

Originally Posted by Chip W

I joined the NRA a few months ago and I have been thoroughly amazed at how many emails or letters I have received since asking me to donate money or extend my membership for another two years etc.
I am still learning what they do (or try to do as the case may be) for the rights of us gun owners and do not doubt that legal counsel etc is a very pricey thing but asking me for more money only 2 weeks after first joining had me raising an eyebrow.

Meh , dont let it worry you or bother you to much. They send me that stuff all the time and 99.9% of it winds up in the round file without a second thought. Im happy enough with them that the wife and I both have Life Memberships. But I defiently dont agree with everything they do. And since their the " biggest stick " for 2A stuff right now, I consider spending 1400.00 for membership for another 30 plus years to be a bargain for me.

I did sign up for their Personal Firearms Self Defense DVD series with Rob Pincus at Valhalla Training Institute and Im really happy with it so far at 12 bucks a copy.

That being said, we're going to wind up buying life memberships to the GOA sometime soon also.

[jahwarrior72]

wow. unbelievable.

actually, that's not true, it's totally believable. i'm not surprised at all by the bullshit they pull. they tried to torpedo Heller, they're gonna do the same in Chicago.

ca i say it again? the NRA doesn't care about gun rights. they only care about making money.

[Wiley-X]

Originally Posted by Chip W

I joined the NRA a few months ago and I have been thoroughly amazed at how many emails or letters I have received since asking me to donate money or extend my membership for another two years etc.

The continual letters for additional funds are irritating. However, as amazing as it seems, as non-profits go NRA spends a very small percentage of raised monies on fund rasing.

Also, remember that the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF receive no money from NRA. The average person sees NRA-ILA or PVF and thinks "There's the NRA looking for more money." However, the three groups are separate but related.

Membership is their lifeblood so if they can induce you to extend now, they don't have to worry about you for a couple years.

[Exbiker]

Originally Posted by Wiley-X

The continual letters for additional funds are irritating. However, as amazing as it seems, as non-profits go NRA spends a very small percentage of raised monies on fund rasing.

Also, remember that the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF receive no money from NRA. The average person sees NRA-ILA or PVF and thinks "There's the NRA looking for more money." However, the three groups are separate but related.

Membership is their lifeblood so if they can induce you to extend now, they don't have to worry about you for a couple years.

Exactly. Not to mention not every pro 2A group agrees with the opinion that is posted in the OP. Sadly it`s all a chess game with the legal system and each group has different strategies. There are many that don`t even consider Heller a victory.