Say what you will about the NRA, but if true, this just ain't right...

[NineseveN]

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...3717-6859r.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.

[Kenshin]

Politics...

Supreme court upholds 2nd ammendment and gives the rights back to the individuals to bear arms. No one needs to join the NRA to support their right to keep and bear arms anymore. NRA membership falls and they lose their lobbying power in congress??? Something like that?

[SGTUSArmy]

The NRA has a point, and I can see both sides of the arguement. Unfortunately, with judicial activism, a Supreme Court who has ruled against gun ownership before, and the number of sheep in wolves clothing (the Supreme Court Justices), they could go against the 2A again.

Granted, on the surface it looks like the NRA is anti-2A, but living halfway between DC and Baltimore has it's advantage on one thing. This "issue" is widely covered by all DC news channels, and it looks like DC is going to be a little bit gun friendlier. Unfortunately, DC, not being a state, not having a whole heck of a lot of people who are gun friendly in it, and being the liberal capital of the USA, they are going to ban guns with the requirements for ownership.

[billamj]

The issue, as I see it, is more a matter of guaranteed votes to uphold the Second. Right now we just don't have the number of votes that can be guaranteed. Sure we have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, but who are we going to count on to give us the go ahead vote? Kennedy, Stevens? Maybe, but they aren't originalists. Breyer, Ginsburg or Souter? Forget about those three. So where do we get the final vote to make the USSC stand up and admit that the Second is an individual right? If we could get one more originalist on the court I believe that it would be a done deal.

[KeithPA]

I see the NRAs point. A law would work much better than taking the risk of the Supreme Court.

But these people are a poster child for the suit. People wanting to have a gun in their homes or buisnesses, how can you argue against that? No state has such a restriction (I don't believe). I can't see how any judge could vote against it, it's common sense.

[billamj]

I see the NRAs point. A law would work much better than taking the risk of the Supreme Court.

But these people are a poster child for the suit. People wanting to have a gun in their homes or buisnesses, how can you argue against that? No state has such a restriction (I don't believe). I can't see how any judge could vote against it, it's common sense.

Delta; Did you REALLY just use judge and common sense in the same sentence???? OMG! I thought you had a better head on your shoulders than that.

[NineseveN]

The issue, as I see it, is more a matter of guaranteed votes to uphold the Second. Right now we just don't have the number of votes that can be guaranteed. Sure we have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, but who are we going to count on to give us the go ahead vote? Kennedy, Stevens? Maybe, but they aren't originalists. Breyer, Ginsburg or Souter? Forget about those three. So where do we get the final vote to make the USSC stand up and admit that the Second is an individual right? If we could get one more originalist on the court I believe that it would be a done deal.

Then let them vote against it, at least then we'd know where we stood exactly. The fact that the DC court ruled in our favor (which thousands of gunowners on sites just like this were screaming at the top of their lungs would NEVER happen) lends some creedence to the thought that maybe it's time to anti-up or find another game.

A death by 1000 cuts still results in death. Maybe this is what the lazy millions of gun owners need to see...sometimes one doesn't know what they had until it is gone.

[billamj]

Then let them vote against it, at least then we'd know where we stood exactly. The fact that the DC court ruled in our favor (which thousands of gunowners on sites just like this were screaming at the top of their lungs would NEVER happen) lends some creedence to the thought that maybe it's time to anti-up or find another game.

A death by 1000 cuts still results in death. Maybe this is what the lazy millions of gun owners need to see...sometimes one doesn't know what they had until it is gone.

I'm more of the opinion that we would be better served to wait for one more originalist justice to be sitting on the bench than to let them vote it down now. You call it a death by 1000 cuts, but I see it more as using logic to beat emotion.

[NineseveN]

I'm more of the opinion that we would be better served to wait for one more originalist justice to be sitting on the bench than to let them vote it down now. You call it a death by 1000 cuts, but I see it more as using logic to beat emotion.

Logic? Despite theories to the contrary, we have no way of knowing how any of the existing judges will vote. We can guess and speculate all we like, but we don't really know.

Aside from that, you're assuming that there will actually be a so-called "originalist" addittion to the Supremes, there are a lot of "what'ifs" and "whens" that can be speculated upon that go either way.

[billamj]

Logic? Despite theories to the contrary, we have no way of knowing how any of the existing judges will vote. We can guess and speculate all we like, but we don't really know.

Aside from that, you're assuming that there will actually be a so-called "originalist" addittion to the Supremes, there are a lot of "what'ifs" and "whens" that can be speculated upon that go either way.

We can make educated guesses based on past performance, and that is what everyone does when they either take a case to the USSC or they allow a case to go there. Would you prefer that the individual right be struck down by the court today? Yes, we will probably have to wait for another originalist but that is far better than the other option. ETA: I am not pessimistic enough to think that the right can not be upheld, just enough to worry about the current court getting the case.