NRA butts its way into McDonald vs. Chicago

[Pullo]

If you followed Heller, then you are aware of the NRA's nefarious attempts to derail the case that would result in a watershed 2A ruling. The organization's egotistical leadership at it again now, and was granted time in oral arguments of McDonald over the objections of lead attorney Alan Gura.(the NRA hates this guy)

The question is whether the NRA, which butted into the present case against the wishes of Gura and his client, is doing so for sound tactical reasons, or as a means of “marching to the head of the parade” by claiming success for efforts not of its doing.

While you might think the NRA joining the pro-gun argument is a plus (“the more, the merrier”), bear in mind that while the Court may extend oral arguments, as it did in Heller, each side is normally limited to thirty minutes. Translated, the NRA is taking precious time from a lawyer who has already won the most important Second Amendment case in history.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Court-grants-NRA-motion-to-argue-McDonald-What-are-implications">Link

Paul Clement will be going to bat for the NRA on March 2nd ..... the same guy who, as US Solicitor General, argued for a ruling in Heller that would not have overturned the D.C. ban, but instead remanded the case back to Court of Appeals with the instructions to apply a less stringent standard of judicial review in applying the 2A to the Heller case than had been previously been applied.

Its times like these where I feel the NRA cares a heck of a lot more for the NRA than it does for advocating for the RKBA.

[naaman fletcher]

1. I'm a lifetime member.. starting to regret it.

Now is the time to strike for RKBA, but the NRA is mucking things up because their massive bureaucracy is too slow and they are not in the lead.

[Pullo]

2. Well said.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Certainly, they wouldn't botch this...

The backlash would be immediate and severe... The NRA would loose so much clout and support if the "fubar" the works on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. No they wouldn't.

The appropriate placement of blame would be lost in the face of the NRA's noise machine.

They need to butt out.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. I don't think the NRA is in this to derail it. They are doing what they did

in Heller after they got stopped trying to derail that one. They know this is going to be a slam dunk and want to claim credit for it. Sorry Bastards!

[Tim01]

5. Entirely too much grand-standing from them. nt

[SteveM]

6. The NRA should butt-out of the case...

Some have argued that the main strategy of the NRA is characterized by legislation and lobbying, and is suspicious of court cases which "initiate" action. Perhaps they see this as a threat to their lobbying/legislative prowess, which must include their ability to pick and choose, to a great extent, those who win or lose legislative races. In the long run, if gun-control issues are settled in the courts, they may feel their existence irelevent, but if they were to "shrink back" to a former time when promotion of safe shooting sports and protections against occasional gun-control eruptions was their main purpose, then so be it.

I think they like their special interest power and don't want to give it up to lawyers filing civil rights suits.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. I think the NRA is afraid of courts.

Courts can be unpredictable. A failed legislative bill can be re-introduced the next year, and polticians that voted against the NRA can be targeted. The NRA plays that kind of game extremely well. But a stray judge is something they can't control.

[X_Digger]

9. True, and precedent is harder to overturn than law. n/t