MCDONALD MASTER THREAD

[bossy22]

I thought this could be a single place where we post all information about today's case at the SCOTUS

[onehandle]

1. SCOTUS will rule in favor of gun manufacturers.

Next.

[bossy22]

2. are the gun manufacturers plaintiffs in this one

i didnt see a case called Smith and Wesson V Chicago, or Colt V Chicago

but sure, turn the issue into something its not in order to make you feel better about deamonizing/dehumanizing the other side

[onehandle]

5. Whatever will make it easier to get guns will win.

This right-wing SCOTUS will always rule in favor of commerce.

[slackmaster]

9. Commerce is not the issue. The issue is rights, equal protection.

:hi:

[TheWraith]

84. This is pretty much the same SCOTUS that threw out laws against gay sex.

And that tossed out the Military Commissions Act. There are some tools on the SCOTUS to be sure, but as a whole they've produced pretty good rulings.

[Euromutt]

3. No gun manufacturer is a party to the case

...so the Court can't rule in their favor. Perhaps you meant to say "the SCOTUS will rule against the authoritarian shitheads who cling to an ineffective policy with which they themselves don't feel bound to comply"?

[Tejas]

90. A win for them is a win for me.

Next troll, you're up!

[bossy22]

4. im curious to why they arent releasing any audio for this

its much easier to listen to the audio than actually read the transcript....plus the suspense is annoying

[X_Digger]

6. SCOTUSBLOG podcasts

Not the actual McDonald arguments, but talks by the parties

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/podcasts-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago/

[GreenStormCloud]

7. This blog will likely scoop the others.

http://f11f.wordpress.com/

[Pullo]

8. I doesn't seem the court was very receptive to Gura's P&I arguments

at least that's the early word from SCOTUSblog .....

[GreenStormCloud]

10. The P&I argument would require Slaughterhouse to be overturned.

It would cause a lot of legal chaos. Slaughterhouse was a bad ruling, but far too much has since been built upon it to upset it now.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. U.S. Supreme Court Signals States Must Respect Gun Rights

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aELyQglA4Xbo&pos=9

By Kristin Jensen and Greg Stohr

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they are poised to extend constitutional protections for gun owners to state and local laws in a case that may invalidate a handgun ban in Chicago.

Hearing arguments in Washington today, several justices said a 2008 ruling suggested that the right to bear arms was so fundamental it should restrict states and cities as well as the federal government. The two-year-old ruling said the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects individual rights.

[Pullo]

13. That seems to be the prevailing view

[TPaine7]

15. If it is not possible to overrule Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank--

cases carefully crafted to deny US citizens their rights--then stare decisis is absolute, and the Court might as well declare itself infallible and start a church.

The upheaval would be worth it, just from the instruction it would give to future Courts not to allow legal abominations to live for hundreds of years.

Just my humble opinion.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. I agree, mostly.

Yet, for a society to be stable, laws must be consistent and stable, hence the doctrine of stare decisis.

[Statistical]

46. However not in cases where the injustice is so obvious and so great.

If I passed a law saying people with scree-name beginning with "Green" can be held as property and the Supreme Court found it constitutional it would be the duty, no obligation of some future court to overturn that at first chance.

Slaughterhouse is a travesty and should have been overturned 100 years ago.

[Callisto32]

59. If the law is bad, why keep it stable?

[Statistical]

27. I agree 100%. The P&I route would be "chaos" but we be cleaner in the long run.

Also it would allow protection of non-enumerated rights like marriage equality or abortion.

Might actually require people to realize the Bill Of Rights is not an exhaustive list and rights exist without the Bill Of rights.

However based on all the quotes I put the chance of a ruling based on P&I at slightly less than 0.000000000%.

[Abq_Sarah]

70. The element of chaos

Is exactly why this court and most probably, future courts, will not overturn Slaughterhouse.

[SteveM]

80. Cato Institute on C-Span spent most of the time on the consequences of 14A...

being used to protect an individual's RKBA (instead of the "due process" approach used heretofore). Cato likes the 14A "incorporation" approach as it allows challenges (as they see it) to the entire approach of government policy in the 20th Century (FDR's "welfare state," "Great Society," etc.). The Institute's speakers seem to favor use of the 14th because of their bigger agenda, but I support the 14th as well in this case; after all, much of the civil rights' court rulings in the 50s and 60s were based on the 14th. They did not see Slaughterhouse being overturned, only effectively eviscerated.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. I'd LOVE to see the rethu Slaughterhouse ruling overturned.

[Pullo]

21. More on Gura getting shot down

Alan Gura, who was arguing for the "privileges or immunities" route, ran into skepticism almost from the moment he began, when ChiefJustice John Roberts Jr. said Gura had a "heavy burden" because his approach entailed striking down the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873.

Justice Antonin Scalia piled on by asking Gura why he'd take this more difficult path "unless you're bucking for some place on a law school faculty." The privileges or immunities clause, Scalia added sarcastically, has become the "darling of the professoriate." Justice Stephen Breyer also seemed to opt for caution, asking Gura questions about the implications of using a new part of the Constitution to apply the Second Amendment to states.

The justices seemed almost to sigh in relief when former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the National Rifle Association on the same side as Gura, rose to reassure the justices that using the due process clause was a "remarkably straightforward" way to apply the Second Amendment that would not involve upsetting precedent.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/03/in-chicago-gun-case-supreme-court-sounds-note-of-caution.html">Link

Too bad. This was not unexpected, but its unfortunate that this was the last, best chance for the court to take another look at the P&I issue, and it went nowhere it seems.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Thanks to the NRA. Bastards! You know that often in arguing before SCOTUS

the judges that grill you the hardest are leaning your way don't you? The reason for the hard grilling is to answer the tough questions and arguments that the judges not leaning your way need to hear. It's odd but often true that the meanest to you are actually your friends.

[bossy22]

32. sometimes, sometimes not

it all depends on the tone of voice and which words they choose. In this case its probably most likely that they were very skeptical of Gura's position.

[Jackson1999]

33. I thank the NRA

I am no fan of them, but they called it right on this one. In hindsight, what I thought was just a power grab was a smart decision.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Yes, the NRA went the "due process" route.

In doing that they were able to keep to focus on guns only.

[X_Digger]

36. Ehn.. Gura had SDP in his back pocket. n/t

[Callisto32]

57. Exactly WHY it should be overturned.

A bad ruling is bad law. Lex mala lex nulla. If it causes chaos in the courts, so be it. The tax-feeding court system has a JOB to do. They ought to do it, not avoid it because they originally created a clusterfuck.

Not angry at you, by the way. I'm just venting against an organization that decides it won't fix its own messes because it would be a lot of work.

[TPaine7]

11. Yeah, it appears the Court is going to wimp out.

They should interpret the text instead of figuring out the possible implications and acting as another political branch:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.

When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate will be how extensive a “right to keep and bear arms” should be spelled out: would it be only some “core right” to have a gun for personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations.

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/analysis-2d-amendment-extension-likely/#more-17012

Sad. The Second Amendment is important, but so is the necessity of having all of our right protected by the Constitution as written.

[DonP]

14. Favorite quote: "Forlorn and Doomed ..."

My favorite quote so far from SCOTUSBlog:

"An attempt by an attorney for the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., defending local bans on handguns in those communities, to prevent any application of the constitutional gun right to states, counties and cities looked forlorn and even doomed."

The general consensus is that the question of incorporation is pretty much a given for all 9 justices. The discussions and eventual ruling will be about what level of scrutiny will be applied. But the idea of a total ban is pretty much out the door.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. 9-0 for incorporation would be great...

...and I will take 5-4 for strict scrutiny.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. I support the above statement.

[TPaine7]

20. + a sideways 8

[Statistical]

40. Exactly.

If they have 5 votes the should attempt to form a consensus but not to the point of watering it down to be meaningless.

A 9-0 decision that says "the right is incorporated but virtually anything the state does short of a complete ban on all arms is constitutional" is worthless. Not even worth the paper it is written on.

The Justices should try to seek compromise to get a good vote 6-3 or 7-2 if possible but not to the point of betraying the point of the case.

[Callisto32]

60. If discrimination based upon race gets strict scrutiny, (as it should)

than an originally enumerated right ought to get it as well.

[Statistical]

28. Come on "strict scrutiny".

If so 90% of "gun control laws" which do nothing to protect public are subject to challenge.

Under strict scrutiny even the act of charging for license or registration is likely unconstitutional.

[DissedByBush]

31. Take the argument against requiring ID

To participate in an election.

Successful challenges included the burden that ID fees and even getting to the place to get the ID would put on many people, thus violating their voting rights.

A right burdened so that the least among us cannot exercise it is no right at all.

[Statistical]

35. Exactly. If a state govt wants to register firearms they can... at the states cost.

Just as registering people to vote and conducting elections is expensive but states are prohibited from charging a poll tax.

[Pullo]

37. That would be nice but ....

I doubt the court goes that far. Intermediate scrutiny is more likely IMO ..... and that's *if* the court decides to enumerate a standard at all.

[Statistical]

38. I think you are right but we can always hope. n/t

[Pullo]

85. One more thing on possible 2A judicial standards .......

I had forgotten that, without specifying a level of scrutiny for 2A cases in Heller, the court did in fact take rational basis off the table. From the majority decision in Heller:

"If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect"

So that leaves open strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny in future 2A litigation, with a strong lean toward strict scrutiny since the 2A is a fundamental right ..... assuming the court continues to follow precedents for applying constitutional rights.

[TPaine7]

87. Excellent point! n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

89. Wow, I missed that in Heller. Good catch! nt

[Jackson1999]

22. McDonald Pics

As I mentioned, I went for a run this morning. On a lark I brought my camera. Glad I did. McDonald showed up before the press was set up, so he just wandered around thanking a few people before heading in. I like the first one.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/47985882@N05/4401131461 /



http://www.flickr.com/photos/47985882@N05/4401897814 /


http://www.flickr.com/photos/47985882@N05/4401897728/

[Hoopla Phil]

23. You need to watermark those photos FAST!!!!

Great photo's by the way!!!

[DonP]

24. He's a real gentleman

I had the pleasure of meeting him several months ago in a local Fish place near our homes, DiCola's on Western avenue.

I was waiting for my order and thought it was him standing next to me. I said "Mr. McDonald?", and introduced myself when he said yes and said thank you for all of us that believe as you do.

He could not have been nicer, more friendly and unasssuming. We did not get into any kind of political or policy discussion, other than agreeing that DiCola's has the best Lake Perch in the area. But I was honored to shake his hand and tell him (as I'm sure so many others have) how proud of him and happy so many of are that he chose to take this on.

[slackmaster]

26. Awesome!

:kick:

[aikoaiko]

64. Out of curiosity, does anyone know when McDonald moved to Chicago from NOLA

I was wondering if he was a part of the Katrina diaspora.

[DonP]

67. About 60 years ago

His mother paid someone to drive him up here when he was 17 for a better chance at life than he would have had back home.

[aikoaiko]

69. Thank you.

[Abq_Sarah]

71. Good job!

It's nice to put a face to the actual case.

[Jackson1999]

29. Breyer is off his rocker

Justice Breyer drew only thinly veiled ridicule from conservatives on the Court when he suggested that there be a constitutional “chart” drawn up to rank the higher and lower priorities of rights that would be protected against state and local infringement — perhaps the highest rank safeguarding the right to have a gun in community self-defense (as with a “militia”) but with a decidedly lower rank for a right to “shoot birds.”

[X_Digger]

30. Yeah, I smell an 8-1 for incorporation. n/t

[Statistical]

39. 8-1 might not be good.

The amount of votes will determine how much compromise is put into the language.

It is all but guaranteed the right will be incorporated however what will be a reasonable restriction.

To get 8 votes it may require selling off so much to make the victory a hollow one.

While I won't complain about 8-1 I would accept a stronger worded 6-3 or 7-2 decision.

[X_Digger]

49. oh I didn't mean an 8-1 decision.. more like Heller's 9-0 individual right. n/t

[Statistical]

50. Gotcha.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. So he is trying to enumerate a scrutiny level? That kinda goes in the face of precedent

doesn't it?

[TPaine7]

42. The Transcript

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

[bossy22]

43. transcript avaliable

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/pdf/McDonaldvChicagoOralArgs.pdf

[Statistical]

44. Transcripts available and all 9 Justices should be impeached (in a pefect world)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

Man Guru laid out a great case for P&I. The court completely rejected it though. 0% change of "Privileges and Immunities" being restored.

The court has 9 cowards. If the law is wrong then the law is wrong and regardless to the cost of the state it must be overturned. If we somehow forgot and one state still had slaves we wouldn't just say "it will be hard to change that". No. The court should rule based on the legality of the issue and consequences be damned.

Our SCOTUS is weak and tired.

Look at this sentence....

Gura creates an argument it would be simpler to restore Privileges and Immunities clause.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
Of course, this argument is contrary to the Slaughter-House cases, which have been the law for 140 years. It might be simpler, but it's a big -- it's a heavy burden for you to carry to suggest that we ought to overrule that decision.

MR. GURA:
Your Honor, the Slaughter-House cases should not have any stare decisis effect before the Court. The Court has always found that when a case is extremely wrong, when there is a great consensus that it was simply not decided correctly, especially in a constitutional matter, it has less force.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
What is it that has -has been caused by it that we have to remedy,.... in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?

MR. GURA:
Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

You are so fracking right Gura! In a perfect world every single one of the justices should be impeached, every single one. All 9 gone and with bipartisan support. It is one thing to rule in a way that people disagree upon but it is entirely another thing to simply preserve an injustice because it would be difficult to change.

They go on to reinforce they know Slaughterhouse is wrong but won't overturn it because it would create hardship on the govt. On the GOVT?????????????? I am about to go ballistic. What about the hardship of people having rights denied. The SCOTUS isn't suppose to weight what is hard but what is right.

I could puke on all the Justices right now!

[Statistical]

45. In writing my rant I got beat to the transcripts punch. Still the rant stands.

[PavePusher]

47. O.M.G.

"We're wrong, and we're by Ghod going to stay wrong!"

Holy Everlasting Fuckstick.

Peoples exhibit A on what is wrong with out nation today.


Edit: I agree with you, if that wasn't clear...

[Statistical]

48. Its clear. Sadly it is too clear.

I am divided today.

We may win on the 2nd amendment issue narrowly but we lose on the much broader issue.

There is no separation of powers if the SCOTUS won't overturn something that is wrong because it feels obligated to not create too much work for the other branches.

[Lurks Often]

51. Keep in mind

Keep in mind the unlikelihood of the other two branches wanting Slaughterhouse overturned

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

52. Fuck what the other two branches want.

They are SWORN to uphold the Constitution.
Slaughterhouse is not constitutional - it is wrong.

Why do I feel like Obama isn't going to say one comment regarding this... or lose one wink of sleep.

[Statistical]

53. Obama said he supported "reasonable gun control in Chicago"

at a time when Chicago had a complete ban.

Obama is going to pretend this issue doesn't even exist.

Not sure what he will do when the decision is announced. Would be weird for him to be totally silent.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. This needs to be in General Discussion.

This is so much bigger than guns or the 2A.
Trampling the rights of the public justified by commonplacency™ - disguating.

Yes, I just made up a word. This travesty justifies the creation of new words.

[Jackson1999]

55. Gura got bitch slapped. Breyer really needs to retire.

Look at Breyer's comments? He seems in his own little world. Age is catching up with him. Time for the country to thank him for his service and for him to retire.

[bossy22]

58. i think his comments were hypothetical

the whole chart thing was a hypothetical scenario put there to more or less "bitchslap" feldman.

But then again breyer uses international law and other countries constitutions to deal with our costitutional questions.

plus gura's arguement was dead from the start; there was another less constitutional shocking way of incorporating the 2A and therefore it will be done (the due process clause)

[Jackson1999]

61. But you have to admit that Gura...

got taken out of the running a LOT sooner than he expected. I was wondering why the court even agree to hear the question in that form.

[Pullo]

62. It does make you wonder ......

The court seemed to dismiss Gura's P&I arguments as the vehicle for 2A incorporation from the get go. Scalia led off one exchange revealing his antagonistic view to the court's historic use of due process as the mainstay of incorporating rights against the states, only to conclude basically the precedent for using this method has grown so thick he has given up his position and now uses a "when in Rome" judicial philosophy on deciding such matters.

The court appeared ready to entertain Gura's approach by the question they agreed to hear, so reading the transcripts today was most disappointing.

[Statistical]

63. My take.

They agreed to hear it simply to re-affirm their willingness to defend at all costs an unjust decision.

Kinda like a politicians recommitting himself to a cause/issue.

If P&I never came up it would be ambiguous. By bringing it up only to crush it back down we now know the one issue that the court seems unanimous on.

[Pullo]

65. If P&I wasn't a dead letter already, it is for sure now

[-..__...]

74. Perhaps a bit of deference and courtesy towards Gura?

After all... he was the one who took the ball this far and the court thought 'well... let's give this young whippersnapper his day in the limelight. Even though we disagree with him, he earned it'.

[Jackson1999]

75. Don't get me wrong. I think Gura.....

...is the best thing to happen to gun rights in decades! His strategy of selecting narrowly defined cases with sympathetic witnesses, not standing strong when the NRA and others tried to derail his every move. Total ballsy move. And I agree with his P&I approach. But the fact is that he got smacked down hard and fast. I didn't think the justices needed to be that snide about it.

[bossy22]

56. Finished reading through the transcript

from what i can tell IMHO the chicago handgun is all but dead for good. I do not think they will choose a level of scrutiny. I feel this case will be decided very minimalist way and leave alot things open for the state and appeals courts to go through. This is understandable since i do not think the SCOTUS wants to open up that can of worms at this time. If they can resolve the case without dealing with more "what ifs" they will.

but again this would still be a huge win; we must be patient and understand that this isnt going to be a quick process; many amendments have had many years, even centuries of jurisprudence to fall back on, the second basically has 2 years.

[X_Digger]

66. Lol, Feldman's butt must hurt..

He got pwned.

[Euromutt]

77. He deserved it, too

P.42 line 25 - p.43 line 5:

MR. FELDMAN: I -- I think that few people today would say -- and in fact few people in 1868 would say that the concern to protect the State militias is something that's so fundamental or essential to a concept of ordered liberty or central to our system that it has to be protected -­

From a historical perspective, and shorn of the context in which Feldman makes this assertion, I can't argue with that: state militias in effect ceased to be relevant after the War of 1812. Citizens didn't want to be conscripted into them, and the states didn't want the expense of maintaining them. The Dick Act of 1903, which established the National Guard, was the penultimate nail in the coffin of the state militias as a meaningful contribution to the United States' war-making ability.

But in the context of Feldman's argument, this is bullshit. You can't reasonably argue with one breath (as Feldman does) that the purpose of the Second Amendment is (and always has been) to protect the existence of the state militias, and then argue with the next that "the concern to protect the State militias is" not "something that's so fundamental or essential to a concept of ordered liberty or central to our system that it has to be protected." If the protection of the state militias is not "fundamental or essential to a concept of ordered liberty or central to our system," then why would that be the raison d'être of the Second Amendment to the supreme law of the land? Anything that's in the Constitution is ipso facto "fundamental or essential to a concept of ordered liberty or central to our system."

So if the protection of the state militias isn't "fundamental or essential to a concept of ordered liberty or central to our system," then maybe the purpose of the Second Amendment is something else; say, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms for the defense of his own person or, if need be, the state.

[Jackson1999]

68. Didn't it seem strange how they argued Heller?

I understand the dialectic and protocol, but they were talking like it was written 100 years ago by a different set of justices. I half expected Scalia to reach over, grab Feldman by the collar and say "Don't tell me what it says. I f'ing wrote it!"

[Hoopla Phil]

72. Very, I commented on another board about the mayor's campaigning in

D.C. about how they need their gun ban to keep the streets of Chicago safe. I was saying "That matter was decided by Heller. If Chicago's lawyer takes that tack before SCOTUS their goose is cooked".

[bossy22]

76. and that is exactly what happened

whenever the feldman started to get close to arguing heller, the justices shoved him right back

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Gura is a revolutionary. A little revolution every now and then is a good thing.

Gura's aim, his goal, this entire time has been on getting Slaughterhouse overturned. He used 2A as a means to an end. It appears not to have worked. (&*^%@$*&)

The NRA, on the other hand, wanted a 2A victory only and narrowly focused on that issue, to the exclusion of P&I.

Since P&I appears to unanimously be going down in flames, I am grateful to the NRA for jumping into the fray with the due-process argument.

[Statistical]

78. The NRA wasn't needed. Gura original filing argued both P&I and DP.

Then the NRA decided to bandwagon and when the cases got combined I assume the two legal teams decided to break up the work into Gura handling P&I and NRA handling DP angle.

NRA hated the idea of Heller lawsuit and tried to kill it. Only when it got the Supreme Court (despite their attempts to kill it) did they suddenly support it. Now they almost act like they caused the Heller v. DC victory.

Jumping onto the McDonald v. Chicago suit was just another attempt to avoid being left behind.

I am glad they didn't blow it but had they stayed out of it Gura would have pivoted from P&I and scored points on the DP angle.

[Pullo]

79. Gura is getting a lot of cred for is P&I strategy in some circles ......

..... theory being that by arguing for the more radical P&I approach to incorporation, he made incorporation via due process seem like the middle of the road, sensible rout to proceed with 2A jurisprudence, ensuring victory for his clients.

[Statistical]

81. Never thought about it that way before.

Like Republicans pushing for tax cuts so when they "compromise" and agree to not cut or raise taxes it seems "middle of the road".

Interesting.

All I know is he is one smart lawyer and the 2A community has needed someone like him for a long time.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. Interesting idea, but I still think Gura is a revolutionary. Not that it is bad thing to be one.

He is a superb legal strategist.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. In poker terms...

The NRA are fixed limit grinders. That is a person who is an excellent poker player, but plays at fixed limits, so that if he loses a big hand, he is still in the game for many more hands. Eventually, if he is good enough, he will win the money. The math favors him. For that person, poker is a game of cards, played with money

Gura is a no-limit player. For him poker is a game of money, played with cards. At the right time, he shoves all his chips in the center, bets it all. If he wins, he wins big, but he can also lose it all.

Because it is so difficult to get a court ruling overturned, the NRA tries to stay away from courts. If Gura had lost, and the decision had come in 5-4 against us, we would be cursing Gura. The NRA prefers to work with legislatures where if you lose this year, (this hand) you can be back next year (next hand). In the long run, an appproach such as the NRAs will grind the anti-gun-rights groups down.

[Pullo]

86. Love'm or hate'm .....

In the long run, an appproach such as the NRAs will grind the anti-gun-rights groups down.

..... it cannot be denied that the NRA has been incredibly successful over the long term.

Over the last two decades, the liberation of gun rights has spread across the country, and the NRA is as potent as it ever has been. By contrast, the Brady bunch used to be a capital hill darling in the early 90's. Now they've been reduced to coffee house dumpster divers.

[beevul]

88. HEY, HEY....

"By contrast, the Brady bunch used to be a capital hill darling in the early 90's. Now they've been reduced to coffee house dumpster divers."

Dumpster divers do not deserve such meanness and denigration...Just sayin... :evilgrin:

[Tejas]

91. apologize to 'coffee house dumpster divers' or I will report your post!

We have feelings too ya know!