The NRA (I think correctly) tried to stop a 2A case from going to the Supreme Court when there weren't sufficient votes for a solid individual rights decision. Once Roberts and Alito got on the Court, we've been supportive of 2A litigation at SCOTUS.Originally Posted by Kukuforguns
Wayback archived copy of the NYT article:
http://web.archive.org/web/201105121.../us/03bar.html
no one sees what's written on the spine of his own autobiography.
Kinda sorta.
Roberts joined the Court in 2005.
Alito joined the Court in 2006.
Dick Heller petitioned the Court for certiorari in 2007. See SCOTUS Docket.
But the Heller case began in 2003 - before Roberts and Alito were appointed - with the obvious intent of going to SCOTUS. The NRA sponsored legislation that would have mooted the Heller action well before the petition for certiorari was filed.
Once the Court granted the petition for certiorari, NRA supported the suit.
Was the suit a gamble? Yes.
Was Sen. McConnell's decision to delay hearings on a replacement for J. Scalia until after the 2016 election a gamble? Yes.
I think the NRA has never done a great job litigating 2A issues. Their strength, IMO, was crafting/promoting legislation and driving voter turnout.
I agree with that. I seem to remember at the time, there was also discussion in certain legal circles about whether those three were picking the best venue to start a run at the Supreme Court. But, the gamble payed off, thank goodness. The NRA disagreeing with a run at the Supreme Court does not mean that it did not help bring us the Heller opinion, among others, as I originally stated. One has to remember that legal thoughts and ideas almost always take time to grow and develop before they become ripe for a Supreme Court decision. The big win for us in Heller is that the Supreme Court held that Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. The first scholarly work that the 2nd protected an individual right appeared way back in 1960 in a law review article written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart Hays. Hays began his work by citing an article in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine and argued that the 2nd protected a "right of revolution." I don't need to dig around in the weeds more, but Levy, Gura and Neily did not come up with the idea that the 2nd protected an individual right on their own. That thought had been growing and blossoming, much of that under the nurturing care of the NRA and its money, for at least 43 years preceding the filing of Heller. Here is an article discussing just that: https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ndment-106856/ I am not necessarily a fan of the author, but he says this about Levy, Gura, Neily and the Heller case:
"The NRA worried it lacked the five votes necessary to win. The organization tried to sideswipe the effort, filing what Heller's lawyers called "sham litigation" to give courts an excuse to avoid a constitutional ruling. But the momentum that the NRA
itself had set in motion proved unstoppable, and the big case [Heller] made its way to the Supreme Court."
So, ya, the NRA through decades of effort helped bring us Heller, even if the NRA did not directly pay the lawyers representing Heller. In fact, apparently unable to sway the Heller lawyers from a risky legal maneuver, the NRA jumped in and filed an amicus brief in the Heller case arguing that the 2nd guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. https://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_heller.pdf
God bless Levy, Gura, and Neily for the win, and God bless the NRA for laying the groundwork for that win.
Also a great thing, which is why we need to support the NRA.
"Rich," the Old Man said dreamily, "is a little whiskey to drink and some food to eat and a roof over your head and a fish pole and a boat and a gun and a dollar for a box of shells." Robert Ruark
I'm not sure what in the timeline you posted contradicts what I said. Heller (at the time Parker)was initially an unecessary gamble that was primarily driven by Levy wanting to take a case to SCOTUS. Once Roberts and Alito got on the Court and the Court granted cert, it was much clearer that we wouldn't get a bad result. At the time, the NRA was enjoying substantial sucess passing "shall issue" laws in many states. This was changing the 2A landscape across the country. A negative 2A decision could have derailed these efforts. Levy doesn't really care much about gun rights. He regularly opines about his belief that the 2A doesn't prevent magazine bans and we have to deal with media asking why the "Heller architect" doesn't think the 2A protects standard capacity magazines.
Halbrook, Kates, and others did pretty good litigation work with NRA's support pre-Heller. Our focus on litigation has obviously grown in the last 16 years. We did manage to get a pretty good win a SCOTUS two years ago . . .
I'm not sure I said you were wrong about anything.
Your comment about an unnecessary gamble is exactly why I think other organizations are better at litigating. Levy et al. filed Heller/Parker years before a friendly Court existed. By the time the case had progressed far enough along to get to the Court, the Court had become friendlier. The NRA - especially of that era - always wanted a better environment (next year in Jerusalem; mañana). If the NRA had waited until Roberts and Alito joined the Court to file its own individual right suit, it would have taken 3-4 years to get to the Court. That's a delay of ~8 years - assuming the NRA ever pulled the trigger. A lot of people would have died during those 8 years. As a Californian still fighting for full rights, if the NRA's view had prevailed, there would be no Bruen analogue yet. Bruen has resulted in enormous changes in NY, CA, HI, etc. I'm glad Levy et al. took the gamble and even gladder they won.
Again, I think the NRA's strength is in legislation and voter turn-out. I don't think the NRA is useless.
More information about the annual meeting’s events here:
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2...e-nra-n1225001
This should not have taken five years, but I am encouraged now.
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Reply With Quote