Guess my voice won't be heard....

[BluesStringer]

If you have to deal with the crookedness of Washington DC, you need money and you have to be on the shady side to play the game.

Perhaps our local DAs and AGs could do a better job of getting our states' rights back using this tack too. They'd basically only be violating the same ethics as the "shady" NRA attorneys, right?

'When is Rome, do like the Romans' is not just a BS saying. It means something.

Indeed it does, but your context is way off. WE are the Romans and DC is our Rome. The above apparently has us as subservient or subordinate to the elites of DC and the elites of the NRA, when in both cases, it is supposed to be exactly the other way around.

Do you really think someone with a ball cap and jeans would stand a chance up there? Maybe for the first hour and just because of the novelty of it.

Yeah, I'm sure Alan Gura agrees. Not that he ever talks down the NRA, he supports them at every opportunity, but they fought him and Mr. Heller right up until SCOTUS set the date for arguments, at which time they took the same compromise position on the 2A as Bush's Solicitor General did just to get in on the arguments and a time-slot on the docket. I think Gura was properly attired for arguments too, even though he wasn't associated with the NRA other than perhaps being an unsupported member.

Being a lawyer for the NRA is not a part time job that someone can do on the side, pro bono. I wouldn't if I spent that much time in Law School. I expect nobody to work for free for me. A little charity work here and there is OK, but this is not a charity.

KK

I get this and agree with it mostly, but Gura proved unequivocally that the NRA need not be the only game in Rome or any other town. They are welcome to continue to be the shady elites of the protecting-citizens'-rights industry, but in doing so, they run the risk of alienating as many of us peons and pawns as they recruit, and I'd say from some of the replies here, I'm not the only one that thought applies to.

Blues

[BC1]

The NRA has cooperated with the drafting of every gun restriction ever written. Just sayin'!

Not true. They adamantly fought in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. They helped fund the legal costs and penned an Amicus Brief in support of gun rights in both cases. Where would we be without them? Both cases would have been lost, upholding a state ability to deny your second amendment right.

[BluesStringer]

The NRA has cooperated with the drafting of every gun restriction ever written. Just sayin'!

Not true. They adamantly fought in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. They helped fund the legal costs and penned an Amicus Brief in support of gun rights in both cases. Where would we be without them? Both cases would have been lost, upholding a state ability to deny your second amendment right.

Objection, your honor, non-responsive. (Sorry BC1, couldn't resist.)

Weekendskp's post wasn't limited to Heller and McDonald at all, and the way it was stated, it is absolutely accurate and correct, and I say that with the words of past NRA presidents as my source.

America's largest gun control organization

On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."


NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:


"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."

Several more "Items" at the link straight from the horse's mouth(s).

Even the American Bar Association Journal ran a story in '07 - pre-Heller - with a headline that if Heller won, it would be in spite of the NRA, not thanks to them. In citing a fund-raising letter that LaPierre (et al) sent out, the ABA Journal said...

If the tone of LaPierre’s letter didn’t sound urgent enough, he used plenty of underlined boldface type and capital letters to drive home his point. He told the faithful a top-notch brief may cost as much as $1.2 million.


“For gun owners and NRA members, this is the biggest legal battle that we have ever fought, or will ever fight—and its outcome will probably impact every law-abiding American gun owner,” LaPierre wrote in the five-page letter. “It is a battle we simply cannot afford to lose.”

Sounds reasonable for an org. involved in the biggest 2A case in history, right? One problem though; they weren't involved! Continuing from the article, and remember, this is '07, contemporaneous to the events being reported:

Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.

It goes on to describe some road-blocking maneuvers that NRA engaged in, mostly aimed at trying to make themselves the lead team at SCOTUS, but they ended up involved at all exactly as described above; kicking and screaming, because their industry depends on draconian gun control laws for them to inspire the millions they bring in in fund-raising.

Where Heller is concerned, a case can be made that we'd be a little better-off had the NRA not been there. They and Bush's Solicitor General, Clements, took a weaker position on the individual right question than did Gura and his team. Perhaps without that weaker compromise position, SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled as narrowly as they did. They probably would have, but who knows? But the fact remains, we'd have never got where we got with Heller at all if we had depended solely on the NRA, because the case would've never seen the light of day.

Please notice that I am not calling them "traitors" or any other names. I am simply reciting history that is both verifiable and well-known to those who don't have a literal sycophantic loyalty to only one gun-rights organization, NRA or otherwise. I'll stick with what I said right above the post I'm replying to; The NRA doesn't have to be the only game in Rome or any other town. To the extent that we, as gun-rights advocates, push for such a circumstance through exaggerating their effectiveness or their involvement in important cases and legislation, we practice a self-defeating strategy. We delude ourselves by encouraging our less-aware gun-rights-supporters to believe that they're always on the right side of every argument or strategy, and we dilute ourselves by putting all our...hmm...ammo in one cache.

Bottom line, I have nothing intentionally bad to say about the NRA.....unless saying the truth is bad for them, which may well be the case, but reciting historical fact is not the same as just bad-mouthing someone. If the truth is bad for them, that's on them, not on me or anyone or any other gun-rights .org that might tell the same truths from time to time.

Blues

[ESD]

Not true. They adamantly fought in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. They helped fund the legal costs and penned an Amicus Brief in support of gun rights in both cases. Where would we be without them? Both cases would have been lost, upholding a state ability to deny your second amendment right.

You mean "we" helped fund the legal costs don't you? Because I believe the NRA gets their "funds" from uh...you and me? And while I understand your thinking that some great battle was won....neither you, nor I can "legally" carry either in Washingtion DC, or Chicago? One being the National Capital, and one being from the great State of Illinois, "where the most restrictive gun laws still remain in our country?" So was it the fight that impressed you, or the money that was spent? Because either way, I'm still not "legal" to carry in either one of these places, correct?

Don't be fooled by catchy headlines, or other scheming propaganda to fleece your pocket book my friend. These court cases were unconstitutional from the start, and everybody knew it. The second amendment is what it is. There will never be law to change it. But it's the mighty dollar that spins the wheels of justice. And at this level, you get the best show, money can buy. And that's exactly what these high profile cases are. The court's know they cannot change the 2nd amendment. So my biggest complaint about the whole thing is how it ever got before them? Answer: Money. There was no justice where justice already prevailed? The truth is....these cases should have never gone to that level. And I still firmly believe that Washington DC, Illinios, California, etc... are violating my 2nd amendment rights everyday. And how it can continue is beyond my pocket book?