Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How to cancel your NRA membership
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1313658" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>And sometimes, those are the wrong precedents to set.</p><p></p><p>Who made the oral arguments on behalf of the NRA in McDonald? Paul Clement.</p><p></p><p>In Heller, then Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief on behalf of the Bush Administration taking the position that the DC handgun ban <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/us-heller-brief-1-11-08.pdf" target="_blank">was constitutional</a>.</p><p></p><p>In McDonald, the NRA had two options: go with the Privileges or Immunities argument that Alan Gura had made throughout the appeals process, or argue Due Process with Paul Clement. They chose the latter because it was the more probable "win". Their choice was not about protecting gun rights, it was about chalking up another tally in the W column. But those who truly value their rights as protected by the Second Amendment do not see the creation of a new open season of litigation against the Second Amendment as a "win", they see it for what it is: a compromise that the NRA made that, in exchange for a case that the NRA could say it won (and even resulted in an extremely limited interpretation), they chose to consent to the Courts free reign in deciding what is and isn't protected by the Second Amendment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1313658, member: 5151"] And sometimes, those are the wrong precedents to set. Who made the oral arguments on behalf of the NRA in McDonald? Paul Clement. In Heller, then Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief on behalf of the Bush Administration taking the position that the DC handgun ban [URL="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/us-heller-brief-1-11-08.pdf"]was constitutional[/URL]. In McDonald, the NRA had two options: go with the Privileges or Immunities argument that Alan Gura had made throughout the appeals process, or argue Due Process with Paul Clement. They chose the latter because it was the more probable "win". Their choice was not about protecting gun rights, it was about chalking up another tally in the W column. But those who truly value their rights as protected by the Second Amendment do not see the creation of a new open season of litigation against the Second Amendment as a "win", they see it for what it is: a compromise that the NRA made that, in exchange for a case that the NRA could say it won (and even resulted in an extremely limited interpretation), they chose to consent to the Courts free reign in deciding what is and isn't protected by the Second Amendment. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
How to cancel your NRA membership
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom