A few days ago, a particularly cranky individual got his panties in a twist over me calling people like him out for being reflexively obstructionist nitwits in regards to the NRA selfishly tacking themselves onto Alan Gura’s McDonald vs. Chicago Supreme Court case. As I said in that post, and will repeat here, one of the NRA’s motivations in this action is definitely to share in the media attention and glory (though I would, again, point out that the NRA attempted to bring their own case to the Supreme Court, and got shut down by the Justices), however, another one of the motivations unquestionably at play is to cover as many of the available aspects as possible in regards to this particular case.
Mr. Gura, legal master though he undoubtedly is, chose to focus almost exclusively on the “Privileges and Immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the NRA chose that the “Due Process” clause of the same Amendment, another valid approach to the argument. History has indicated that judges and Justices tend to prefer one of those clauses over the other, but few ignore both, and, as such, it makes sense that both aspects be well-represented and beaten into submission, leaving no avenue of escape for a Justice still looking to abridge our rights.
In a post significantly more tactful than my previous one, David Hardy (who has some previous experience in these matters) says much the same I did (reposted here in its entirety, simply because there are no unnecessary parts):
There are three ways to reach Second Amendment incorporation, at least two of which have present and powerful advocates. I can only say that I’m in correspondence with both, and they really wish there could be an end to to conflict. Bottom line: if the three routes to incorporation each got two votes, it’s still a 6-3 and a win, the other side is left to ponder that “almost” only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades, and the winner who favors one route or another has some votes (for the first time in my lifetime) on which to build. They’re going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don’t need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate.
Bottom line: there is no bad way to win a case. There may be great ways and good ways, but there is no bad way. This reminds me of a W.C. Fields description of something else, but never mind. At least every conceivable angle has been covered, and any Justice who isn’t 100% opposed to the right to arms or its incorporation has had a path laid out and supported, so take your pick.
… but I guess he is just engaging in a “circular firing squad” too, right?
I cannot speak for Mr. Hardy, but for myself, I am not trying to say the NRA is blameless. I am claiming they have not made mistakes in the past; I am not excusing them for those mistakes; and I am not trying to whitewash an occasionally oddly-motivated organization. I am saying that, by covering Mr. Gura’s flank in this case, they are doing a good thing, and taking them to task for it before the case has even been settled is not only premature, it is completely counterproductive if you want to improve the organization (which kind of goes to show the motivations of the individuals doing the back-seat driving, does it not?).
If this case fails, and it can be categorically proven that the failure was due entirely to the NRA’s involvement in the case, then I will have absolutely no problems with anyone ripping into them, me, and whoever else dared to welcome the support of someone who was looking to cover our flanks and limit the available courses for failure. But until then, you are not representing the high road you are so desperately attempting to monopolize.
Just a heads up… Calling people who disagree with you on this “reflexively obstructionist nitwits” may not be the best strategy to end the conflict. I myself was initially suspicious of NRA’s motives, but I’m not out to obstruct them, merely voicing my concern. At the end of the day, these guys are way more qualified than I to handle this stuff and I just have to assume as a member that they have my best interests at heart. Otherwise, why be a member? I certainly don’t believe that Gura going it alone would have been a dealbreaker, given his past experience and successes.
[...] comments Kevin S on “circular firing squad” indeedEseell on what color is my weblog?Weer'd Beard on quote of the dayWeer'd Beard on brownells [...]
It may not end the conflict, but it is certainly applicable in a disppointingly large number of cases.
I have no problems with suspicion, and as I said over your way and have indirectly stated here, I actually have no problems with the issues you brought up. Having concerns over the lawyer chosen by the NRA is valid… if he were as much of an “activist lawyer” as Gura is. In all reality, however, he is simply out for a paycheck – I am, however, somewhat concerned about his losing record in regard to firearm-related rights
. Likewise, I have already agreed on here, many times, that the NRA shouldering in like they did was partially motivated by attention-seeking greed, and should be regarded as such – denial of that would be as dumb as denial of the fact that they were trying to (and apparently sucking at) covering another aspect of the case.
What I have issues with are the people who enthusiastically leap at the chance to tear the NRA a new one, regardless of the situation, details, specifics, or concerns at play; and, more specifically, people who do that nearly every time the NRA does something even obliquely viewable as “wrong”. The people who will be damned before they admit the NRA might, possibly, maybe have done something, or will do something, right. The people who simply rail at the organization because it gives them something to do.
Those are the “reflesively obstructionist nitwits”, and they, as you might have noticed, are getting on my nerves
.
The 14th Amendment was never needed to impose the BoR on the States. It’s all legal quackery – period! If all executive officers, judges etc. of the U.S. and of the several states are obligated to uphold the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, why is the 14th amendment needed? The ONLY reason is because of corrupt courts/judges that have not honored their Oaths of Office in the past and think they know what’s better than the founding fathers. As far as the NRA, I only belong because it’s required in order to remain a member of my local gun range. I tired of their laying down and rolling over to “reasonable” gun laws years ago.
I certainly agree that the 14th Amendment should not have been necessary, but it became relatively obvious, even back when it was passed, that it unfortunately was. People tended to view the states and the nation as separate entities, with very little overlap, though that viewpoint has definitely diminished over the years.
These days, if it takes clubbing states over their respective heads with the 14th Amendment for them to honor the 2nd, I am ok with that.
As for “laying down and rolling over”, I would simply point out how well the SNBI argument does not work, as an alternative…
SNBI ????
“Shall Not Be Infringed”.
I.e. people who simply repeat that over and over again (or possibly various formulations and rearrangements of it) when the topic of Second-Amendment-related rights comes up, as if it were an argument that people would pay attention to.
GOA (Gun Owners of America) is probably one of the best examples of this mentality, and their sway (or lack thereof) in D.C. exposes how well it does not work.
[...] (even though the NRA dorked up their main brief)? And remember how I caught all manner of flack for daring to suggest that the NRA might be doing us a favor by reinforcing a potentially-underrepresented aspect of the [...]