huh. lookit that. facts.

My primary complaint with those reflexively and compulsively railing against the NRA’s involvement in the McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court case is that their “arguments”, such as they are, have largely consisted of, “The NRA sux0rs, so their representation of this case is going to sux0r too!” Up until today, that opinion (and it is exactly that) was largely based on the prejudices of the individuals making the statements, and had little basis other than those individuals’ displeasure with past NRA activities and actions.

In the interests of fairness and honesty (something lost to those limited by their own narrow minds), however, the NRA has filed its brief, and there now exist specific, documented issues to call the NRA to task over:

Well, having argued that petitioners’ counsel Alan Gura insufficiently covered the argument that the Second Amendment should be “incorporated” against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the NRA has now filed a brief that fails even to reference the four biggest cases regarding incorporation and substantive due process. That is, the NRA reply brief contains no mention of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), Benton v. Maryland (1969), Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), or Palko v. Connecticut (1937). (The NRA did cite those cases in its opening brief.) What is more, it also lacks a discussion of Judge O’Scannlain’s magisterial Ninth Circuit opinion in Nordyke v. King (2009), which the Supreme Court might as well cut and paste regardless of which constitutional provision it uses to extend the right to keep and bear arms to the states!

Not being a lawyer, I do not immediately understand the specific significance of any of those cases aside from Nordyke v. King, nor do I understand why those cases would be mentioned in the NRA’s opening brief, but not their primary brief… but when an actual Constitutional scholar/lawyer (unlike our Glorious President) tells me that omitting those cases is a bad thing, I tend to listen.

I wonder if any webloggers/journalists out there with a little more pull/name recognition would be able to get a statement from the NRA regarding their primary brief – I am not sure if it is permitted to discuss such things before the hearing, but an explanation of the obvious omission in that document might be useful.

This form of criticism I do not mind, and I honestly support – if you can articulate specific shortcomings and problems with what any organization is doing, then those issues should be expressed such that they can be addressed and potentially corrected (though it is probably too late for the brief in question). After all, fact-based criticism (constructive or not, I am not picky) is one of the best ways individuals and organizations can improve their material to the point where those shortcomings and problems do not occur… or at least do not occur quite as often.

If, however, the best you can bring to the table is inchoate rantings about how much the organization sucks, and how badly they have pissed you off over the years… really, do not waste my time, and try, please try, not to act like a spoiled brat when I call you out on it. I am certainly not going to claim that past performance should not be taken into account for current and future dealings, nor am I going to claim that NRA’s performance in the past has been spotless (as I have already made clear repeatedly), but blinding yourself to only the negative past performance of an organization is your problem, not mine.

As I said before and will repeat, and expand on, here, if it is objectively and factually demonstrable that the McDonald v. Chicago case goes south exclusively due to the intrusive assistance of the NRA, I will have absolutely no complaints with anyone ripping into them, me, or anyone else who dared welcome proffered assistance. Furthermore, you can expect posts on this webpage documenting how and where the NRA failed (if they do), as well as recognition to those who have written or will write about specific, objective, factual points where they see NRA failing (such as Mr. Shapiro, here).

I wonder how many of the knee-jerk NRA-bashers have the intellectual honesty, much less maturity, to pen up similar posts if/when the NRA manages to do something right, or if the case is actually augmented by their support…?

(Courtesy of Say Uncle, who pointed out Mr. Shapiro’s writings mere hours after I put up my previous post. *sigh* Timing is, as always, everything.)