ATTENTION ALL NRA LIFERS (as I am) :

[PatMcGroyne]

Just GOOGLE or BING the following, and take the time to digest it: NRA / HELLER / MACDONALD / CLEMENT / SCOTUS. There is a lot to read, and you may find your hallowed opinions challenged. Paul Clement does not like free gun-ownership. Read the citations before you react. Pat

 

[IndyGunworks]

I am pretty happy w/ the macdonold case working its way up... if DC had to follow federal law, instead of their own entity chicago's ban would have already of been turned down.

 

[UltraRick]

What is the NRA lifers got to do with it?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Pat, I'm not tracking as well.

Could you please re-state your question/observation/inter alia?

 

[Yeah]

Guessing it is this?

 

[IUGradStudent]

The NRA brought in Paul Clement, who is going to get 1/3 of the time in front of the Supreme Court. Alan Gura and the other folks behind the case are mad that the NRA is butting into their case. That's the short version of one of the flaps about the NRA.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

See post #6

"Wayne-come-lately" grabbing infamy out of the jaws of success. NRA to me seems more and more like "National Rights Abandonment." Their talk is cheap. Words don't match actual applied dynamic of NRA. Read more than their prop. letters. I am merely a messenger. Attack all you wish. But please read the Paul Clement quotations before you do. It just doesn't come out as pro-2A. Pat

Pat, I'm not tracking as well.

Could you please re-state your question/observation/inter alia?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Try this sometime: Pick a "hot button topic", maybe abortion, rights of the accused in re: terrorism, gun rights, whatever... now flip a coin. If the coin comes up heads, you argue the "pro" side of that issue and if tails, the "con" side of it.

It ain't easy! I know I can't do it convincingly! A good trial attorney, however, must be a master of this ability, because he never knows who will enter his office and pay him to represent them.

As was pointed out in some threads I saw, Clement was an employee of the US Gov't, and as an attorney, must argue his client's position no matter his own beliefs. That Heller was his first introduction to most of us means that his positions there will be taken as his true beliefs, but I have no evidence to that effect. I even read that he was working pro bono, although in fairness, I also read that his fee was $50,000.00. That sounds like a huge sum (and it is!) but someone of Clement's reputation and ability could easily charge four times that and be underpaid.

To be clear, I don't know Mr. Clement or his beliefs, I merely caution that we should not judge the advocate based on his client.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[17Chap]

Try this sometime: Pick a "hot button topic", maybe abortion, rights of the accused in re: terrorism, gun rights, whatever... now flip a coin. If the coin comes up heads, you argue the "pro" side of that issue and if tails, the "con" side of it.

It ain't easy! I know I can't do it convincingly! A good trial attorney, however, must be a master of this ability, because he never knows who will enter his office and pay him to represent them.

As was pointed out in some threads I saw, Clement was an employee of the US Gov't, and as an attorney, must argue his client's position no matter his own beliefs. That Heller was his first introduction to most of us means that his positions there will be taken as his true beliefs, but I have no evidence to that effect. I even read that he was working pro bono, although in fairness, I also read that his fee was $50,000.00. That sounds like a huge sum (and it is!) but someone of Clement's reputation and ability could easily charge four times that and be underpaid.

To be clear, I don't know Mr. Clement or his beliefs, I merely caution that we should not judge the advocate based on his client.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill is on target

The information I've received is that this is a pretty good move by the NRA. The court has agreed to hear the case from two different arguments which expands the possibility of success. Gura's argument would be a wider win but it is more risky. The NRA's argument is narrower but surer, if there is such a thing with the Court.

Hiring Clement was excellent. At Heller he was arguing his bosses side of the argument, not the NRA's or his own. He is an experienced jurist before the SCOTUS and he has first-hand knowledge of Heller.

Support who you will, if they are for gun rights I'm probably for them. It is a little frustrating though, when some pro-2nd groups triangulate us (supporters) against the NRA to add to their own prominence.

How do I get down form this soapbox?

Jess

 

[mrjarrell]

The NRA elbows its way into the McDonald Case

In yet another attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory the NRA has decided to insert an anti-2nd lawyer into the McDonald case as their representative. This, despite the fact that no-one wants them involved other than the court. What may have been a decisive victory for the 2nd will likely be watered down to nothing, all due to the interference of the NRA.

From JPFO

One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism. The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.
NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.
The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”
All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!
That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!
Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.
“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”
Oh yeah?
Now take a look at this one:
“The Second Amendment talks about "the right to bear arms", not just "a right to bear arms". And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”
Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!
And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:
“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just... I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”
Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.
And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment."
How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?
Some icing on the cake:
“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood -- and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”
Oh boy…
Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.
This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: "NRA Letter"
This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: this handbill and see also: the film "No Guns for Negroes".
In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: "Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?" This present turn of events should certainly not deter our fears. JPFO is not alone in our concern with this NRA/Clement issue. See: this Cato @ Liberty article, (also archive copy here on JPFO).

Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic? How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”
Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy? And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?

Also a piece on this from the Washington Post. All worth the read. Keep the gun owners of Illinois in your thoughts, the NRA is in fund raising mode and they're likely to throw those citizens under the bus for a few bucks.

 

[jsgolfman]

As with all prostitutes, a lawyer can perform whatever tricks you want for the right price. He may or may not be a detriment to the case, we shall see.

 

[UltraRick]

As with all prostitutes, a lawyer can perform whatever tricks you want for the right price. He may or may not be a detriment to the case, we shall see.

Truer words were never spoke!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Three posts preceding this one were merged in from another thread.