The NRA Horns in on Supreme Court Gun Case

by Illinois Gun

The NRA Horns in on Supreme Court Gun Case and Hires Attorney that Argued in Favor of DC Gun Ban.

On January 25, the Supreme Court granted the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) motion for a divided argument in the McDonald v. City of Chicago gun rights case.

Justices will consider for the first time whether the Second Amendment is an individual right that applies against state and local restrictions.

The NRA is not one of the petitioners in the case and was opposed by Alan Gura attorney for the petitioners.

McDonald v. City of Chicago has been supported by the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation which are part of the petitioners to the court.

By granting the NRA’s motion to split the oral argument before the court, Alan Gura will only be given 20 minutes of the normally allotted 30 minutes to present his case.

Alan Gura is the attorney that successfully argued before the court last year in the Heller case that overturned the hand gun ban in Washington DC. 

Gura’s brief for McDonald emphasizes the "privileges or immunities clause" argument in favor of applying the Second Amendment to the states, whereas the NRA in their brief wants to advance a more traditional "due process clause" argument for incorporation.

The NRA’s involvement in the case has rubbed some gun owners the wrong way. They say that the NRA is trying to benefit from someone else’s sweat and money.

The NRA has hired former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to present their arguments before the court.

In 2007 as solicitor general, Paul Clement filed a brief in the Heller case arguing that the D.C. handgun ban warranted heightened scrutiny but was not necessarily unconstitutional.

Faced with a motion for a divided argument Gura preferred Texas attorney General Greg Abbott to speak in place of the NRA’s Paul Clement.

Texas had filed one amicus brief on behalf of thirty-three states urging the Court to uphold the Second Amendment as binding on state and local governments. Even California filed a separate amicus brief urging the same.

The NRA has a long and well documented history of compromise and concessions; the question before American gun owners is will the NRA compromise on McDonald v. City of Chicago?

For those wanting to keep up with the events involving the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has an excellent web site  with current updates.

Links of interest:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/26/nra-cares-more-about-nra-than-gun-rights-liberty-professional-courtesy

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/01/nra-will-argue-in-second-amendment-case.html

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13337

http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/us-heller-brief-1-11-08.pdf

http://www.slate.com/id/2185927

http://joshblogs.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/gura-files-petitioners-brief-in-mcdonald-spends-7-pages-on-due-process-the-rest-on-privileges-or-immunities

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/McDonald-brief-11-16-09.pdf

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/takingaim/betrayal_trust.htm

http://www.chicagoguncase.com




email this page