NRA-ILA gets it... Sorta

Can anyone say, "It's about time?" NRA-ILA Legal Update.

I do have to critique one portion of the ILA report. Early on in the report, the ILA states:

NRA-ILA’s goal in every case we consider is to strategically advance the rights of gun owners, while not creating bad precedent.

Click to expand...

OK. That's exactly what we want to see. It is part of the strategy that another organization is using. However, let's get down to facts. There is this that the ILA says:

Fortunately for Chicago residents, the shooting range ban was struck down on July 6 in Ezell -- a case limited only to the shooting range issue. In its opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that “The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use,” and noted that “It's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free speech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.”

While Ezell was not NRA-ILA’s case, our more comprehensive challenge in Benson continues. Chicago’s range prohibition was only one way in which the city is continuing to thumb its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As noted earlier, Chicago also bans gun possession not only outside the home, but in parts of the home such as garages, porches and front steps; bans nearly all firearm transfers and on the operation of gun stores; and restricts each Chicago license holder to keep only one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home. This case is in discovery through October, in which both sides have the opportunity to demand documents and take statements from opponents.

Click to expand...

Hold it. Stop. Right. There.

First and foremost, Benson is more of the same old, same old. That is, it is a plate of spaghetti thrown against the wall to see what sticks. You don't want bad precedent? Then stick to a single issue. You don't want your case going on for months and months, via "discovery." You want to push forward, fail fast, and get to the Circuit Courts with only the record you have prepared and none of the contrary record prepared by the defendants. We all know we are going to lose at the district level. It Makes no sense to be there (at the district level) any longer than we have to be. And it damn well makes no sense to give anything to the defense... Like a record to be used against us.

Next, Ezell, while not a NRA case, is more important than they let on. They sort of, kind of, said that earlier when discussing their Shepard case. Sorta kinda.

Ezell has applications in many of the current cases. It is the only opinion that has followed the explicit instructions of the Heller Court.

Overall, it's good that the NRA is now going to report their cases. It's bad that they still haven't learned to play nicely in the same playground as the rest of us.

One final note. Williams v. Maryland is not one of their cases, even though Stephan Halbrook is the attorney. I can't, for a second imagine, that if it was, they would not be reporting this.

With all this being said, have no doubt. I support the NRA, as a whole and wholeheartedly. It is Chris Cox (head of the NRA-ILA) that I have no respect for.

Well said. I hold my nose every time I think of the ILA.

The words of the masses has struck home with the ILA - imagine what this would have said a year ago?

I agree with the view of Benson. Fracking mess. Ezell was in and out of the Circuit with a positive ruling before Benson is even finished with discovery. "More comprehensive" also means "slower moving", "more complicated", "overreaching", and of course "less likely to win."

ILA is not the group to be doing lawsuits. The NRA needs an "Institute for Judicial Affairs" staffed by people who have studied civil rights movements of the past. That is the only thing working right now. Either way, the lesson here is to challenge one thing per case. Hell, they could have filed ten cases instead of one, and done much better. If that is too much work, then they need to pare the list to manageable (and winnable) movements. Chicago is bleeding them out slowly in Benson.

I take heart that someone over there seems to be hearing a little of what is being said by others. I doubt we'll see another Benson-esque filed by the NRA in the near future. Witness their recent action. They are learning, but still too slow. I just hope they stopped seeing litigation as a way to garner publicity and donations. I hope they now realize it really means something to we little people.

While exercising caution not to get drawn in with them to do what they don't seem to be able to do, have you said as much to our "friends" there in VA? :}

Al Norris said:

One final note. Williams v. Maryland is not one of their cases, even though Stephan Halbrook is the attorney. I can't, for a second imagine, that if it was, they would not be reporting this.

Click to expand...

Just because you can see Maryland from the roof of the NRA building doesn't mean that Maryland actually exists to the NRA.

I'm convinced that there wouldn't be quite so much hatred of the NRA on this forum if they did the little things like mention our cases in their reports.

I don't hate the NRA and I don't accuse you of accusing me of doing so.

I just recognize that the valuable part of that organization - legislative affairs - tends to conflate what they do with what litigators do. True, many of the lobbyists are lawyers, but that does not make them civil rights litigators any more than my patent attorney should represent me for a burglary charge.

If the NRA applied due intelligence, modesty and discipline, they would be a tremendous asset to the judicial side of our cause.