Political Strategy in D.C. Gun Ruling
It turns out that the NRA tried to dissuade the plaintiffs from taking their case to the DC Circuit Court. Further, when the plaintiffs made it clear that they intended to go ahead, the NRA actively tried to keep the case from getting heard. This doesn't fit with the stereotype of a gung-ho, sabre-rattling NRA, but it is true.
The NRA, being a conservative organization, was more worried about what could be lost than what might be won.
The NRA has been very successful at getting various legislatures to enact laws to protect and advance the cause of gun owners - and they decided years ago that the safest and most productive way to proceed was the legislative route rather than to fight a leftward tilting judiciary.
It would not surprise me if the NRA attempts to derail a Supreme Court hearing of this case because - again - of what might be lost if SCOTUS rules in favor of DC.
While, like most 2nd Amendment purists, I am utterly convinced of the original intent of the founders, I am also quite certain that after 230+ years of judicial "whisper-down-the-lane" the constitution, in 2007, means only what some judge says it means on any given day. While it looks good for us, a loss at the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow from which we might not recover for decades, if at all.
Nevertheless, it will never be more clear than it is today that the understanding - and the will - of the people is that 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.
I say, Go for it!
The NRA, being a conservative organization, was more worried about what could be lost than what might be won.
The NRA has been very successful at getting various legislatures to enact laws to protect and advance the cause of gun owners - and they decided years ago that the safest and most productive way to proceed was the legislative route rather than to fight a leftward tilting judiciary.
It would not surprise me if the NRA attempts to derail a Supreme Court hearing of this case because - again - of what might be lost if SCOTUS rules in favor of DC.
While, like most 2nd Amendment purists, I am utterly convinced of the original intent of the founders, I am also quite certain that after 230+ years of judicial "whisper-down-the-lane" the constitution, in 2007, means only what some judge says it means on any given day. While it looks good for us, a loss at the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow from which we might not recover for decades, if at all.
Nevertheless, it will never be more clear than it is today that the understanding - and the will - of the people is that 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says.
I say, Go for it!
posted by Voolfie at 5:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home