After describing the history of Supreme Court decisions and the difference between The Privileges or Immunities Clause, championed by Alan Gura and the Due Process Clause which will be stressed by the NRA, the article goes on to quote David Hardy.
Some forces in the gun rights community, such as one of its oldest warriors and scholars, David Hardy, refuse to take sides between the NRA and Gura. Instead, Hardy applauds both arguments and both arguers, and begs the gun rights community to stop encouraging dissension: “They're going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don't need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate. Bottom line: there is no bad way to win a case.”
That sounds reasonable and pragmatic, don't you think? United we stand divided we fall, and all that. But does that mean that Mr. Hardy would have preferred the NRA stayed out of it but since they're in, we should make the best of it? Or do you think he's saying the divided oral argument need not be divided if the speakers choose their words carefully and keep their eye on the ball? Perhaps it could be an advantage, a veritable one-two punch.
What's your opinion? Is all this talk of strategy merely self-aggrandizing nonsense since the Court is essentially the same as the one which voted on Heller. Sotomayor didn't change the voting balance. So what's all the exaggerated seriousness about? Why would Hardy say "the fight of their lives, no OUR lives?" Isn't that a bit melodramatic if not hyperbolic?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.