Saturday, February 13, 2010

"Gun Nuts" vs. "Constitution Nuts" published a very informative article about the upcoming McDonald case and the NRAs muscling in on the defense. We discussed this before but this latest link comes from FishyJay.

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.


  1. Same court, different question. I think everyone expects incorporation, but nothing in life is certain, and there's no quicker way to lose than to take victory for granted.

    And yes, David is right. I was having this discussion the other night with a good man who was adamant that the NRA was destroying our liberties by trying to give the Court an alternative to overturning Slaughterhouse.

    What I find ironic about this is the number of people who, had they been asked a year ago, couldn't have told you what "incorporation" means or quoted any clause from the 14th Amendment, who have now decided that it's not good enough to have the 2nd Amendment finally incorporated some 140 years after the people amended the Constitution to make it happen.

    Do I want Slaughterhouse overturned? Yes, I do. Do I believe the case was really in any danger if Alan Gura had argued it alone? Hell, no. But there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it now, and bottom line, it's not going to hurt us. We're arguing over the difference between scoring the winning touchdown and scoring the winning field goal. No one who wants the 2nd Amendment enforced can deny that we will be far, far, far better off under a selectively incorporated 2nd Amendment than we are now.

  2. Keep posting stuff like this i really like it