Comments on: Parker Counsel Agrees with Me on Hutchison’s Bill

By: SayUncle » Parker V. DC Update

SayUncle » Parker V. DC Update — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:26:19 +0000

[...] Alan Gura has a podcast about the case here. Also, his comments from last week are here. [...]

By: Alan Gura

Alan Gura — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 04:14:24 +0000

Xrlq:

I’ve read the Huchison bill and it was not drafted to avoid mooting Parker.

The Huchison bill would moot Parker.

Hopefully you will soon see a different bill, that IS written to avoid mooting Parker.

That should clarify the issue for people.

Again, it is not our case or no case. It is our case, or the next case. If there are five votes for the collective right point of view on the Supreme Court, we won’t need Parker to discover that. There are plenty of other Second Amendment arguments being made in courts throughout the country right now. Ever wonder why most collective rights opinions are “United States v.” someone? Criminal defense attorneys don’t really care what NRA thinks of their arguments.

I believe we will win. While no lawyer can guarantee results, I am also fairly confident we’ll do better than one of these felon-in-possession cases in a year or two. Just like we did better than the guys who are now promoting this legislation. Remember their case? If they are so afraid of the Court, why did they (poorly) copy our litigation?

Would NRA be promoting this legislation if they obtained this result in Seegars?

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:02:03 +0000

Has anyone actually read the Hutchison bill? I’ve heard the bill is indeed drafted to avoid mooting Parker. If so, there’s no earthly reason for the gunnies to oppose it.

By: Bob Leibowitz

Bob Leibowitz — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:58:44 +0000

Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that Democrats will suport the Hutchinson bill! In matters like this they are often smarter than our guys. The decision point is really quite simple: If the bill passes, we lose the benefits and momentum of Parker, which may never come our way again. If Hutchinson withdraws the bill, she can always re-sponsor it later.

I’ve written an extensive analysis of the trade-offs from the liberals’ perspective at “DC Gun Law: The Dems Will Lead the Charge for Change” at http:www.Canticle4Leibowitz.com

I wish Kay would think before acting! Our future is too important to be left to politicians.

By: Standard Mischief

Standard Mischief — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:31:17 +0000

Just for the record, I think this is the bill: GovTrack.us. H.R. 1399--110th Congress (2007): District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) This should be a permalink to current sponsers, text of the bill, etc.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:00:00 +0000

It does say something that our big concern is that the Democratic Congress might repeal one of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation

By: Countertop

Countertop — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:34:05 +0000

I’ve never known her to be particularly bitchy, and frankly didn’t find her comment that bitchy.

That said, I don’t see what the hubub is about. This is a good bill. We have no guarantee that it won’t be reversed en banc or even that the Supreme Court is going to take the case.

At the same time, we can be pretty awfully sure that this bill won’t ever see the light of day on the Senate floor. Or even pass the house without some horrid AWBII type legislation attached to it. Its a non starter.

As a result, its only real value is as a wonderful piece of legislation to hold Democrats feet to the fire over.

I applaud anyone who supports this bill and find these concerns misplaced (though I understand them, I just don’t think they take account for political realities – this coming from the guy who keeps jumping up and down saying how not bad congress is going to be for us gunnies – I think I’ve been proven right so far)

By: Bitter

Bitter — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:53:47 +0000

As a woman known as Bitter Bitch, I’m allowed to be bitchy.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:52:18 +0000

I told Bitter her comment sounded bitchy, which surprised her, I think. She’s claiming the catch all of “cramps” as an excuse

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:48:41 +0000

Bitter, they are in a tough spot, made even tougher by their half-assedness toward parker to begin with.

By: Henry Bowman

Henry Bowman — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:45:48 +0000

Alan Gura was interviewed on this topic by the Cato Institute a couple of days ago. His interview (less than 8 min in length) is available at

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/alangura_whatafteremparkervdcem_20070328.mp3

By: Bitter

Bitter — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:43:03 +0000

No, a link does not indicate support. They link to news. Whether we like it or not, this bill is newsworthy. Just because Parker happened doesn’t mean they get to ignore all other pro-gun efforts.

Look, I don’t want the bill to go anywhere either. What if, God forbid, we don’t get a good ruling? Then people will be pissed that NRA ignored bills to overturn the ban. It’s a damned if they do, damned if they don’t affair. However, I haven’t seen a formal campaign around this yet. When they start sending out the postcards, then be pissed at them.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:42:09 +0000

No doubt the NRA are officially going to be for the bill. It’s a tough spot for the them. They certainly don’t want to oppose a bill that repeals a draconian gun control law, and they can’t really ignore it either. What I’m interested in finding out is whether there’s a sentiment between the NRA lobbyists and lawmakers that it’s best to keep the legislation on the table, but not actually get it passed. I basically want to find out whether the NRA really does want to derail Parker, or they are going through the motions, knowing this isn’t going anywhere.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:30:53 +0000

Sebastian, the NRA just linked up Alexander/Corker’s co-sponsorship. I assume that indicates support.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:29:01 +0000

I’ve seen him commenting over at Volokh. Based on what he was saying, it never sounded fishy to me. I think he’s probably who he says he is.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:28:17 +0000

I’ve e-mailed Hutchinson herself. Neither of my senate monkeys are listed as cosponsors yet, but contacting them will be in order too. The real question will be where the NRA will come out on this. Hopefully there will be some discussion of that at the convention in two weeks. When I’m there I’ll be sure to report on what the buzz is.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:54:41 +0000

i sent an email to the email address he left.

By: TM Lutas

TM Lutas — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:51:39 +0000

The practice website has a contact form. When in doubt of an unsolicited email’s actual identity resubmitting via the webform for confirmation that there was no identity theft is a simple and practical way to assure you’re not getting fooled. I happen to have Alan Gura’s email address but you don’t know me either. Use the web form.

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:19:06 +0000

Corker’s office sent out a press release yesterday saying that he supported the bill and therefore was a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

Needless to say, I thought just the opposite.