The NRA has a very long history of supporting gun-control laws but when you lay out the anti-gun laws and anti-gun politicians the NRA has supported over the past 100 years people dismiss it as being in the past and say that was “before” and the NRA isn’t like that anymore.
Last Thursday, the NRA filed its petition for a full court rehearing of its concealed carry lawsuit, Peruta v. San Diego. The seven member majority of the court, which is bound by three US Supreme Court decisions which said that there is no right to carry weapons concealed in public, did what judges are supposed to do and abided by those binding precedents.
“For the better part of a decade” the NRA has been in Federal court here in the 9th Circuit arguing to uphold its 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense, a ban it helped write. The NRA has also been arguing in support of California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 which the NRA lawyers said would be “drastic” if it were overturned.
Wayne LaPierre’s Latest Shot At Second Amendment
The NRA’s petition filed last Thursday is the latest diatribe by the NRA against the Second Amendment. It, like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and CalGuns.nuts Foundation petition does a lot of ranting and raving which isn’t exactly the tone I would take if I were pleading to be given a second bite at the apple in court but then I am a supporter of the Second Amendment.
Here is a link to an article I recently wrote about the SAF, CalGuns.nuts petition in which the lawyers compared judges who uphold bans on concealed carry to judges who stand by and do nothing while police murder people in the streets.
Here is the petition the NRA filed on Thursday asking for its case to be reheard by a full court. The emotional instability expressed by the writers of the petition proves that not only should they not be allowed to carry weapons concealed in public, they should not be allowed to even possess firearms.
The NRA Goes Fishing
NRA lawyer Chuck Michel said that the reason he filed the petition is because he is fishing for dissents from the inevitable denial of his petition for a full court rehearing of his case.
If I were an active judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who might have been inclined to grant a petition for a full court rehearing of the cases, I would have changed my mind after reading either of these two petitions and voted against a full court rehearing. Neither would I write a dissent to the denial of granting the full court petitions as it would be embarrassing to my reputation to align myself with the incoherent ravings expressed in these petitions.
NRA Members To Pay Costs
By the way, the members of the NRA are the ones who have been funding the Peruta lawsuit since April of 2010 and now they are going to have to pay the costs and attorney fees of the defendants because the en banc panel of judges have deemed their lawsuit (and the companion lawsuit filed by SAF, CalGuns.nuts) to be frivolous lawsuits. Likewise, the SAF and CalGuns.nuts organizations are going to have to pay the costs and attorney fees of the defendants in their concealed carry lawsuit, Richards v. Prieto.
The appeals were filed in 2010 (Peruta v. San Diego) and 2011 (Richards v, Prieto) and the proceedings aren’t over yet. I know a few defense lawyers who are going to soon be able to afford to buy shiny new sailboats and sports cars paid for by the supporters of NRA, CRPA, SAF, and CalGuns.nuts.
Here is the petition filed by the SAF, CalGuns.nuts attorneys last Thursday.
Here is the (limited) en banc decision published on June 9th by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal disposing of the concealed carry lawsuits Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto.
Tracking The Cases
Many of your friends and family probably drank the NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts Kool-Aid and, like any cult member, there will be no reasoning with them. Best to play some soft music and slowly back away from them.