Guns

The NRA Takes on McDonald v. Chicago

|

Damon Root blogged below about a curious amici brief on behalf of Chicago; elsewhere in McDonald v. Heller news, the NRA, reputed greatest organized champion of gun rights, are angling to get some minutes in oral arguments on the case, even though it isn't theirs, to make arguments different from that of the lawyers fighting for McDonald. (The NRA had its own Chicago gun challenge it tried to get the Supreme Court to accept, which the Court has so far not done.)

In short, the NRA is unhappy that so much of McDonald lawyer Alan Gura's arguments in his brief rely on an attempt to revive the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, as opposed to relying on what has generally been used in the past century to extend the Bill of Rights to the states, the "due process" clause of the 14th.

Details from the fabulous ScotusBlog:

The National Rifle Association asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow its lawyer to take part in the oral argument March 2 in the case testing whether the Second Amendment restricts the power of state and local governments to pass gun control laws. It sought 10 minutes of time allotted to the individuals and groups that are pursuing the Amendment's extension, to put more stress on an alternative constitutional argument.  The request, the NRA noted in its motion, is opposed by the lead parties in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago (08-1521).  Those parties are expected to file a written opposition shortly.  The Court will consider the NRA request at its private Conference on Jan. 15.

The Court in the McDonald case will consider two main arguments for applying the individual right to possess guns to state and local laws: first, that gun rights should be protected at those levels by the 14th Amendment's "Privileges or Immunities" clause; and, second, the protection should come under the Amendment's Due Process clause.   Both of those arguments are at issue in the question presented by the petition.  The NRA said it wants to put stress on the due process argument.

In their merits brief in the case, the NRA noted, Otis McDonald and the others appealing "have concentrated their argument on a Privileges or Immunities Clause theory that would require overruling at least three of this Court's precedents."  And, the motion added, only 7 pages of the 73-page McDonald brief discuss the Due Process Clause…..

The NRA maneuver brings further out into the open the strategic differences in pursuing the two alternative arguments. 

A leading reason for pressing the Privileges and Immunities Clause approach is that it could give the Court a chance to overrule the 1873 ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases — a ruling that made a nullify of that Clause.  It has long been a goal of some advocates to revive that Clause, as a firmer foundation for weighing government power against individual rights.  Conservative advocates, in particular, argue that the use of the Due Process Clause has given judges too much latitude to invent new rights that exist nowhere in the Constitution.

I was one of the first reporters to cover the divisions within the pro-Second Amendment community on McDonald lawyer Alan Gura's "overturn Slaughterhouse" strategy in this December Reason Online piece.

While it is little known, except to readers of my book on the case, Gun Control on Trial, the NRA had a similar difference of strategy with Gura on his first grand Second Amendment case, Heller v. D.C., pretty much fighting against it every step of the way in the belief it was premature and risky, until it reached the Supreme Court, when they came on board as staunch allies. The reasons for the NRA's discomfort with Heller are detailed in my book and in this Reason magazine excerpt from our December 2008 issue.

NEXT: Chicago's Friends in the Gun Rights Fight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Reputed”? With all due respect to two good organizations, if it had been left up to the likes of GOA and SAF we would have had British-style gun control nationwide by now. No other rights organization terrifies politicians like NRA does, and unfortunately in our system of government, it is that which carries the day far more than elegant argumentation.

    And I have to agree with the NRA’s position here too; an adverse ruling in this case would be a disaster for gun rights, even if it only dismisses the Privileges and Immunities argument. Trying to kill two birds with one stone often leaves you with no birds at all, and this fight is too important to be sacrificed in a vain attempt to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases.

    1. Are you just in contrarian mode lately? Coming from me, that’s saying a lot.

    2. This would be the NRA that supported the national instant check system and the further federalization of police power under Project Exile. The same NRA that couldn’t kill the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA. The NRA that argued AGAINST pursuing Heller.

      Quite frankly, the smart money should go on whatever the NRA isn’t doing/supporting. Perhaps the P and I argument isn’t as whack as all the conventional wisdom deems it to be. For certainly the Court could have granted cert to NRA on solely DP incorporation grounds. Orin Kerr has still been unable to explain why the Court would do this while simultaneously being confident that no one on the Court (save Thomas) actually wants to discuss P and I.

      The NRA is more concerned with separating you from your money than they are with standing up for your rights.

      1. The NRA that argued AGAINST pursuing Heller.
        Quite frankly, the smart money should go on whatever the NRA isn’t doing/supporting.

        I’m not sure that a 5-4 decision means that the NRA was entirely wrong to be scared of a ruling coming down the other way. It’s easy to imagine losing Heller. If that had happened, then it would be even harder to overturn it.

        Triumphalism that relies on “We were always 100% sure that Justice Kennedy would agree with us” is, ahem, too overconfident for my taste, regardless of the issue.

        Simply because the NRA’s fears turned out not to be true doesn’t mean that they weren’t legitimate worries. Someone can have plausible but wrong tactics without having base motives like you’re accusing them of.

        There *are* Court cases where an advocate has hurt the cause of liberty by advancing too radical of a theory, causing swing justices to vote against liberty rather than back a radical theory. OTOH, I agree that asking for too little can mean getting a too small or even meaningless victory. But it’s always a tough judgment call either way.

        There should be an advocate willing to discuss both possible theories. The NRA’s fear is that Gura’s brief only really discussed in depth the P and I clause, but didn’t discuss the other theory. I suppose it all depends on how willing and able Gura is to pursue both theories, if oral argument makes it necessary.

        1. Gura pulled off Heller; I trust his instincts more than the overly cautious, heavily hunting-based NRA who knuckled over on NICS, yet actually took a stand on “cop killer” Teflon bullets and got murdered for it.

          They don’t have a very good feeling for when to take a stand.

          1. I trust his instincts more than the overly cautious, heavily hunting-based NRA who knuckled over on NICS, yet actually took a stand on “cop killer” Teflon bullets and got murdered for it.

            I’m not sure how this argues in any way that the NRA wouldn’t have gotten “murdered” if it had stood up to NICS. Did Gura, or any other organization, successfully fight off NICS? If not, why is it a piece of evidence for your theory? It also seems as though the NRA is more than just “overly cautious,” as they fought a losing battle.

            I suppose that you’ll be willing to volte-face and attack Gura’s judgment should he “get murdered” on this case?

            1. Gura has shown himself to have been prescient regarding Heller. He’s already set a track record as a winner. I don’t think Federer is a loser because he’s lost to Nadal a number of times, because of the number of times he’s won.

              The NRA has been a significant force in supporting the 2nd; but when it comes to rock star trials, Gura has proven he can win. I’ll back him, and if he’s wrong, it doesn’t change that he was right in Heller.

              The NRA has a vested interest in waging a low-level battle continuously, because it is their raison d’etre. It is how they make their money. I don’t trust any large organization of this type to not, eventually, work in their own self-interest. It’s unfortunate, but natural.

              1. He’s already set a track record as a winner. I don’t think Federer is a loser because he’s lost to Nadal a number of times, because of the number of times he’s won.

                Gura’s won one case. That doesn’t make him Federer. And that doesn’t mean that if Federer went out there with a wooden racket that I’d make him the favorite, simply because he won before using the best tools available to him.

                The NRA has been a significant force in supporting the 2nd; but when it comes to rock star trials, Gura has proven he can win.

                The Supreme Court isn’t about rock stars. It’s not like a tennis tournament, where competitors are on their own. Gura could have “performed” just as well, but a shift in composition in the Court, less work by other academics laying the groundwork, and even Justice Kennedy’s mood that day would have changed the results.

                Gura’s success in Heller relied on a welcome fundamental shift in academic thinking about the Second Amendment. The ground was well-prepared to return to the individual rights interpretation, but even then it turned out to be a close-run thing.

                By contrast, while the ground is well-prepared to use the Due Process Clause– as not only has every other Amendment (practically) in the BoR being incorporated, but Justice Scalia made a footnote about the issue– support for P an I lies basically in a few Justice Thomas footnotes.

                I’ll back him, and if he’s wrong, it doesn’t change that he was right in Heller.

                But if he’s wrong, he’ll have blown a once in a generation chance. Being right in Heller won’t change the fact of him being wrong in this case. And there’s absolutely no reason that his brief couldn’t have advanced both arguments in depth.

                It is how they make their money. I don’t trust any large organization of this type to not, eventually, work in their own self-interest. It’s unfortunate, but natural.

                You shouldn’t trust Gura, either, then. He has a lot to gain personally in his self-interest for arguing the more controversial theory beloved by some partisans. He also has a lot to gain personally (in both fame and fortune) by stubbornly insisting on his own ideas rather than sharing glory or strategy. That sort of analysis cuts both ways.

                Here, I don’t see a lawyer doing his best to win the case for his clients. I see someone pushing one pet theory (that I personally agree with) at the expense of pushing all possible theories. That’s bad advocacy; lawyers should advance all possible theories.

              2. when it comes to rock star trials, Gura has proven he can win.

                If you’re going to bring up principal agent problems and self-interest, I don’t think you want your lawyer to be a rock star. Or a tennis star. It’s not about the lawyer and his fame, it’s about winning.

                Gura has proven he can win. I’ll back him, and if he’s wrong, it doesn’t change that he was right in Heller.

                So even if he loses this case, he’ll still get fame and adulation from you for daring to bring it? That doesn’t seem like it gives him good motivation. If too many people think like you, then his self-interest unfortunately but naturally will turn towards making spectacular trials, win or lose.

              3. Rock stars and tennis stars deliberately adopt careers that involve low probabilities of winning big and high probabilities of losing instead of pursuing careers with high probabilities of modest success.

                I don’t want the proper analogy for my lawyer to be that of a low probability of huge success, and a high probability of losing the tournament or not hitting it big.

          2. Gura pulled off Heller

            As I said, any reading that draws a black-and-white line between having a good feeling and not based on a 5-4 decision and confidence in Justice Kennedy’s ruling is far too absolute for my tastes.

            The NRA was against bringing Heller, but they provided support once the case was taken up.

          3. The NRA didn’t “knuckle over” on NICS. The NRA actively proposed, lobbied for, had inserted into the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill, and triumphantly declared victory over the creation of NICS.

            I was there. I, and a lot of other people, screamed furiously at the NRA over its insistence that the checks be computerized and made “instant”, because we KNEW that if the checks were computerized, it would mean that the federal government would maintain backups of every single check. Which is exactly what happened.

            The NRA wouldn’t fucking listen. If they understood at all — and they may have been so stupid that they didn’t, even when explained in very small and simple words — then they didn’t care. My belief is that it was more important to them to put their own little “stamp” on the bill so that they wouldn’t be “left out of the process,” truly a fate worse than death for a lobbying organization.

      2. NICS and Project Exile prevented far more hideous laws from coming to pass. The NRA does have the disadvantage of having to operate in the real world, where defeat actually has consequences, as opposed to the blogosphere, where defeat is just another opportunity to complain.

        1. Compromising on real principles proves what sort of person or organization you are. After that, you are just haggling about price.

          1. That’s the 0.5% spirit! Seriously though, an absolute refusal to compromise on one shred of your principles guarantees that your principles will have no impact unless most people share them. Sometimes you have to compromise you have to compromise your principles to uphold them.

            1. Principles shouldnt be compromised on. They are principles after all. The stuff you build on the principles, yeah, that can be compromised on.

          2. Compromising on real principles proves what sort of person or organization you are. After that, you are just haggling about price.

            Well, if you’re going to go that far, then abiding by the Supreme Court decision is “compromising” as well.

            Have you personally gotten arrested for violating a law against liberty? If not and you submit to them, then that “proves what sort of person” you are, I suppose.

            1. Who says I am ‘submitting’ to anything?

              I’m just biding my time. And when I purchase a gun, I definitely won’t do it in a way that puts me on a government list. I know too much history to be that stupid.

  2. “A leading reason for pressing the Privileges and Immunities Clause approach is that it could give the Court a chance to overrule the 1873 ruling in the SlaughterHouse Cases ? a ruling that made a nullify of that Clause.”

    That should be “nullity,” not “nullify.”

    1. No need to nullify! No need to nullify! We don’t need to nullify! We don’t need to nullify!!

  3. I fail to see the downside of saying, in effect: “It’s unconstitutional because it falls under both these clauses.” Things can do that, AFAIK. And the court can decide it only falls under one of them, if they want. IANAL, bit it’s not as if they’ll rule against it being covered by one of them because a case was also made for the other.

    1. “bit it’s not” -> “but it’s not”

    2. IANAL, bit it’s not as if they’ll rule against it being covered by one of them because a case was also made for the other.

      Right, but they will fail to rule based on one theory if it isn’t sufficiently argued and addressed. I’d hate to lose a winnable case because someone insisted on going for a dramatic play instead of a smaller victory.

      Heller itself was a modest step, using the fact that D.C. is special.

  4. Did I tell you guys that I used to be a D.C. security guard?

    1. Did you get to carry a gun?

      I work at a hotel and the security people here are not allowed to carry guns. I don’t understand the notion of security without any way of protecting people besides being the one who’s allowed to call the cops.

      1. That was a joke. Heller is the name of the defendant in Heller v. DC, who was a securoty guard.

        1. oops not defendant, plaintiff,

  5. I’m cynical enough to notice that the NRA as an organization benefits considerably from every government intrusion on our right to self-defense. If Heller had failed, there would have been a spike in NRA memberships, contributions, etc.

    -jcr

    1. I’m cynical enough to notice that the NRA as an organization benefits considerably from every government intrusion on our right to self-defense.

      Only as long as you’re cynical enough to note that Gura benefits considerably from taking on a controversial but losing strategy as well. But sure, every lobbying group in DC benefits from continued controversy and can suffer a decline if it achieves too much.

      The NRA as an organization benefits considerably from being able to defeat members who vote against it and having members beck for its endorsement, too.

      1. Gura benefits more from winning that from losing.

      2. John, you are simply wrong. Gura only benefits if he wins. If he loses, his reputation will take a serious hit, especially if the loss was because of a failure to argue a theory on which he would have been likely to win.

        Someone mentioned elsewhere in the comments, though, that his brief DOES argue the alternative theory, just not in as much depth. So, with any luck, he’s got that covered.

        The NRA, meanwhile, has shown no reluctance to take controversial cases all the way to the Supreme Court. Remember U.S. v. Lopez? Hey, let’s support a gang member who brought a gun to school, that’s a winning case to overturn the gun-free school zones laws and support Second Amendment rights! Gang member, drug dealer, right in the middle of a bunch of school shootings, up against the most anti-gun administration since Johnson — hey, what’s not to love about that case and its timing?

        But when Gura carefully tailored his lawsuit so that the Supreme Court would be forced to rule on the single issue of whether the Second Amendment has any meaning whatsoever . . . panic mode! The NRA tried to sabotage Parker/Heller any way they could. Never mind that Parker and Heller were upstanding citizens. Much better to wait until another drug-dealing gang member brings a gun to school and try to win that appeal instead, eh?

    2. When a an urban Democratic politician is the President 2nd Amendment orgs are’nt going to be in any decline, regardless of any SCOTUS decisions I can imagine. Just saying.

  6. If not for the hard work of the NRA all of our 2nd Amendment rights would be more restricted than they are. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and in this case the very good.

  7. All the NRA cares about is milking people for more money to support their bloated executives.

    How about they spend some of that money on REPEALING all gun laws. Which, are an ‘infringement’ upon my God given right to defend myself.

  8. The NRA ia always the big fat pussy in the room. Instead of trying to win outright, they always fight to maintain a fundraising angle. I’ll never be a member again.

  9. Don’t forget the NRA filed a brief in Citizens United arguing for moderation. They don’t want McCain Feingold scrapped entirely beacuse that would cost them money.

  10. Do people really believe the court is going to twist itself into knots and rule against McDonald? If the second isn’t incorporated let’s delve back into the others why don’t we.

  11. The NRA spends all of it’s time dissuading people to file court cases under the 2nd. They thought it was the wrong time for Lockyer, the wrong time for Heller, and the wrong time for McDonald. Which brings up the question: when does the NRA think is the right time to bring a case?

    The NRA is a fantastic organization for pressuring legislative bodies. That’s their main avenue of attack. They will water down bills and try to get things repealed. As an institution, the NRA is deathly afraid of court cases because they might lose. You can always go back next year and work on the legislature again. Go back, make some veiled threats about reelection, press a few hands, and get the law rewritten or modified. If you get shafted on a SCOTUS decision, you’re fucked for who knows how long.

  12. Gura was well-trained by the Institute for Justice. The IJ modus operandi is to bang away at the P&I clause and to try and kill Slaughterhouse.

  13. My take:

    If the good guys win on McDonald, it will be with an opinion that applies the due process clause and passes on the P & I issue as unnecessary, given the result under the due process clause. That’s the easy decision for the Court to hand down.

    They’re not going to lose on due process because Gura foregrounded the P & I issue. It just doesn’t work that way. The Justices aren’t going to say “Gosh, I would have liked to apply the due process clause to incorporate the 2A, but the attorney just didn’t spend quite enough ink or time on it.”

    1. It’s probably just a tactic by the NRA to remind the Justices about that argument.

  14. I, for one, would love to revive the Privileges and Immunities Clause. It’s a good textual fit with the 2nd Amendment (“infringe” is a nice legal word that has more firepower than the mushy “due process” standard).

    The IMPORTANT reason to move to P&I is that it allows the courts to distinguish between rights that American citizens should enjoy (which, in my opinion, includes the right to burn an American flag) and the “liberty” that every human being on American soil should enjoy. I would allow a US citizen to say anything he wants about this country (it’s our country!) but I’d love to SILENCE and SEARCH and DISARM those who have not earned the privileges of citizenship.

    As long as the courts analyze every government action as a deprivation of “civil liberties” that are equally available to all persons, whether they are pursuing US citizenship or not, we’re going to be debating whether we can tap Osama’s phone or search the Underwear Bomber’s underpants. If we treat our treasured American rights as “privileges and immunities of citizenship,” by contrast, we can LOWER the standard we use in dealing with islamofascists even as we RAISE the standard we apply to our own citizens.

    As a final note–if a US citizen provides aid and comfort to our sworn enemies, I would charge him or her with treason, deprive him (or her) of citizenship, and put him (or her) on the same legal standard as any other guest on American soil.

    Citizenship should have its privileges!

    1. Sound of Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave

  15. Why do people say “Second Amendment” when they mean the Fourteenth? The Second says “(Feds,) Thou shalt not infringe”, which apparently isn’t good enough for Reason readers. The Fourteenth says “we (the Feds) GIVE you (franchised persons) these privileges.

    Why is second-rate corporate citizenship so important to you? I can understand why the looters and the thieves would find it useful, but why would America’s citizens?

    1. Huh?

      The BoR originally limited only the federal gubmint. The 14th was meant to similarly limit the state gubmints.

      Then SCOTUS fucked it all up (shocker) with Slaughterhouse and by inventing “selective” incorporation out of whole cloth.

      The argument now is whether the 14th makes the BoR applicable to the states. Over the past 70 or so years, the court has “selectively” answered “yes” to various rights. Now we’re down to a few left – the 2A being one.

      Heller found the 2A protected an individual right, but only against FEDERAL law.

      The question now is whether the 2A also protects that individual right against STATE law.

  16. Did nobody notice that Gura is making both arguments?

    He likes the P&I argument better, but he’s not leaving the due process argument on the table. He’s presenting both.

  17. >The BoR originally limited only the federal gubmint.

    Still does.

    > The 14th was meant to similarly limit the state gubmints.

    I’d like to debate that. The 14th enfranchised a new class of “citizens”. The Feds forced the states to play nice with them.

    > Then SCOTUS fucked it all up (shocker) with Slaughterhouse and by inventing “selective” incorporation out of whole cloth.

    No. It was the “persons” of the 14th that were fabricated, same as any other corporation.

    > The argument now is whether the 14th makes the BoR applicable to the states.

    Tortured interpretation. The original ten stand. Reread Slaughterhouse and the 14th, it is the “persons subject to the jurisdiction” bringing this suit. They never had recourse to the original ten amendments because they are of a fabricated citizenship.

    > Heller found the 2A protected an individual right, but only against FEDERAL law.

    Yes. “Shall not be infringed” by the government We the People are creating. Simple!

    > The question now is whether the 2A also protects that individual right against STATE law.

    No. Never did, never will. Understand that Fed had no jurisdiction over individual citizen.

    Now, of course, it has its own constituency. The artificial “citizens” of the 14th.

  18. Gura presented both P&I and due process in his brief, but P&I required more argument, information, details to present than due process.

    Gura has the Supreme Court over a barrel. The Court has said that unenumerated penumbras and emanations of the Constitution disallow, due to privacy concerns, the government at federal and state levels from legislating details of contraception and abortion.

    That is, laws denying individual self defense through prophylzxis or abortion, against a purely potential disease or potential pregnancy, in cases of consensual physical contactbetween one individual and another, were struck down because US citizens have the right to privacy, which is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

    So now the Court is going to examine whether the enumerated Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which Heller specified as decisively meant for individual self defense against non-consensual violence, also applies to the states.

    I can’t imagine unenumerated privacy being a right which cannot be infringed at a state level, when an enumerated right to keep and bear arms for self defense can be infringed, without the Court becoming internally contradictory to the point of disbelief.

    Should they do so, their ruling will be seen in future as important as the Dred Scott decision.

  19. but I’d love to SILENCE and SEARCH and DISARM those who have not earned the privileges of citizenship.

    America fought for liberty based on the Rights of Man. Not “citizen”. Citizenship is a status granted by government, while actual “rights” inhere to human beings.

    Now, the French did fight for the Rights of Citizens…. and we all know what that got them.

    I suggest you reacquaint yourself with actual Americanism, bub.

    Citizenship should have its privileges!

    “Privileges” are permissions granted by a sovereign master. “Rights” belong to human beings qua humans.

    Enjoy your leash.

  20. I made this point over at the Volokh site, I thought it might also find an audience here.

    Asking “what difference does it make” on the proposition: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Against the States: “Due Process Clause” or “Privileges and/or Immunities Clause?” misses an important point made by the Heller decision itself.

    The Heller Court’s mode of analysis for Constitutional principles purports to be a combination of textual analysis and “contemporary public understanding.” {Bias disclosure: This is a theory I happen to agree with.}

    If the Court extends that analysis via the incorporation issue, and does so by implicitly (or explicitly) holding that textual analysis and “contemporary public understanding” trumps stare decisis, then it will have bolstered the Heller decision by the outcome in McDonald.

    Its called a twofer.

    Remember also that the Second Amendment, even more than the other Amendments, protects an article of personal property owned and possessed by a majority of people in this country. In this respect, the Second Amendment has more practical significance as a constitutional right to more people.

    Heller/McDonald, by affirming the “right to keep and bear arms” and applying it to the states via the same “mode of analysis” cements this right, not only in the dry pages of our law books, but also in hearts of “the people.” The genius of taking this path is that Mr. Gura, and the Court if they follow his reasoning, are re-gifting the Constitution to the rightful heirs.

    I concede that the more abstract rights of speech, press, religion, protections against unreasonable search/seizure and self-incrimination, the right to counsel, etc…, are just as important.

    I merely wish to point out two aspects of the right to keep and bear arms that makes this right more relevant to a greater majority of people: (1) State and local governments have been (and are) criminalizing gun ownership to an astonishing degree and at an equally astonishing pace. And (2) A majority of Americans, while they enjoy the buffer zone of liberty created by the criminal procedure Amendments and the First Amendment, will not concretely exercise those rights in their lifetimes. A majority (maybe only a slight majority, but a majority nonetheless) of Americans will shoot, own or possess a gun during their lifetime.

  21. I feel it is the duty of the NRA to initiate as well as participate in any
    & all gun legislation in regards to the right to bear arms. I sometimes question their direction like why did they lobby against a concealed carry bill in Illinois because it allowed cities such as Chicago to opt out? NRA stated it would create confusion for carry permit holders. Today I am still without a carry permit in downstate Illinois. I do acknowledge the good that the NRA has accomplished so I pay my dues however Mr Gura may accomplish a feat the NRA has danced away from. If it comes to pass Illinois & other states should benefit as well as the city of Chicago. McDonald v Chicago is much bigger than just the repealing of Daley’s handgun ban. Give Mr Gura credit for what he is pursuing for it would likely not have otherwise happened were it not for him & his associates.

  22. I don’t want anybody who wrote gun control laws and lobbied for their passage in Congress and various state legislatures arguing for my second amendment rights in court. That means I don’t want the NRA which is guilty of the above “helping” me. No free man can afford that kind of help.

  23. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at http://www.RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.