The NRA, the same people who tried to derail Parker v. D.C. (which later became D.C. v. Heller) has announced that the Supreme Court has granted their motion to allow them to participate in the upcoming oral argument of McDonald v. Chicago. The email I received this morning states:
"We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. "NRA's solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the States."It goes on to say that the NRA will be represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.
According to The Volokh Conspiracy, there's been a little exchange between Clement and Heller litigator Alan Gura:
The end of the (Blog of Legal Times) post includes some interesting commentary by both Clement and Gura. First, Clement comments:The bolded portion is today's QotD. Give 'em hell Alan!"I think the grant of the NRA’s motion may signal that the Court is interested in ensuring that all the avenues to incorporation, including the due process clause, are fully explored at the argument. Of course, I look forward to working with Alan."Gura responds, showing his typical civility and grace:"The suggestion that I wouldn't present all the arguments to the Court was uncalled for. I hope that this time Paul understands that handgun bans are unconstitutional."As the BLT notes, the dig against Clement reflects the brief he filed as Solicitor General in 2007 arguing on behalf of the United States that the D.C. handgun ban was not necessarily unconstitutional.
(* In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Patron member of the NRA. That's two steps above Life and one below Benefactor. But I hardly think they walk on water and their farts don't stink.)