My message the NRA-ILA, and response

[maestro pistolero]

Dear NRA-ILA,
I'm sure by now that you are aware of the grave concerns in much of the 2A community regarding Paul Clement's inclusion at orals for McDonald vs Chicago.

I share their concerns and can only hope that Mr. Clement has learned from past mistakes vis-a-vi foreclosing future NFA battles, and the subject of what level of scrutiny is to be applied to the application of the Second Amendment to individuals under state law. The time for quid pro quo is over.

In short, and to be extremely blunt, if Mr Clement does or says anything to negatively impact the future litigation of those two specific issues, the NRA will have seen the last of the membership and legislative contributions from this supporter, and many thousand of supporters like me. Please do not underestimate the concern of members on these issues.

Sincerely,
*********

Dear Mr. *********,

Thank you for your message about former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement's representation of the NRA in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which involves the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. A link to this brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit..._congress..pdf

During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA's solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.

Obviously, we realize that Solicitor General Clement represented the federal government's position in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the government took the position that the Second Amendment does protect a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, but that the Court should apply an "intermediate" standard of review, less favorable to Second Amendment challenges to federal gun laws than the standard advocated by the NRA. On the standard of review issue, we disagreed with the government's position at the time and we still disagree with it.

However, it is critically important to remember that this position was the government's, not its lawyer's. At the time, Solicitor General Clement had a duty to represent the position of his client. Now that he is representing the NRA, just as when he was recently representing a bipartisan majority of Congress, he will strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation.

Cordially,
Kaelan Jones
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division