[Al Norris]

Can anyone say, "It's about time!"

Regardless, the report did give me 3 more cases to seek out and report. sigh.

I do have to critique one portion of the ILA report. Early on in the report, the ILA states:

NRA-ILA’s goal in every case we consider is to strategically advance the rights of gun owners, while not creating bad precedent.

OK. That's exactly what we want to see. It is part of the strategy that another organization is using. However, let's get down to facts. There is this that the ILA says:

Fortunately for Chicago residents, the shooting range ban was struck down on July 6 in Ezell -- a case limited only to the shooting range issue. In its opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that “The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use,” and noted that “It's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free speech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.”

While Ezell was not NRA-ILA’s case, our more comprehensive challenge in Benson continues. Chicago’s range prohibition was only one way in which the city is continuing to thumb its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As noted earlier, Chicago also bans gun possession not only outside the home, but in parts of the home such as garages, porches and front steps; bans nearly all firearm transfers and on the operation of gun stores; and restricts each Chicago license holder to keep only one “assembled and operable” firearm within the home. This case is in discovery through October, in which both sides have the opportunity to demand documents and take statements from opponents.

Hold it. Stop. Right. There.

First and foremost, Benson is more of the same old, same old. That is, it is a plate of spaghetti thrown against the wall to see what sticks. You don't want bad precedent? Then stick to a single issue. You don't want your case going on for months and months, via "discovery." You want to push forward, fail fast, and get to the Circuit Courts with only the record you have prepared and none of the contrary record prepared by the defendants. We all know we are going to lose at the district level. It Makes no sense to be there (at the district level) any longer than we have to be. And it damn well makes no sense to give anything to the defense... Like a record to be used against us.

Next, Ezell, while not a NRA case, is more important than they let on. They sort of, kind of, said that earlier when discussing their Shepard case. Sorta kinda.

Ezell has applications in many of the current cases. It is the only opinion that has followed the explicit instructions of the Heller Court.

Overall, it's good that the NRA is now going to report their cases. It's bad that they still haven't learned to play nicely in the same playground as the rest of us.

One final note. Williams v. Maryland is not one of their cases, even though Stephan Halbrook is the attorney. I can't, for a second imagine, that if it was, they would not be reporting this.

With all this being said, have no doubt. I support the NRA, as a whole and wholeheartedly. It is Chris Cox (head of the NRA-ILA) that I have no respect for.