What Liberals Can Learn From the N.R.A.
VILIFYING
the National Rifle Association’s tactics has long been standard
practice among liberals.
The
passion underlying such condemnations may be understandable, especially
in the wake of the horrific mass shootings that often prompt them.
But this rhetoric does little to change the gun debate, and most likely reinforces gun owners’ worst fears about how liberals see them.
Rather than demonize the N.R.A.’s strategies, liberals should emulate them.
The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.
But this rhetoric does little to change the gun debate, and most likely reinforces gun owners’ worst fears about how liberals see them.
Rather than demonize the N.R.A.’s strategies, liberals should emulate them.
The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.
Consider
what the N.R.A. has accomplished.
Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.
In 1990, the retired Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a Nixon nominee, dismissed the idea as a “fraud.”
Yet in 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the individual right to bear arms was no fraud, but a constitutional right.
Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.
In 1990, the retired Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a Nixon nominee, dismissed the idea as a “fraud.”
Yet in 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the individual right to bear arms was no fraud, but a constitutional right.
How
did the N.R.A. do it? It did not litigate Heller itself.
But its efforts over three decades paved the way for the court’s decision.
But its efforts over three decades paved the way for the court’s decision.
The
story begins in 1977, when hard-line members of the N.R.A. took charge
at its annual convention and formally committed the group to defending
the right to bear arms.
The N.R.A. first focused on the states, lobbying to change state constitutions and laws to protect the right to possess and carry guns.
The organization realized that most gun laws were enacted by states, not the federal government, and that it could win substantial victories there, in part by mobilizing its members, in part by working with the local affiliates it had in every state, and in part because opposition at the state level was largely absent. (Gun-control advocates tended to focus unproductively on Congress.)
The N.R.A. first focused on the states, lobbying to change state constitutions and laws to protect the right to possess and carry guns.
The organization realized that most gun laws were enacted by states, not the federal government, and that it could win substantial victories there, in part by mobilizing its members, in part by working with the local affiliates it had in every state, and in part because opposition at the state level was largely absent. (Gun-control advocates tended to focus unproductively on Congress.)
The
strategy paid off:
By the time the Supreme Court took up Heller, most state constitutions protected an individual right to bear arms; nearly all states afforded citizens a right to carry concealed weapons unless they were specifically disqualified from doing so; gun makers enjoyed immunity from tort liability for illegal use of their guns; and the right to self-defense had been strengthened — all at the urging of the N.R.A.
These changes made it much easier for the Supreme Court to recognize a federal right to bear arms, because for all practical purposes such a right already existed in so much of the country.
By the time the Supreme Court took up Heller, most state constitutions protected an individual right to bear arms; nearly all states afforded citizens a right to carry concealed weapons unless they were specifically disqualified from doing so; gun makers enjoyed immunity from tort liability for illegal use of their guns; and the right to self-defense had been strengthened — all at the urging of the N.R.A.
These changes made it much easier for the Supreme Court to recognize a federal right to bear arms, because for all practical purposes such a right already existed in so much of the country.
The
N.R.A. also enlisted the academy. Beginning in the 1980s, it offered
grants and prizes designed to encourage scholarship that buttressed its
view of the Second Amendment.
With N.R.A. assistance, legal scholars transformed the academic understanding of the Second Amendment, so that by the time the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, the dominant view in the legal literature supported an individual right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion closely tracked that scholarship.
With N.R.A. assistance, legal scholars transformed the academic understanding of the Second Amendment, so that by the time the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, the dominant view in the legal literature supported an individual right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion closely tracked that scholarship.
In
addition, the N.R.A. succeeded in getting both Congress and the
executive branch on record as endorsing the view that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
In
1982, a Senate committee headed by Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of
Utah and an N.R.A. member, adopted the individual-rights view of the
Second Amendment; Congress as a whole followed suit in gun rights
legislation in 1986 and 2005.
Later, the N.R.A. organized a friend-of-the-court brief in Heller on behalf of majorities in both the Senate and the House reiterating this position. And when John Ashcroft, another N.R.A. member, became attorney general in 2001, the N.R.A. prompted his decision to reverse the Justice Department’s long-held position that the Second Amendment protects only the states’ prerogative to raise a militia.
Later, the N.R.A. organized a friend-of-the-court brief in Heller on behalf of majorities in both the Senate and the House reiterating this position. And when John Ashcroft, another N.R.A. member, became attorney general in 2001, the N.R.A. prompted his decision to reverse the Justice Department’s long-held position that the Second Amendment protects only the states’ prerogative to raise a militia.
Most
significantly, the N.R.A. recognizes the importance of political
pressure to the realization of constitutional rights.
It grades every candidate for state and federal office on his or her commitment to gun rights, regardless of party affiliation, and urges its five million members to vote accordingly.
The N.R.A. was one of George W. Bush’s biggest backers in 2000 and 2004.
When President Bush had the opportunity to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court in 2005, it was no surprise that both nominees — John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito — were supportive of gun rights. The vote in Heller was 5 to 4, with both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in the majority.
It grades every candidate for state and federal office on his or her commitment to gun rights, regardless of party affiliation, and urges its five million members to vote accordingly.
The N.R.A. was one of George W. Bush’s biggest backers in 2000 and 2004.
When President Bush had the opportunity to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court in 2005, it was no surprise that both nominees — John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito — were supportive of gun rights. The vote in Heller was 5 to 4, with both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in the majority.
There
is nothing nefarious about any of this. It’s how constitutional law
changes in America.
Liberals who are unhappy with the state of
constitutional law today — whether on voting rights, racial equality,
campaign finance or, indeed, guns — would do well to stop condemning the
N.R.A.’s methods and start following in its footsteps.
David Cole,
a law professor at Georgetown, is the author of the forthcoming book
“Engines of Liberty: The Power of Citizen Activists to Make
Constitutional Law.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/what-liberals-can-learn-from-the-nra.html?emc=edit_ty_20160311&nl=opinion&nlid=59725256&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment