Where is the NRA on the Burress case?

[Frank Cross]

the ACLU has made quite a name for itself by defending the most 
unappealing figures.  The ACLU doesn't focus on the speech of the 
"overwhelming majority."  Indeed, this would seem the best way to 
strengthen a right -- if it exists for the most unappealing, that 
proves the power of the right.  And I presume the NRA has ample 
resources.  Perhaps there is a sense of the fragility of the Heller 
right and the fear that the time might not be yet right to push it.

Though I suspect that the gun rights groups generally don't relate to 
the issue.  It's not fair to ascribe racism, you could add Don Kates 
to your list on the racist effects of past gun control.  And David 
Kopel to the defenders of Burress.  But I suspect these groups relate 
better to Karl Malone than Plaxico Burress.  And there is a real 
tension here, as reflected in the incompatibility of the originalist 
constitutional theory of the 2nd Amendment and positions like denying 
guns to felons.  So I think the 2nd Amendment defenders feel theneed 
to be cautious.



At 01:26 PM 12/10/2008, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95AFD.451A2500"
>
>     Oddly enough, many gun rights advocates likewise do a great job 
> tracing many gun control proposals to racist origins, and point out 
> how racial and other minorities have used guns to defend themselves 
> against bigoted abuse (especially when the police were unwilling to 
> defend them).  George Washington Professor Bob Cottrol, 
> <http://www.nrafoundation.org/lawseminar/biographies/cottrol.asp>http://www.nrafoundation.org/lawseminar/biographies/cottrol.asp, 
> a trustee of the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund, has done quite a 
> job of this, see 
> <http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html>http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-recon.html. 
> So rather than speculating about the NRA's and libertarian gun 
> rights advocates' hypothetical racism, might it be better to 
> consider first some alternatives?
>
>     In particular, let's say you're someone like Bob -- or Ray 
> Diamond or Nick Johnson or lots of other pretty clearly nonracist 
> supporters of gun rights.  If you're going to choose whom to spend 
> your scarce time and political capital defending (or whom to urge 
> your group to spend its scarce time and political capital 
> defending), would you choose someone who is apparently an 
> incompetent and therefore likely pretty dangerous person?  Or would 
> you prefer to focus on the overwhelming majority of gun owners and 
> would-be gun owners who never accidentally shoot themselves (or 
> others)?  Hard for me to see how Burress is a "pretty good 
> candidate for [gun rights advocates'] cause," since he is precisely 
> the rare sort of gun owner whose actions support the 
> anti-gun-rights advocates' cause.
>
>     It seems to me the NRA and the libertarian gun rights advocates 
> are in the same position as are advocates in lots of other causes 
> that have a public safety dimension -- fights for drug 
> legalization, for medical marijuana rights, for protection for 
> recovered alcoholics, and so on.  If you were such an advocate, 
> wouldn't you try to stay away from backing people whose actions 
> tend to support the other side's position, and focus on those 
> people whose actions tend to support yours?  If the police busted 
> someone for medical marijuana possession, for instance, would you 
> be less likely to support him if there was evidence that he had let 
> his stash fall in the hands of local teenagers?  To be sure, John 
> Lott, a leading pro-gun-rights scholar has expressed some sympathy 
> for Burress, and for football players more broadly, 
> <http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/02/jlott_guncontrol/>http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/02/jlott_guncontrol/. 
> But it seems to me perfectly sensible that many other gun advocates 
> prefer to focus on more appealing figures.
>
>     Eugene
>
>
>----------
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Zimmer
>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:48 AM
>Cc: conlawprof-bounces; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Where is the NRA on the Burress case?
>
>
>It may just be my lack of attention but I have yet to see anything 
>from the NRA or the libertarian gun rights advocates coming to the 
>aid of Plaxico Burress to defend his possession of a revolver, even 
>if he was inept enough to shoot himself.  If I am right, why is that 
>so?  Reva Siegel does a great job tracing the guns right movement to 
>the 60's and the Republican efforts to develop wedge politics around 
>guns, but also in response to the civil rights movement and the 
>chaos of the period.  Is the failure to come forth for Burress 
>because he is black?  Otherwise he seems a pretty good candidate for 
>their cause since professional athletes have been targets of armed robberies.
>
>Michael J. Zimmer
>Professor of Law Emeritus
>Seton Hall Law School
>
>Professor of Law
>Loyola University Chicago
>25 East Pearson Street
>Chicago, IL 60611
>312.915.7919
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed 
>as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that 
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

Frank B. Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
McCombs School of Business
University of Texas
CBA 5.202 (B6500)
Austin, TX 78712-0212
512.471.5250  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20081210/1de6fbf1/attachment.htm