Where is the NRA on the Burress case?

Wed Dec 10 14:09:00 PST 2008

    Again, say some movie star does something very dangerous while on
drugs, and is then prosecuted for illegal drug possession.  Would it be
"surprising" if drug legalization groups decide not to comment on the
matter, prefering instead to comment on cases where the drug users seem
less dangerous and more sympathetic?  If the movie star were black,
would we infer, as Prof. Zimmer was suggesting, that the drug
legalization groups were silent because of the star's race -- or because
the star is not a sympathetic poster child for their cause?
    Eugene

________________________________

	From: Michael Zimmer [mailto:zimmermi at shu.edu] 
	Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:25 PM
	To: Volokh, Eugene
	Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: RE: Where is the NRA on the Burress case?

	If I am right, the NRA does support repeal of legislation like
the New York gun laws, like the one at stake in Burress' case, and their
replacement with laws that permit pretty broad gun possession.  The
Burress case is, for me at least, the first big press gun possession
issue since Heller. The absence of comment by the NRA and libertarian
gun rights groups just seems surprising.  So, yes, I expect issue
oriented groups to make statements when that issue is front page news.

	Maybe we can expect that "60 Minutes" to do one of those snarky
trackdowns of some gun rights big wig, hoping to get the deadly, "No
comment."  :) 

	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 

"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> 
Sent by: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 

12/10/2008 03:11 PM 

To
<conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu> 
cc
Subject
RE: Where is the NRA on the Burress case?

	    Do we expect statements from  strong-on-Fourth-Amendment
groups whenever the police search someone famous  (perhaps
unconstitutionally, perhaps not) and find evidence that the person is
really dangerous?  Do we expect statements from
strong-on-drug-legalization  groups whenever the police arrest someone
famous for drug possession, and he was  really using drugs recklessly? 

	    Certainly if we are foes of these groups, we'd  like to see
them get involved in a controversy that -- to the public --  is likely
to support our position and oppose the groups' position.  But  that has
to do with our preferences in the political debates, not our reasonable
expectations as to what a sensible nonracist group would actually  do. 

	    Eugene 

________________________________

	From: Michael Zimmer [mailto:zimmermi at shu.edu]   
	Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:43 PM 
	To: Ray  Kessler 
	Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu;
conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu; Volokh, Eugene 
	Subject: RE: Where  is the NRA on the Burress case? 

	I really didn't have in mind the  NRA or other libertarian gun
rights groups taking on Burress' case since he  has the resources to
take on the case himself. What I had in mind was some  sort of statement
putting the situation into the context of what the gun  rights groups
think the proper scope of the Second Amendment is.  Since  Michael Dorf
makes a pretty nice argumetn that Heller is limited to  guns in the
home, I rather expected some statement from proponents of the  right to
say they agree or not. 

	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 

"Ray Kessler"  <rkessler at sulross.edu> 
Sent by: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu   

12/10/2008 02:27 PM 

To
"'Volokh, Eugene'"  <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>,  <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>

cc
Subject
RE: Where is the NRA on the  Burress case?

	I agree with Eugene: 

	There have been thousands of people who have been arrested for
illegal carrying in NYC.  The NRA never showed much interest in those
cases.  You start litigating against the most draconian laws and try to
find appealing plaintiffs.  Handgun bans like DC & Chi are the  obvious
targets.  Burress is not an attractive client.  He has a  long
reputation in the NFL as a "problem" child.  He shot himself
accidentally.  Some innocent person could also have been injured.    The
fact that the NRA has not jumped on the Burress bandwagon is thus  not
surprising.  However, those who racism everywhere will have their own
theories. 

	Ray  Kessler 

	Prof. of Criminal  Justice 

	Sul Ross State  University 

	Alpine, TX   

	From:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh,  Eugene 
	Sent: Wednesday, December 10,  2008 1:27 PM 
	To:  conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
	Subject: RE:  Where is the NRA on the Burress case? 

	    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, 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/.  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.   

	_______________________________________________
	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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20081210/64db63c0/attachment.htm 