Where is the NRA on the Burress case?
Ilya Somin
isomin at gmu.edu
Wed Dec 10 19:39:55 PST 2008
It is perhaps worth noting that the NRA website has in fact posted a short statement condemning Burress' arrest and linking to John Lott's column defending Burress, and more generally arguing that NFL players and other celebrities need to be able to carry guns:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=11879
Now, of course, they could make a bigger deal about it than they have; but it is not true that they have ignored the issue, or somehow sympathize with the prosecution because the defendant is black. The failure to emphasize the case more is almost certainly due to tactical considerations of the sort raised by Eugene rather than by Burress' race or other extraneous issues. The NRA would surely welcome a gun case involving a prominent black defendant where the PR advantages were on the defendant's side. They are a highly capable advocacy group (as even their opponents emphasize) and would not let such an opportunity slip by.
Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
ph: 703-993-8069
fax: 703-993-8202
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
-------------- next part --------------
I guess the difference for me is the present salience of the gun rights
issue. Frankly, drug rights is not on the radar. So if there are drug
rights groups and if they issued statements about some drug issue, or not
,would just not be part of the conversation. They might, however, attempt
to raise the issue into the discourse by making a statement in some case
that hits the blogs and blurbs because it involves a celebrity.
Mike
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 04:20 PM
To
<conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
cc
Subject
RE: Where is the NRA on the Burress case?
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. 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.
_______________________________________________
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/20081210/543518f7/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list