DIVIDE OR CONQUER
electoral process all operate in
tandem [with litigation], to create a synergistic effect.” The architect of the plan, he said, was
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s fiery
CEO. To many on both sides of
the gun debate, LaPierre embodies the NRA’s unique blend of
savvy political skills and zealous
opposition to gun regulations.
To hear Alan Gura tell it, however, the NRA’s focus on lobbying
elected officials has undermined
its litigation efforts. “There is a
failure [by the NRA] to understand that litigation is not lobbying, and it’s not politics by another name,” Gura said in a 2010
speech. He said that the SAF had
succeeded in court where the
NRA had failed and accused the
latter group of using the victory
in the McDonald case as “a fundraising gimmick” and of “trying
to take some of the credit.”
In fact, both the SAF, in the person of Alan Gura, and the NRA, in
the person of Paul Clement — the
NRA’s longtime appellate lawyer,
a man widely recognized on both
sides of the debate as one of the
best in the business — argued elements of the winning McDonald
case before the Supreme Court.
“Gura’s argument would be
HUFFINGTON
04.07.13
fine, except that it’s contradicted
by reality,” ͅ