U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago

U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago

National Rifle Association
National Rifle Association

Fairfax, Va. – -(AmmoLand.com)- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the National Rifle Association’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

“NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.”

Last September, the Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment.

The NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As a party in McDonald, the NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing the NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Augeri

I read with the some of the statements some of the people write in about the NRA. They should thank there lucky stars that our fore fathers had the wisdom to have put the second amendment to our constitution. The NRA is fighting for the rights of the American people. Maybe some of these same people would like to lose the constitution also. They have better wake up especially today in age when you have politicans who want to take you rights and flush them down the tiolet.


once again the NRA interfering in Alan Gura's case. First Heller now McDonald. I will not send anymore money to the NRA. If we don't get P&I incorporation, the NRA will no longer exist in my world. Due process incorporation is ok but not true to the original meaning of the constitution IMHO. I will send all of my money to no compromise organizations. The NRA is so worried that we might actually get protection of the 2nd amendment and their fund raising will dry up. What the NRA should be concentrating on is developing more firing ranges in places… Read more »


Oh, swell. 'Negotiating Rights Away' gets to appear on-stage and all future press releases will say "…STARRING the NRA !! "

Best for all concerned if the NRA just goes broke.


The NRA "advocates enforcement of existing laws…". Liberty advocates realize the only law which should pertain to law-abiding gunowners is the 2nd Amendment.

Since the definitions of "unalienable" and "infringed" remain the same today as they were in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, one wonders exactly what part of "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" remains open to interpretation?