DOMA | Guns | News | Paul Clement

National Rifle Association Cuts Ties with 'King and Spalding' Over Dropping of DOMA Case

Last Thursday I mentioned that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that the state was cutting its ties with law firm King & Spalding over the firm's decision to withdraw from the defense of DOMA.

Nra Now, the National Rifle Association has followed suit.

Said the NRA's letter to the firm, in part:

We are writing to notify you of our decision to terminate our legal services agreement with King & Spalding, effective immediately, due to the firm's decision to bow to political pressure and abandon a client in the midst of a legal representation. Specifically, our decision is motivated by your withdrawal as counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives in defense of Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act.

We believe King & Spalding's decision is indefensible and raises serious concerns about its ability to be a reliable and effective advocate for any client facing potentially controversial litigation.

To be clear, our decision is not motivated by any position on the statute itself. As you know, the National Rifle Association is a single-issue organization dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We are, however, often involved in controversial issues on which emotions can run high.

Previously...
The Curious Case of Paul Clement [tr]
Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli Cuts State's Ties with King & Spalding for Obsequious Act of Weakness in DOMA Case [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. NRA=Gayh8rs....surprise, surprise! Gun lovers are 99 and 44/100ths repugs.

    Posted by: Pointed | May 2, 2011 4:37:08 PM


  2. @Alex E: "Deal with it, unless you've forgotten why California wasn't crawling with Japanese during WW2."

    What???? The Japanese never made it to California because 1) their army wasn't large enough and was already spread too thinly across Asia and the Western Pacific, 2) their Navy lacked the ships, planes, equipment and resources to land in California and 3) they couldn't even hold onto a couple of remote islands in the Aleutians, much less anyplace on mainland North America. That's one long supply line! I'm all for responsible gun ownership (I own several myself) but your theory is whacky.

    Posted by: RWG | May 2, 2011 4:46:30 PM


  3. Here is a link to an article we put on regarding this matter:

    http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2011/05/nra-inserts-itself-in-doma-controversy.html

    One of our employees says he is calling the NRA tomorrow to cancel his life membership because of their action in this case.

    Posted by: Storey Institute | May 2, 2011 6:22:40 PM


  4. "our decision is not motivated by any position on the statute itself"

    and I have a bridge to sell...

    Posted by: Randy | May 2, 2011 8:39:07 PM


  5. @RWG:
    I think Alex E refers to internment camps, not to the war effort.

    Posted by: Blub | May 2, 2011 10:45:36 PM


  6. @Little Kiwi, self-defense will always be necessary.
    Criminals have guns, even if it's difficult or impossible to obtain a gun legally. That's the thing about criminals-- they have no regard for laws or the safety of others.
    Conversely, law-abiding people will not be able to obtain a gun if it's illegal, putting criminals at an advantage against the common citizen.
    Few people will use guns to kill, so why create laws that will prevent everyone from having guns EXCEPT for those few people?

    Ask yourself, what would happen if every gay man carried a concealed weapon? Certainly, hate crimes would drop significantly. The fact is that hate crime laws and the police won't protect you and don't deter violence; only you can defend yourself.

    For those of you who say that 2nd Amendment advocates are all homophobic rednecks, consider libertarians and anarchists: they believe in minimal government interference in personal matters and advocate equality between gay and straight people. Look outside the political binary!

    Posted by: Cruel World | May 2, 2011 11:00:54 PM


  7. Jonathan: The NRA represents a "minority opinion" just as AIPAC represents a "minority opinion". The problem is that their influence far outweighs the actual number of people who support them.

    Posted by: jamal49 | May 3, 2011 3:31:23 PM


  8. Agreed, the NRA just announced that the NRA is NOT single issue.

    Their double-speak doesn't add up: K&S had not really started to represent Boehner. And unduly dropping a client mid-course could approach an ethics violation. That's kind of an outrageous claim to make against K&S: K&S has shown its ethics in spades by doing the right thing on a case they showed leadership in rejecting.

    Seems to me like NRA acts GUILTY about SOMETHING by dropping K&S this way. Makes me wonder if they tried to demand an outrageous gag clause like Boehner asked for. Or maybe it's SOLELY political maneuvering. At the least, they've announced contentment to pander to anti-gay funders/influence.

    In any case, you've gained my suspicion, NRA. And I'm a middle of the road gun rights guy; I respect the sentiment of leaving people alone. But maybe I don't KNOW everything you've been up to, NRA.

    Maybe the NRA deserves more of our scrutiny...

    Posted by: just_a_guy | May 3, 2011 9:59:09 PM


  9. And the NRA seems to have announced that they only want 2nd-rate yes-men lawyers. SUSPECT.

    Posted by: just_a_guy | May 3, 2011 10:01:38 PM


  10. Luminium found the real issue. Good job.

    Posted by: jimstoic | May 4, 2011 3:59:26 AM


  11. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Obama Talks 'Equality for All Citizens' in Bin Laden Address« «