NRA money helped reshape gun law

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.”

Graphic

How the NRA exerts influence over Congress

Video

The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe shows us some of the guns targeted by legislation that would outlaw certain rifles, pistols and high-capacity magazines.

More on this Story

• NRA money helped reshape gun law
• Key players in the gun-control debate
• Colorado still on the fence about gun control
• Gun deaths, violent crime overall are down in District and U.S., but reasons are elusive

View all Items in this Story

• For some, lessons of boyhood include learning to shoot and hunt
• ATF revitalization plans face opposition
• New England’s ‘gun valley’ roiled by Newtown massacre
• In gun-loving North Dakota, one activist pushes for gun control
• Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts
• Giffords advocates for gun control in Congress where she once served
• NRA-backed federal limits on gun lawsuits frustrate victims, their attorneys
• CAUTIONARY TALE FOR OBAMA: NRA’s High Caliber Lobbying Bags Big Legislative Wins in the States Over Past Two Decades
• How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
• Data indicate drop in high-capacity magazines during federal gun ban
• In the sad world of mass shootings, ages of Newton victims set them apart
• NRA fingerprints in landmark health-care law
• History of gun control is cautionary tale for those who want more regulations

More than 35 years later, no one is laughing. In 2008, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time an individual’s right to own a gun in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The 5 to 4 decision rendered ineffective some of the District’s strict gun-control laws. And Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion echoed the work of Kates and his ideological comrades, who had pressed the argument that the Second Amendment articulates an individual right to keep and bear arms.

As the Obama administration pushes for gun-control legislation, it will have to contend with the changed legal understanding of the Second Amendment that culminated in Heller. That transformation was brought about in large part by a small band of lawyers and scholars backed by the NRA.

For more than three decades, the NRA has sponsored legal seminars, funded legal research and encouraged law review articles that advocate an individual’s right to possess guns, according to the organization’s reports. The result has been a profound shift in legal thinking on the Second Amendment. And the issue of individual gun-possession rights, once almost entirely ignored, has moved into the center of constitutional debate and study.

For proponents of stricter gun control, the NRA’s encouragement of favorable legal scholarship has been a mark of its strategic, patient advocacy.

“I think this was one of the most successful attempts to change the law and to change a legal paradigm in history,” said Carl T. Bogus, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island and the editor of “The Second Amendment in Law and History,” a collection of essays that challenges the interpretation of the individual right. “They were thinking strategically. I don’t think the NRA funds scholarship out of academic interest. I think the NRA funds something because it has a political objective.”

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.