In 1994 and 1995, when criminal defense lawyers wanted to stop Newt Gingrich' assault on the Fourth Amendment contained in his Take Back Our Streets Act (part of his Contract "on" America" it was the Second Amendment groups that came to our aid. He got the bill passed in the House, we needed to get it stopped in the Senate.
In summary, the T.B.O.S.A. provisions that passed the House were those curtailing the exclusionary rule to allow the admission of evidence seized in warrantless searches if the officer acted in "good faith;" imposing severe restrictions on habeas corpus petitions; eliminating all drug prevention funding and the establishment of drug courts included in last year's crime bill (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994); mandating restitution for direct and indirect victims of crime, regardless of the offender's ability to pay; restricting prisoner lawsuits; and authorizing $ 10 billion dollars for building more prisons to house violent offenders, while disallowing funds to build alternative correctional facilities
In a monthly column on legislation I wrote at the time, I explained how the Second Amendment groups came to our aid:
While the Republican Congress got off to a heady start, it later stumbled into obstacles created largely by the formation of new and unusual coalitions. NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) was strategically positioned to jump right into the fray, joining forces with groups who previously were considered "unlikely bedfellows."
For example, libertarians (Rep. Henry Hyde (RIL), the Cato Institute, etc.) joined forces with us on forfeiture reform. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other Second Amendment groups, along with libertarians, joined forces with us on "counter-terrorism" and law enforcement abuse issues... One prominent example is a recent NRA board policy change from what existed in the early days of Congress when the House passed its bill weakening the exclusionary rule. The new board policy resolves the NRA to work to strengthen the exclusionary rule and to oppose any efforts to weaken it. Another example is the recent commitment by several prominent Second Amendment organizations to join NACDL in opposing pending habeas corpus "reform" bills.
....How does the end-of-year scorecard read on the Contract's "Taking Back Our Streets Act" and S. 3, the Senate draconian counterpart? From NACDL's perspective, things could have been much worse. The House managed to pass five new crime bills.... The Senate has passed only three of the bills: one increasing penalties for child pornography; one regarding the block grants for police officers; and, on December 22, a version of the House bill requiring mandatory victim restitution (but, under the Senate's amendment, a federal judge may forego issuing a victim restitution order in "extraordinary circumstances").
On the counter-terrorism and habeas bills:
Using the lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge to convince Congress and other interested lobbying groups that these bills would significantly infringe on personal freedom and provide too much control to law enforcement agents has been quite successful.
[NACDL Legislative Director Leslie Hagin convinced Gun Week to publish her article] "Why Gunowners and Civil Libertarians Should Oppose Pending 'Counter-Terrorism' and Habeas 'Reform' Bills." Gun Week Executive Editor, Joseph Tartaro, strongly commending Leslie's article to his readership, stating:
"Habeas reform is an important issue that should be of special interest to gunowners who may not always appreciate how important a writ of habeas corpus could be to them. . . . Leslie Hagin of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers . . . may be a newcomer to our pages, but she is far from a newcomer to constitutional concerns. Hagin's examination of the historical roots of habeas corpus protection and her illustration of how it serves to safeguard the rights and property of law-abiding gunowners, as well as others should open many eyes."
Tartaro proceeds to label efforts of political conservatives to limit habeas "a knee-jerk response to criminal justice reform," concluding that ." . .Readers who in the past have seen the habeas protection merely as a refuge for scoundrels will find Hagin's article very enlightening."
I think all Trump was saying was the NRA, as a lobbying force and organization with 4.3 million members, could be a big help to those who want to see a Scalia-type justice on the Supreme Court, because if the NRA recommends that its members vote for Trump, and he's elected, Hillary's efforts to appoint a different kind of justice will be defeated. While I would hate to see that happen, since I think conservative justices are the worst choice for America, I think it's a fairy tale to say Trump was implicitly or otherwise endorsing violence against Hillary.
There are so many valid criticisms to make against Donald Trump -- claiming he was endorsing violence against Hillary isn't one of them.
So as not to have completely wasted my time writing about this, I'll take this occasion to point out that the Second Amendment is only one away from the Fourth (the Third Amendment is obsolete.) We should never give up any constitutional right, even one we don't personally use. Once the government takes power from its citizens, it rarely gives it back.
Update: The NRA has already swung into action, using the debate over Trump's comment as the perfect time to release a $3 million ad buy against Hillary.
