Constructive Criticism Welcome!!! Please Comment!
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 4:54 pm
Here is my next draft of the original NRA PS. I hope that I am finally reaching something good here. Constructive criticism is welcome. I don't have time for "I hated it". If you hate it, tell me how to fix it so you no longer feel such animosity. Thank you.
My fascination with the legal process did not begin at an early age, but rather at eighteen beginning my freshman year at Texas Tech University. I received a phone call informing me that the National Rifle Association considered me a prime candidate for the lead plaintiff position in a class action lawsuit because of my participation in a rifle competition. Although I disagreed with many of the NRA’s positions on issues of firearm possession, I agreed with the NRA on this matter and decided to join.
The lawsuit, later to be named James D’Cruz v Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenged the premise that citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 should be prohibited from buying a pistol or its ammunition from a federally licensed dealer due to the citizen’s immaturity. Since citizens of this age group could legally purchase a firearm or ammunition through a private sale, I thought it logical to push for consistency in the law.
Upon accepting the role of lead plaintiff on the case, I began to receive various legal documents from the lawyers the NRA had provided me. The documents, although cryptic to me at the time, stimulated my interest in the amount of precision required to create firm contractual agreements. My lawyers shared their interpretation of the legal process with me, proving to me that law was more than clauses inscribed on paper. In the end, however, their interpretations of the 5th district court proved incorrect, and the case was dismissed.
As I reflected on the person I was before involving myself in the court case, I realized I had been stubborn in my political and social outlooks. I viewed my political, theological, and cultural ideas as absolutes. When faced with alternative value systems, I generally rejected them, ignoring any logic in the arguments.
Through my involvement in the lawsuit, I was introduced to arguments that I could not simply ignore. I researched instances of mass shootings and the court cases that followed in an attempt to understand how to predict the outcome of my own case. My research caused me to reach the epiphany that the statistics that the National Rifle Association and I were proclaiming as evidence in favor of overturning the law were not accepted by the opposition. I noticed how different surveys and studies could produce conflicting results that were open to interpretation depending on the reader. However, the statistics and studies were not the final arbiter of the law in my lawsuit, but rather a judge. Numerous times I questioned if I was acting for the greater good of society, or ignorantly fighting for further bloodshed.
The court cases took much from me in the form of my reputation. I was ridiculed and harassed, alienated, and deceived by all sides of the debate. However, even though the court cases had many negative consequences, without it I would have never questioned my own belief system, helping me mature. The controversy forced me to recognize other arguments and defend mine logically to my challengers.
Although issue of gun control will be settled by courts at a later date with or without my influence, the experience taught me how to listen and argue all sides of a debate with a unique precision. I hope the lessons I learned from debating the scope of the Second Amendment will continue to allow me mature as I pursue a career in law.
My fascination with the legal process did not begin at an early age, but rather at eighteen beginning my freshman year at Texas Tech University. I received a phone call informing me that the National Rifle Association considered me a prime candidate for the lead plaintiff position in a class action lawsuit because of my participation in a rifle competition. Although I disagreed with many of the NRA’s positions on issues of firearm possession, I agreed with the NRA on this matter and decided to join.
The lawsuit, later to be named James D’Cruz v Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenged the premise that citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 should be prohibited from buying a pistol or its ammunition from a federally licensed dealer due to the citizen’s immaturity. Since citizens of this age group could legally purchase a firearm or ammunition through a private sale, I thought it logical to push for consistency in the law.
Upon accepting the role of lead plaintiff on the case, I began to receive various legal documents from the lawyers the NRA had provided me. The documents, although cryptic to me at the time, stimulated my interest in the amount of precision required to create firm contractual agreements. My lawyers shared their interpretation of the legal process with me, proving to me that law was more than clauses inscribed on paper. In the end, however, their interpretations of the 5th district court proved incorrect, and the case was dismissed.
As I reflected on the person I was before involving myself in the court case, I realized I had been stubborn in my political and social outlooks. I viewed my political, theological, and cultural ideas as absolutes. When faced with alternative value systems, I generally rejected them, ignoring any logic in the arguments.
Through my involvement in the lawsuit, I was introduced to arguments that I could not simply ignore. I researched instances of mass shootings and the court cases that followed in an attempt to understand how to predict the outcome of my own case. My research caused me to reach the epiphany that the statistics that the National Rifle Association and I were proclaiming as evidence in favor of overturning the law were not accepted by the opposition. I noticed how different surveys and studies could produce conflicting results that were open to interpretation depending on the reader. However, the statistics and studies were not the final arbiter of the law in my lawsuit, but rather a judge. Numerous times I questioned if I was acting for the greater good of society, or ignorantly fighting for further bloodshed.
The court cases took much from me in the form of my reputation. I was ridiculed and harassed, alienated, and deceived by all sides of the debate. However, even though the court cases had many negative consequences, without it I would have never questioned my own belief system, helping me mature. The controversy forced me to recognize other arguments and defend mine logically to my challengers.
Although issue of gun control will be settled by courts at a later date with or without my influence, the experience taught me how to listen and argue all sides of a debate with a unique precision. I hope the lessons I learned from debating the scope of the Second Amendment will continue to allow me mature as I pursue a career in law.