Quoted:
I haven't read Caetano recently,

Quoted:
I am an attorney. I don't pay for PACER -- haven't used it in years. I'm certainly not going to dig through briefs to prove your point.

Oh, and from your Wiki link: "The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment."

The Heller case quickly found a powerful opponent in the National Rifle Association. This surprises nearly every layman I discuss the case with, most of whom assume the NRA was behind the lawsuit in the first place. The Parker lawyers received backroom visits from allies of the NRA before their case was filed, discouraging them from going forward. The Supreme Court (which still had Sandra Day O'Conner back then) would not reliably deliver a victory, they argued, and an authoritative statement from the Supremes that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right could prove devastating to the long-term cause.

This was an intellectually respectable objection, the Levy team thought, but ultimately too fearful. If no one would fight for the Second Amendment qua Second Amendment in a relevant case, then its supposed paladins were as complicit in its irrelevance as were the most rabid partisans for the idea that the Second Amendment only applied to militias and is thus a dead letter.

"The second problem the NRA had with our case was territorial," Gura says. "They didn't want something like this going on that they didn't have their hands in." In fact, in April 2003, less than two months from Parker's filing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a new lawsuit challenging D.C.'s gun laws, Seegars v. Ashcroft, was filed with the backing of the NRA and its longtime Second Amendment legal eagle Stephen Halbrook in charge.

As per then-standard NRA practice, Halbrook offered the court a menu of options to choose from to overthrow D.C. gun laws, hoping one of them might work even if a direct Second Amendment challenge did not. Among them were claims that Congress had only empowered D.C. to create for itself regulations that were "usual and reasonable," and that D.C.'s gun laws, being the most severe ones in the nation, were therefore unusual and unreasonable.

Unlike the Levy team, Halbrook and the NRA chose to sue not only Washington, D.C., but the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ is a significantly more formidable opponent than the District of Columbia. To add insult to injury, because of their unease with Levy and his comparatively inexperienced crew, the NRA team used Seegars as an excuse to try to scuttle Parker altogether by taking over the case, through the legal gambit of "consolidation." That's when two cases that are asking courts to decide on essentially the same matter can be combined, whether or not one of the parties really wants ita hostile takeover of the litigation, as it were. The consolidation request, made to the court in April 2003, was denied.

Then in January 2004, at the D.C. District Court, all but one Seegars plaintiffa woman with a registered shotgun contesting the trigger-lock aspect of D.C.'s lawswere denied standing. The last remaining plaintiff lost the case on a basic "doesn't belong to a militia" argument. The Seegars team appealed, bringing their case into the appeals process before Parker had even been considered at the District Court. It wasn't until March 31, 2004 that that court dismissed Parker, basically on the grounds that those plaintiffs weren't in a militia, either. The Levy team expected this initial loss, but appealed, determined to fight the case all the way through the appeals process.

Because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the issues in both cases were essentially the same, they halted the appeals progress of Parker, at D.C.'s request, pending resolution of Seegars. Then in a February 2005 decision, Seegars was wrecked on the rock of standing, for D.C. Circuit-specific peculiarities explained further below.

The NRA also harmed Parker through its decision to bring DOJ into the case. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in coming down with its Parker decision on March 9, 2007, booted five of the original plaintiffs off the case, for the same reason of standing that the five Seegars plaintiffs were all tossed away. The standing argument had been introduced to the case by the Justice Department; D.C. hadn't thought of it on its own.

After some hesitationcausing it to miss the initial filing deadlinethe District of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court. The NRA was simultaneously pushing a new federal law that would have mooted the newly renamed Heller case by overturning the city's anti-gun laws. Levy lobbied against the measure, arguing that a Supreme Court victory would be more permanent and more important to the whole country than just overturning D.C.'s restrictions. That bill did not pass in 2007, and the Heller case was taken up by the Supreme Court in November of that year. Only at that point, after years of obstruction, did the NRA became highly cooperative, putting together a significant amicus brief endorsed by the majority of both houses of Congress and by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Quoted:
@NotUrLawyer Well, you were the one who demanded a brief.

Nevertheless, here, I found where the NRA fucked up:
https://reason.com/archives/2008/11/18/how-the-second-amendment-was-r/print

So, there ya go.  Contrary to your "The NRA and Gura were best buddies!" narrative, the NRA:
1) tried to talk Gura/Levy/IJ out of filing at all;
2) filed its own "throw shit at the wall and hope some of it sticks" type of case;
3) tried to do a hostile takeover of the Parker case;
4) fortunately failed, but nevertheless got their own reeking turd of a case in front of the appellate court before Parker, thus delaying it; and
5) gave the opening to the DOJ to raise the lack-of-standing argument, which then was applied by the appellate judges, apparently sua sponte, to knock out Shelly Parker and four of the other five plaintiffs in Parker when the panel got around to hearing that appeal.

Therefore: it was the NRA's actions that triggered the booting of five of the six plaintiffs in Parker, through a combination of both the NRA's malice and the NRA's incompetence.

Q. E. fucking D. counselor.  Are you HAPPY now?

This is not even mentioning the NRA's attempts to halt the Parker/Heller case by getting Congress (via Orrin Hatch) to pass a law to change D.C.'s ban so that the case would be rendered moot, killing it before SCOTUS could hear it:

So yeah, only after it became inevitable did the NRA decide to stop being a bunch of dicks.

What's your next steaming pile of bullshit argument?