NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: JimP on May 10, 2009, 09:15:50 PM
-
http://thearmedschoolteacher.blogspot.com/2009/05/nra-playing-kill-bill-against.html
I could not remember the bill number for Asshford's "Too Dangerous For Civilian Use List"..... anybody else remember it?
-
I wouldn't consider that double-dealing and I can also see the NRA's point regarding preemption.
A neutral stance may have been more PC.
-
This is the kind of stuff that made me stop being an NRA member.
For the last 17 years or so they have been "Negotiating Rights Away"
-
00BUCK,
What about Heller?? I think the NRA fought hard for that and did what they were supposed to do.
Neutral stance would have been the more appropriate thing to do though.
I don't think Charlston Heston was negotiating my rights away.
The NRA is the only pro Second Amendment group with any clout in this country. They must have the support of every gun owner in this country. Not every one can be happy with everything all the time..Right??
??? for you......Why do you think the NRA is so bad? Just curious.
-
Initially the NRA said that Heller was too big a gamble to take and even brought some lawsuits in an attempt to stop it. They were afraid that the numbers were against us on the SCOTUS.
They jumped on the band wagon after the battle was won
-
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The truth about the NRA
From The Washington Times:
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
"Initially the NRA said that Heller was too big a gamble to take and even brought some lawsuits in an attempt to stop it. They were afraid that the numbers were against us on the SCOTUS. "
"They jumped on the band wagon after the battle was won"
I never heard any of this before. Interesting read. Thanks
Just a thought though.... If I may.... I think I would rather have the NRA bring a law suit regarding the Second Amendment and my rights than the Washington Times. Just my thoughts.
Anyways..... A phrase comes to mind..
We must stand together or we will hang separately.....(something like that)..Just something to think about.....
-
The Washington Times was just printing an article by the attorney that brought the Parker case, Robert Levy was his name.
The Parker case became DC v Heller
-
I try to keep up on thew news as best as I can...I thought the U.S. Supreme Court recenlty ruled that D.C. citizens can own handguns in their homes...is the discussion above a re-cap of that events leading up to this ruling.
-
Don't take my stance on the NRA as too negative, I am a longtime member and I do support most of the things they do, But I don't drink the Koolaid.
Like Reagan said...."Trust, but verify."
-
I try to keep up on thew news as best as I can...I thought the U.S. Supreme Court recenlty ruled that D.C. citizens can own handguns in their homes...is the discussion above a re-cap of that events leading up to this ruling.
Yes it is a rehash of past NRA issues
-
Yes it is a rehash of past NRA issues
Okay. Thanks for the info.
-
00BUCK,
What about Heller?? I think the NRA fought hard for that and did what they were supposed to do.
Neutral stance would have been the more appropriate thing to do though.
I don't think Charlston Heston was negotiating my rights away.
The NRA is the only pro Second Amendment group with any clout in this country. They must have the support of every gun owner in this country. Not every one can be happy with everything all the time..Right??
??? for you......Why do you think the NRA is so bad? Just curious.
I will not be part of an organization that will not defend my right 100% and never give an inch. They have repeatedly throughout the last 20 years been in "negotiations" with the anti's. Completely unacceptable to me, so I support other, more like-minded organizations.
Not saying that stance is one that everyone should take, but it is the one I take.
-
NRA doesn't really do a whole lot in IL. It's the ISRA and Illinoiscarry.org people that do most of the pro-2A legwork there. Things like the IGOLD march and the pro CCW events in Chicago are all organized at the state level.
-
I have made it clear before, I am not a big fan of the NRA. However I am a member, and I am appreciative of many things they have accomplished. I came to the realization though in the last couple years that the NRA will not be the ones who gets things done in our Legislature, it will be an effort of the people who live here and care about Nebraska.
The reason why NFOA is here now.
-
NRA is a national organization that has a lot of clot and is worthy of their support they receive. The collective members of NRA have won many battles to maintain our right to bear arms in this country. However, I feel our voices, opinions and views have more impact at the State level than the national level. NFOA is a big part of that.
-
I love this site. I have learned so much and proud to be associated with the NFOA...........and NRA.
Thumbs up to Dan and Chris.
-
"...the NRA will not be the ones who gets things done in our Legislature, it will be an effort of the people who live here and care about Nebraska...The reason why NFOA is here now."
Well said!
-
Initially the NRA said that Heller was too big a gamble to take and even brought some lawsuits in an attempt to stop it. They were afraid that the numbers were against us on the SCOTUS.
They jumped on the band wagon after the battle was won
Back when Heller (i.e., Parker) started, it was doubtful the case would have been won without Alito and Roberts. The case was a gamble and it wasn't an overwhelming majority. The NRA knew that if we lost it would have been devastating.
Roberts was to replace O'Connor, who leaned left in her later years. If she was one the bench, it very well could've been a 4-5 LOSS for us. Ultimately, Rehnquist died before Roberts was confirmed and Roberts replaced Rehnquist and Alito replaced O'Connor.
-
I agree that Nebraskans need to take care of Nebraska's issues. (And we're doing pretty well right now.)
At the same time that I have issues with the NRA, I recognize that we still have the 2A very largely as a result of their efforts. Boycotting them or bad-mouthing their efforts is? if I may coin a shooting metaphor? shooting yourself in the foot.
The NRA is a political organization and as such makes political, strategic, and tactical decisions, some of which are unpopular and may even seem Machiavellian. But they are the best game in town IMO. My experience with the GOA has been less than satisfactory. My take on them is that they are disorganized and sloppy.
Warts and all, it's the NRA for me. YMMV.
-
Use the NRA for lobbying on national issues. We as an organization need to be the first line of defense on gun issues at the state, county, and local levels. NFOA can get a lot more done in Lincoln than the NRA can.
-
Use the NRA for lobbying on national issues. We as an organization need to be the first line of defense on gun issues at the state, county, and local levels. NFOA can get a lot more done in Lincoln than the NRA can.
That's the most important thing to take away from this thread.
-
The quick and cheap way to stay "up to date" is to log into shotgunnews.com and read the Knox Report (or send Knox money for a subscription/hard copy) and other political columns. Neal, RIP, is gone but Chris is carrying on. Never did get the details about the fight with Harlon Carter, but plenty disappointed when Neal was cheated out of the President Post to give it to Heston. Heston could have been better used, but did plenty. Neal was no where as "slick." Hollywood. C.H. just got in by crooked politics which he probably did not understand himself.
The NRA was founded to hold competitions and distribute the surplus military arms and ammo (DCM = Director of Civilian Marksmanship), etc. These are nice soft cushy quasi government jobs.
The politics is auxiliary. (Damn them.) And "lobbying" too.
Anyone think they are going to throw this cushiness away by upsetting (p_ng off) the officials in office that make it all possible? Dumb. The number that have to be re elected now and then is tiny vs. the number of bureaucrats that serve for life... Of course the cut backs... I was plenty upset when as a JR member I couldn't buy surplus Springfield '06 barrels at 3 for $6.00. Had to be adult member. [$3.00 and age vs $5.00. Long ago.]
In an E. Keith biography he tells of the NRA paper punchers approached by sissies about the new caliber/gun TOO powerful for civilians. -!!!!!- Had to restrict it to the military and police ONLY!!! And the NRA paper punchers were buying into this nonsense. That was the .357 Magnum.
Now concern about ruling on the 2nd was justified. "Gun control" has been with us in this country for couple centuries. And our legal system is based on "stari decisis." [ Latin: "stand by the decision, the prior decision."] "Shoot out At the O.K. Coral" was about "gun control." Tombstone had an ordinance against carrying in town. Since the cowboys had just arrived... they could have packed up the iron and entered town or left town. What started the shooting, hard to tell. BUT the Earps acted "under color of law." I.E. they had badges. And this made their pushiness legit and got them off.
When all this started, Roberts and Alito were not on the court... Miller had gone for the government position (Frank Roosevelt sissy liberal time) 'cause no one showed up to represent Miller... I think he had died.
What is needed, as suggested, is local, regional, state, organizations active in politics [the squeaky wheel gets the grease...] and waiting for the NRA... bad idea.
There was video on Lincoln cable public access, years back/ NRA T.V. I think it was Marion Hammer, interviewed, said that she got the CCP program up and going well in Florida AND THEN the NRA showed up to "help" (and keep an eye on her, bet). Hopefully, NFO can be a small part of what is needed. Watch for the NRA showing up to "help."