NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: AAllen on November 05, 2014, 05:13:33 PM
-
I think we did real well yesterday, 11 of our 15 endorsed candidates won (compare the NSEA who spent a quarter million and got about 4 of 23), 7 seats are upgrades for us and the only real downgrade is that we no longer have Senator Christiansen (and there is nothing saying Dan Hughes won't fill in nicely, just that there are big shoes to fill).
In Congressional District 2, whose caucus has so much of an effect on the Legislature's leadership, we really picked up all but one seat. Yes there are a couple of seats that are squishy but because of where those people stand on other issues I think they will support good changes to committees and leadership. Is that a large enough change in Congressional District 2 for the changes to happen?
I think there will be some hope for a good session the next two years, and with things to build on for the PAF we will hopefully continue to gain momentum.
Other races that will effect us; Governor as far as firearms are concerned Pete Rickets will very much like Governor Heinemann. Economic development and taxes are going to be his concerns, Second Amendment issues will not be for front but when we have the votes to pass things he will sign the bills. Attorney General I really believe that Doug Peterson will follow along with the direction Jon Brunning had things going, don't see any reason to believe there would be a change for us here.
Federal races in Nebraska, Ben Sasse will be much like Johanns where we should be able to have his vote when needed but he would not be putting up 2A legislation.
Congressional Districts 1 and 3 remain the same and Brad Ashford has beaten NFOA member Lee Terry for District 2. While we all know Brad's history on guns for at least the first couple of years he should not be able to hurt us. He will be a freshman Congressman from a minority party that will quickly learn he must fall in line with what Nancy Pelosi wants, he will be a junior member of one of the lowest committees and basically delegated to irrelevance. But since this becomes a major push for more "Liberty Minded" possible challengers for 2016 it may be a place that the PAF will have an opportunity to be involved in the vetting process without needing to be active in a federal race. All in ways that will help make the NFOA-PAF stronger.
A couple of National issues, yes there was lots of rejection of anti gun Senators, Governors etc. But in Washington I-594 passed which really hurts, word is that there will already be similar ballot initiatives in at least 4 more states in 2016.
In Arkansas Amendment 3 passed which had 2 basic parts first the second part; saying new federal laws are unenforceable, we have had that discussion several times and I think everyone knows this will carry no weight in the Federal Courts. Then the major item being sold: declares the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right (they already had a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution), and that courts must apply Strict Scrutiny when deciding cases involving the right to keep and bear arms. This one concerns me because it is sounding like there are people that are going to try to push for this here, again in Federal Courts the State Constitution telling them to apply a certain level of scrutiny to a case is most likely going to be worthless, and I don't see any court in Nebraska even considering that language to mean anything, would love Dick Clark (and some of our other lawyers) to weigh in on this issue.
Also the work we did and what we were able to accomplish this year has gotten us some attention. We already have a few folks wanting to help us grow the PAF and discussing the use of their resources to do that.
Winning Candidates we endorsed: Bill Kintner (LD2), Tommy L. Garrett(LD3), Joni Craighead(LD6), Jim Smith(LD14), Lydia Brasch(LD16), Brett Lindstrom(LD18), John S. McCollister(LD20), Roy Baker(LD30), Laura Ebke(LD32), Tyson Rope Larson(LD40), John P. Stinner Sr.(LD48)
-
thanks for the update Andy!
Congrats to the winners!
-
Again, Thanx to Andy and the PAF for the work done. It's awesome what ya'll accomplished with so little.
We must work to build the PAF visually and the checkbook before 2016.
-
Yes! I would say we are looking at a much friendlier legislature. I hope that enough seats have swung & that the incoming group of senators is willing to stand up to ernie...
One of the candidates that received support from the NFOA PAF was Laura Ebke & as of now she only won by 226 votes!
In my district Lathrop was replaced by Merv Riepe & in Ashfords old district we narrowly escaped another lawyer, last name Lathrop!
It would have been hard to do better short of having more Pro-Rights candidates!
Great Job to everyone involved!
-
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa61/LJUnaTIC/citizenkane-applause.gif)
-
For our candidates I want to add one more note. We only can consider ourselves winners because of you, it was you that ran the races, placed yourselves out there to take the criticism and lies and knocked on the doors, made the stump speaches, and asked for people's support. We were fortunate to be able to encourage some people to volunteer to help you out, raised a couple dollars to assist your campaigns and public ally announce our support. We are winners because you are, we truly are just following your coat tails.
For the NFOA members that stepped up and volunteered I want to add my personal thanks to that of the candidates you helped. I have run for office and completely understand how much work it is and how important volunteers really are. You have also out a face on the NFOA and our support for candidates that support our rights.
To or donors again our thanks, we have done more this year than before. What we consider successful postcards, and donations to campaigns and sponsoring fundraising events for candidates; none of these things would be possible without your help.
Now for those that have Ben on the PAC committee, thanks for your help your being ther to advise and be a sounding board helps me personally stay true to the mission. Thanks for all you have done.
-
Thanks Andy and the rest of the crew. Job well done.
And Congrats to all the winners.
-
I-594, two thumbs down.
-
I-594 is the definition of a "substantive due process" type violation.
SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and enforcement actually are.
-
I-594 is the definition of a "substantive due process" type violation.
SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and enforcement actually are.
My understanding is the SAF is already preparing the lawsuits....
-
http://gunowners.org/goanews1152014.htm (http://gunowners.org/goanews1152014.htm)
-
In Arkansas
This was in Alabama, actually.
Amendment 3 passed which had 2 basic parts first the second part; saying new federal laws are unenforceable, we have had that discussion several times and I think everyone knows this will carry no weight in the Federal Courts. Then the major item being sold: declares the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right (they already had a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution), and that courts must apply Strict Scrutiny when deciding cases involving the right to keep and bear arms. This one concerns me because it is sounding like there are people that are going to try to push for this here, again in Federal Courts the State Constitution telling them to apply a certain level of scrutiny to a case is most likely going to be worthless, and I don't see any court in Nebraska even considering that language to mean anything, would love Dick Clark (and some of our other lawyers) to weigh in on this issue.
The three different levels of judicial review applied by courts are reasonable basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. The meanings of these terms are well known to every person who attended law school anywhere in the United States, as they are part of the curriculum in every constitutional law class.
"Reasonable basis" is the standard most deferential to lawmakers, meaning that it is the least likely to result in a law being struck down. "Strict scrutiny" is a much more difficult standard for the government to meet, as it requires any infringement on a fundamental right to (1) serve a compelling government interest, (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve it, and (3) employ the least restrictive means possible.
Inserting this into a state constitution doesn't make it impossible for state courts to uphold bad gun laws, but it does make it more difficult. Obviously a state constitutional amendment has zero impact on rulings by federal courts with relation to federal gun laws.