In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
NRA & DC v. Heller
Henry0Reilly
Member Posts: 10,878 ✭✭✭
I contend that the NRA sold us down the river when they fought against Heller v. DC going to SCOTUS. A win is a win is a win and the DC law was so restrictive there's no way we could have lost.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by storm6490
I don't carry an NRA card anymore after they kept the liberal cop on the board.
I'm a life member and I used to recruit for them but they sold us down the river on the DC case, fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it from getting to SCOTUS. I won't resign but I don't support them much, either.
There were at least 2 reasonable sounding reasons why the NRA didn't want the DC case to get before the Supreme Court and be the most important 2A supreme court case ever.
One, the NRA felt the case was presented as too broad and would not give us a narrow, specific decision. Which is what happened. Even though we gun people got a "win", it was an unsure, complicated and incomplete win.
Two, since the case was about DC, that meant that after the case was decided on, anyone could make a claim that the decision only applied to DC and other federal enclaves ( I believe DC is the only such federal enclave) and not to the states. Since DC is neither a state, county or city but instead is something unique that was created by Congress.
The anti-gun people are already looking into taking this position on the decision only applying to DC, so in that regard the NRA was correct.
And keep in mind that when the NRA say they couldn't stop the case from getting to court, they jumped into it and provided at least two lawyers, time, money and effort to try and win the case.
All the above can be check but of course that will not be good enough for some here.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by storm6490
I don't carry an NRA card anymore after they kept the liberal cop on the board.
I'm a life member and I used to recruit for them but they sold us down the river on the DC case, fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it from getting to SCOTUS. I won't resign but I don't support them much, either.
There were at least 2 reasonable sounding reasons why the NRA didn't want the DC case to get before the Supreme Court and be the most important 2A supreme court case ever.
One, the NRA felt the case was presented as too broad and would not give us a narrow, specific decision. Which is what happened. Even though we gun people got a "win", it was an unsure, complicated and incomplete win.
Two, since the case was about DC, that meant that after the case was decided on, anyone could make a claim that the decision only applied to DC and other federal enclaves ( I believe DC is the only such federal enclave) and not to the states. Since DC is neither a state, county or city but instead is something unique that was created by Congress.
The anti-gun people are already looking into taking this position on the decision only applying to DC, so in that regard the NRA was correct.
And keep in mind that when the NRA say they couldn't stop the case from getting to court, they jumped into it and provided at least two lawyers, time, money and effort to try and win the case.
All the above can be check but of course that will not be good enough for some here.
I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
Comments
I contend that the NRA sold us down the river when they fought against Heller v. DC going to SCOTUS. A win is a win is a win and the DC law was so restrictive there's no way we could have lost.
Standard MO is for NRA to sell down the river/sell bill of goods. However, I think Heller turned out to be the NRA's wet dream. Hardly a win. It basically guaranteed the NRA's existence in perpetuity, or until we take back our republic. Bravo scotus[xx(], you moved us one step closer.[:)]
And keep in mind that when the NRA say they couldn't stop the case from getting to court, they jumped into it and provided at least two lawyers, time, money and effort to try and win the case.
You "imply" that the NRA did something more than they actually did, once they found out they could not derail the case.
The ONLY thing they did, was file an amicus brief, THAT IS IT,
the same as the Brady bunch, and everyone else.
Other than that (and trying to get the case derailed, of course)
they did NOTHING ELSE.
Mr. Levy (the person who financed this case) said....
(quote)
The N.R.A.'s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case,
(/quote)
Other "experts(?)" gave different reasons why the NRA didn't want the case heard.
One of which was....
With a decisive win, it might hurt the NRA's cash cow.
It's not about the money.......is it? [xx(]
Hmmmmmm.......
I contend that the NRA sold us down the river when they fought against Heller v. DC going to SCOTUS. A win is a win is a win and the DC law was so restrictive there's no way we could have lost.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
quote:Originally posted by storm6490
I don't carry an NRA card anymore after they kept the liberal cop on the board.
I'm a life member and I used to recruit for them but they sold us down the river on the DC case, fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it from getting to SCOTUS. I won't resign but I don't support them much, either.
There were at least 2 reasonable sounding reasons why the NRA didn't want the DC case to get before the Supreme Court and be the most important 2A supreme court case ever.
One, the NRA felt the case was presented as too broad and would not give us a narrow, specific decision. Which is what happened. Even though we gun people got a "win", it was an unsure, complicated and incomplete win.
Two, since the case was about DC, that meant that after the case was decided on, anyone could make a claim that the decision only applied to DC and other federal enclaves ( I believe DC is the only such federal enclave) and not to the states. Since DC is neither a state, county or city but instead is something unique that was created by Congress.
The anti-gun people are already looking into taking this position on the decision only applying to DC, so in that regard the NRA was correct.
And keep in mind that when the NRA say they couldn't stop the case from getting to court, they jumped into it and provided at least two lawyers, time, money and effort to try and win the case.
All the above can be check but of course that will not be good enough for some here.
Henry, you have always seemed to me like you are better than those here with whom you usually side. But I'm sorry I must say that your above in red is just plain naive and foolish. The court came to within one vote of ruling that the second amendment IS NOT an individual right.
If that had happened, I am sure the liberals would have disarmed us by now. And the only reason it didn't happen is because a lot of people who believe in fighting within the system (people like me) over the years have done what we could to set the stage for winning in a case like this. That means over the years working to, for just one example, urge that as conservative as possibe judges be put on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS. Had there been just one more liberal judge judging this gun rights suit, we would have lost big time.
We might still have lost if the anti-gun crowd wins with their position that the ruling only applies to DC since DC is unique. That is what the NRA wanted to avoid having to face. Yet another supreme court cast about the same thing: the second amendment applying to individual citizens.
So, you have been warned.
While the NRA is not the best voice we have in lala land (Wash.) it is certainly the loudest. I'm still a life member, but I won't send them another nickel, ever.
I think it was Twain who said, "People would worry a lot less about what other people think of them if they realized how seldom it happens."
While the NRA is not the best voice we have in lala land (Wash.) it is certainly the loudest. I'm still a life member, but I won't send them another nickel, ever.
You would be more intellectally honest to yourself if you looked into the situation more, made a final and hopefully correct choice, and either supported the NRA or got the hell out altogether.
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
I think it was Twain who said, "People would worry a lot less about what other people think of them if they realized how seldom it happens."
While the NRA is not the best voice we have in lala land (Wash.) it is certainly the loudest. I'm still a life member, but I won't send them another nickel, ever.
You would be more intellectally honest to yourself if you looked into the situation more, made a final and hopefully correct choice, and either supported the NRA or got the hell out altogether.
You wouldn't know the first thing about honesty. "Intellectual"...pffft, or otherwise. Too liberal.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
I think it was Twain who said, "People would worry a lot less about what other people think of them if they realized how seldom it happens."
While the NRA is not the best voice we have in lala land (Wash.) it is certainly the loudest. I'm still a life member, but I won't send them another nickel, ever.
You would be more intellectally honest to yourself if you looked into the situation more, made a final and hopefully correct choice, and either supported the NRA or got the hell out altogether.
You wouldn't know the first thing about honesty. "Intellectual"...pffft, or otherwise. Too liberal.
Think what you want. I do.