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.
NRA Sues Obama Administration
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Short video about how the NRA is suing the Obama administration regarding Obama's justice department and their latest back-door gun registration scheme.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1095760427001/fierce-battle-over-gun-rights
You usual suspects, the rabid NRA critics that the NRA can't, won't and doesn't do anything right will of course spew your usual spittle. But the difference between you and the NRA is that most likely you are doing nothing for gun rights and the NRA is.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1095760427001/fierce-battle-over-gun-rights
You usual suspects, the rabid NRA critics that the NRA can't, won't and doesn't do anything right will of course spew your usual spittle. But the difference between you and the NRA is that most likely you are doing nothing for gun rights and the NRA is.
Comments
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
As far as the OP, dealing with that guy is like wiping your * on a wagon wheel.
Your presentation leaves a little something to be desired.
Is that because I am realistic enough to know that the NRA critics that are here are ALWAYS ready and eager to posting complaints and criticism about the NRA regardless of what is posted about the NRA? Some of those critics act like they are on the payroll of Handgun Control Inc. in that whenever something good about the NRA is posted, they are on it quicker than a London rioter on a store window.
For proof see the post by lt496, note how negative it is and, most importantly, how quickly he jump in with his comments after I posted my topic. It only took 19 minutes for him to jump on this topic. And don't think this is just a chance happening. Check for yourself and see how super quick the usual NRA critics will jump into a positive NRA post with their negative comments. Almost as if Handgun Control, Inc. have a small posse of anti-gun people here on GB.com posting as pro-gun people who claim to bave legitimate grips about the NRA.
Well I must say, spot on Cap'n!![;)]
As far as the OP, dealing with that guy is like wiping your * on a wagon wheel.
Speaking of "*," and I will add the word "dumb" to that word in regards to you, why is it you address lt496 with such respect by, for example, addressing him as "capt?" Have you ever met him? Have you ever talked to him? Do you know anyone who actually knows him?
Hell, anybody can claim to be anything on the internet. You might be being fooled by a 16 year old kid into making you look like the two words above I linked together for you.
Well I must say, spot on Cap'n!![;)]
As far as the OP, dealing with that guy is like wiping your * on a wagon wheel.
The NRA wanted nothing to do with the whole 'Gun-Walker' issue. Much historical info on their avoidance of this issue is available on http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/ and http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national
They dawdled and hung back and let Codrea and Vanderbough run point in exposing the issue whilst ignoring the clear picture of rouge and criminal federal government activity.
It pays to remember that the NRA has a long history of support for the mission of the ATF.
They are now taking a 'safe' action that will certainly be used by them and their sycophants and minions (such as trfox) to propagandize people into thinking that they are a staunch defender of Amendment II, when nothing could be further from the truth.
It is so clear and easy to see, if only people would honestly look.
Of course, one must have an actual belief in Amendment II and in its prohibition on government from infringing upon the RKBA.
That position and belief being derived from founding principles and constitutionally-based knowledge and belief.
It is absolutely one not held by many citizens and forum members and it certainly is not held or supported by the NRA.
Please spare us your usual rubber stamp "What are you doing....." response.
Many of us are doing plenty to promote shooting sports, we're just disinclined to elaborate for you, especially since you seem to be drinking the kool-aid.
Fox, you have a one-track halftrack mind. Has it ever even occurred to you that your time might be better spent convincing the NRA that they're going in the wrong direction instead of trying to convince us that we are somehow misconceiving what we see with our own eyes?
Please spare us your usual rubber stamp "What are you doing....." response.
Many of us are doing plenty to promote shooting sports, we're just disinclined to elaborate for you, especially since you seem to be drinking the kool-aid.
Well stated, but you are now flagged by fox as an official NRA 'hater'.
Oh my....
Here is Wayne 'The Baptist' La Pee Aire, Lost in the Wilderness, connected to this post at...
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/08/wayne-in-wilderness.html
[img][/img]
Remember, anything that crosses state lines comes under the commerce clause.
Yes, we have the right to bear arms, but the commerce clause gives the government the right to regulate those arms. PERIOD.
I have yet to hear of a challange to the right to regulate guns, in the supreme court.
So stop complaining and join a group, that promotes your values on guns. Donate and pressure the groups leaders to lobby for what you want, its the American way.
If the NRA and JG sales file law suits, I contribute to the effort.
Too many whiners in this country and not enough doer's.
I can only hope, that someday, those who complain about infringement on their right to bear arms will realize, that they live in a country where citizens ban together to form lobbying groups to influence law making. The brady group, Mothers against drunk driver, the NRA, etc.
Remember, anything that crosses state lines comes under the commerce clause.
Yes, we have the right to bear arms, but the commerce clause gives the government the right to regulate those arms. PERIOD.
I have yet to hear of a challange to the right to regulate guns, in the supreme court.
So stop complaining and join a group, that promotes your values on guns. Donate and pressure the groups leaders to lobby for what you want, its the American way.
If the NRA and JG sales file law suits, I contribute to the effort.
Too many whiners in this country and not enough doer's.
Your continued expressed ignorance of constitutional principles is utterly amazing.
Fox, you have a one-track halftrack mind. Has it ever even occurred to you that your time might be better spent convincing the NRA that they're going in the wrong direction instead of trying to convince us that we are somehow misconceiving what we see with our own eyes?
Please spare us your usual rubber stamp "What are you doing....." response.
Many of us are doing plenty to promote shooting sports, we're just disinclined to elaborate for you, especially since you seem to be drinking the kool-aid.
So....you are "disinclined to elaborate" on what you are doing for gun rights. Strange. By you "elaborating" on what you are doing, that might be just enough to encourage those who are doing nothing to to join in your efforts and help you. Surely if you are doing something, having the additional help of what you are doing would please you. I mean, you are not trying to keep your efforts exclusive or secret are you? I doubt there could be any good reason for that.
Course on the other hand, in regards to your "disinclined to elaborate" would also be a handy way, for someone who is doing NOTHING to help with gun rights, to respond.
lt496 - appreciated, thank you! [^]
Are you by any chance one of those canary * or are you just some guy who doesn't have a clue to what he is talking about?
In other words, apparently you would prefer that the NRA NOT sue the government to protect our gun rights. Just as your special it496 seems to feel.
I haven't heard of one poster suing.
As a group, the oathkeepers can hire a lawyer and sue.
Haven't heard of a lawsuit by the oathkeepers.
The NRA is suing, J&G sales is suing, has anyone here but myself contributed financially to the suit?
Anyone here written a letter of support to these people?
Taking this one step further, every criminal that commits an act against society,with a gun, is more dangerous, in promoting your loss of gun rights, than the atf.
What are you doing to help stop gun cimes in this country? Have you ever turned in a drug dealer? Do you ever go to your local PD and have a sit down with them? Discuss local crime and what you can do to help fight it.
Nobody see,s to care about crime till it affects them personally. Well, I'm here to tell you, even small crimes, will eventually affect your gun rights.
This isn't about ignorance, its about apathy!
May I ask what all you nay sayers do for us beside just post here[?]
Sure...
We are providing a necessary service, since there are many who are completely unaware of factual NRA actions that are directly in support of gun-control.
Many people have never even thought such a thing and rather, simply rely on the name 'NRA' to satisfy themselves that whatever the action they take, it must be in support of the Constitution.
In addition, there are many others who have never had the issues surrounding various commonly accepted forms of anti-constitutional actions, such as gun-control, framed in light of Amendment II's text, the founding principles of this Republic and the principles of individual liberty.
Posing what is commonly accepted, against the yardstick of these things, can be very illustrative for some people.
As for what some 'do for us', well, that depends on who 'us' is.
If you are of the NRA bent, then I do nothing but point out the hypocrisy, deceit, lies, and erosive effect that your beliefs have on our liberty and on the fabric of the Republic and that likely pisses you off.
If, by 'us', you mean only the readers of such threads, then I have said what it is that we do in an above paragraph.
If by 'us', you refer to constitutionalists, liberty-advocates and Amendment II supporters, then we are openly and unwaveringly showing that there are some who are not weasels and some who believe in the Constitution as it is written and some who will not allow obfuscation on such fundamental issues to go unchallenged.
Anything else?
As an individual, you can go out and a lawyer and sue the government over your rights.
I haven't heard of one poster suing.
As a group, the oathkeepers can hire a lawyer and sue.
Haven't heard of a lawsuit by the oathkeepers.
The NRA is suing, J&G sales is suing, has anyone here but myself contributed financially to the suit?
Anyone here written a letter of support to these people?
Taking this one step further, every criminal that commits an act against society,with a gun, is more dangerous, in promoting your loss of gun rights, than the atf.
What are you doing to help stop gun cimes in this country? Have you ever turned in a drug dealer? Do you ever go to your local PD and have a sit down with them? Discuss local crime and what you can do to help fight it.
Nobody see,s to care about crime till it affects them personally. Well, I'm here to tell you, even small crimes, will eventually affect your gun rights.
This isn't about ignorance, its about apathy!
You Have stated right on this forum that only the cops and military should be allowed to own "assualt" weapons. YOU ARE CONSTITUTIONAL ENEMY #1!!!!
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
As an individual, you can go out and a lawyer and sue the government over your rights.
I haven't heard of one poster suing.
As a group, the oathkeepers can hire a lawyer and sue.
Haven't heard of a lawsuit by the oathkeepers.
The NRA is suing, J&G sales is suing, has anyone here but myself contributed financially to the suit?
Anyone here written a letter of support to these people?
Taking this one step further, every criminal that commits an act against society,with a gun, is more dangerous, in promoting your loss of gun rights, than the atf.
What are you doing to help stop gun cimes in this country? Have you ever turned in a drug dealer? Do you ever go to your local PD and have a sit down with them? Discuss local crime and what you can do to help fight it.
Nobody see,s to care about crime till it affects them personally. Well, I'm here to tell you, even small crimes, will eventually affect your gun rights.
This isn't about ignorance, its about apathy!
You Have stated right on this forum that only the cops and military should be allowed to own "assualt" weapons. YOU ARE CONSTITUTIONAL ENEMY #1!!!!
A concept that will likely be totally lost on him.
X-ring.
I've stated before and I'll state it again, assualt weapons have no legitimate place in a society governed by the rule of law.
It has been said before and I will repeat it here.
Your views are diametrically opposite to the text of Amendment II, totally contrary to the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution and are expressly against the principles we were founded upon.
It seems to be garden-variety collectivism that you espouse.
Just so you know.
I've stated before and I'll state it again, assualt weapons have no legitimate place in a society governed by the rule of law.
Assault weapons are necessary for a free people to maintain their freedom. You cannot be so ignorant as to not recognize that the Federal Government has extended its power over the States and over the Individual Citizen greatly throughout the 2nd half of the 20th Century and the first tenth of the 21st.
Obviously the ballot box is failing to keep the power hungry in check. What is it that you propose will substitute for firepower to keep the beast at bay?
Brad Steele
I have a right to express that opinion, back it up thru community organizing and investing my time and money to promote or deny such weapons. I have a right to vote for those that aspire to my opinions and to vote against those who don't.
In the end, after exercising my rights, the majority will decide and thats the way this country works.
I can live with that.
In my opinion, assualt weapons do nothing but wreak havoc in society.
I have a right to express that opinion, back it up thru community organizing and investing my time and money to promote or deny such weapons. I have a right to vote for those that aspire to my opinions and to vote against those who don't.
In the end, after exercising my rights, the majority will decide and thats the way this country works.
I can live with that.
Are you suggesting that a simple majority vote can override the 2nd Amendment?
Sadly, many believe this to be true and accept that this is the way 'this country works'.
The truth is that such purely democratic attitudes allow the majority to suppress the rights of the minority. When this suppression extends to basic human rights, we obviously have a problem. The 2nd Amendment is not, as the NRA and many on these boards believe, about 'gun rights'. It is about protecting the individual right to maintain the tools which may be necessary in the preservation op his state of freedom. Your right to vote is inviolate, but those that you vote for do not and will never have the power to override the Constitution by a simple majority.
Brad Steele
In my opinion, assualt weapons do nothing but wreak havoc in society.
I have a right to express that opinion, back it up thru community organizing and investing my time and money to promote or deny such weapons. I have a right to vote for those that aspire to my opinions and to vote against those who don't.
In the end, after exercising my rights, the majority will decide and thats the way this country works.
I can live with that.
Once again, you express extreme ignorance on Amendment II and the principles the Republic was founded upon.
The majority is expressly prohibited from deciding on issues of fundamental Natural-rights. The rights of the minority and of the individual trump the majority in such instances.
Government s prohibited from infringing in this specific area and government is severely limited in other areas, regardless of what 'the majority' desires or believes.
That is the basis of republicanism and our Constitution.
Unbelievable...
Assualt weapons are not needed. The government as it is now, is nothing more than a reflection of we the people in a mirror. We can change that reflection peacefully, but its going to take a generation and alot of hard work and sacrifice. When morality, respect and disciplne become the norm, we will have suceeded.
You are wrong, liberties teeth require military equivalent weapons to be effective as intended.
The government as it is now is indeed a reflection of the majorities desire. It is predatory and acts outside the bounds of the Constitution.
We likely cannot change government peacefully, at this point. It is far too entrenched and to far down the path to totalitarianism.
When individualism, non-acquiescence and a strict stance on the limitations placed on government by the Constitution are practiced and achieved, we will have succeeded.
In the end, after exercising my rights, the majority will decide and thats the way this country works.
"the majority" doesn't decide what a man's rights are.
Assualt weapons are not needed. The government as it is now, is nothing more than a reflection of we the people in a mirror. We can change that reflection peacefully, but its going to take a generation and alot of hard work and sacrifice. When morality, respect and disciplne become the norm, we will have suceeded.
You have proved many times in your posts that you are a pro gov't "citizen". You are not by any stretch an American. The founders of this once great nation are surely spinning in their graves[xx(][xx(]. People like you literally make me sick. How the hell can an a person of these united states even begin to think like you?
I'm gonna go puke now....
"A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law."
"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Alexander Hamilton
Not American........
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the state."
Heinrich Himmler.
In my opinion, assualt weapons do nothing but wreak havoc in society.
I have a right to express that opinion, back it up thru community organizing and investing my time and money to promote or deny such weapons. I have a right to vote for those that aspire to my opinions and to vote against those who don't.
In the end, after exercising my rights, the majority will decide and thats the way this country works.
I can live with that.
What is some of this havoc you speak of?
Why are you so afraid of your fellow citizen?
Do you believe that the ordinary citizen like you or me has intent to harm you?
Are they more likely to harm you if they own an assault weapon?
Please give your definition of assault weapon? Surely you don't mean a semi automatic military pattern rifle?
I only visit this nut house when I myself CHOOSE to visit it. Since somebody decided to put good news about the NRA under the control of the most rabid NRA critics on GB.com, as far as I am concerned this topic is dead for me. The rest of you have fun with it.
Some of us care naught about you and what you consider.
quote:Originally posted by bigcitybill
Fox, you have a one-track halftrack mind. Has it ever even occurred to you that your time might be better spent convincing the NRA that they're going in the wrong direction instead of trying to convince us that we are somehow misconceiving what we see with our own eyes?
Please spare us your usual rubber stamp "What are you doing....." response.
Many of us are doing plenty to promote shooting sports, we're just disinclined to elaborate for you, especially since you seem to be drinking the kool-aid.
So....you are "disinclined to elaborate" on what you are doing for gun rights. Strange. By you "elaborating" on what you are doing, that might be just enough to encourage those who are doing nothing to to join in your efforts and help you. Surely if you are doing something, having the additional help of what you are doing would please you. I mean, you are not trying to keep your efforts exclusive or secret are you? I doubt there could be any good reason for that.
Course on the other hand, in regards to your "disinclined to elaborate" would also be a handy way, for someone who is doing NOTHING to help with gun rights, to respond.
Gotta hand it to you Foxie, I have never in my life read the words of anyone who sounded more like they swallowed a dictionary and still wielded the language so poorly. You believe whatever you want about me, I couldn't possibly care less about you and what you deem to be "good reason". My friends and I don't need any additional help, and if we did, it wouldn't be the kind of shiv-in-the-ribs "help" the NRA offers.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774
Please enumerate any and all inaccuracies in the following:
"NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record #65533; to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did #65533; and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
_____________________________________________
KeepAndBearArms.com
The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman NRA's premier magazine, then and now and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later, decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch, a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts, "NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service #65533; another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has, over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder, their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
You can find this article and many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
_____________________________________________________
This is 'your' NRA. The self-imposed, self-aggrandizing "staunch defender of your Second Amendment rights".
Nothing has changed. The NRA continues to strive for "workable" and "common sense" gun control laws, just as it has since its inception.....in their own words.
It is what it is."
I noticed you didn't reply to this post the first time around Foxie, so here's a second chance. Please don't be conspicuous by your silence.
Your friend, Bill
Hey Foxie, seen this one?
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=451774
Please enumerate any and all inaccuracies in the following:
"NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record #65533; to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did #65533; and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
_____________________________________________
KeepAndBearArms.com
The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman NRA's premier magazine, then and now and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later, decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch, a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts, "NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service #65533; another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has, over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder, their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."
American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
You can find this article and many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
_____________________________________________________
This is 'your' NRA. The self-imposed, self-aggrandizing "staunch defender of your Second Amendment rights".
Nothing has changed. The NRA continues to strive for "workable" and "common sense" gun control laws, just as it has since its inception.....in their own words.
It is what it is."
I noticed you didn't reply to this post the first time around Foxie, so here's a second chance. Please don't be conspicuous by your silence.
Your friend, Bill
Well, I had promised that, because somebody decided to move my posted topic from general discussion to here, that I would refuse to be forced to come here to post. But since you seem kinda reasonable, I will at least give it a true.
First off, you won't make much progress changing peoples minds by merely copying and pasting page after page of info you find on the Internet. Usually nobody will spend the time reading all of it. Although in this case I did skim quite a bit of it. So, I will make a deal with you if you really want a detailed response.
You go through and delete all information about the NRA that occurred BEFORE 1977. The reason for that is because in regard to claims that the NRA sometimes has worked FOR gun control, I agree with you.
It was a collosal mistake for them to have done that, but they sometimes did. I won't defend the pre-1977 action very much except I will say that for the over 100 years of existance of the NRA, being democratically run means it has had numerous and various elected presidents and board of directors during that time. If you examine any organization, (our US Govt. for example) with a history of various elected officals, you will always find some of those indivduals have, or purpose or by accident, made many, many errors.
However, there are actually "two" NRA's. The one since it was founded in the 1800's (I believe, it doesn't matter much) up until 1977 when at the annual NRA convention Harlan Carter and his supporters staged a coup and took control of the NRA away from the people who had been leaning towards supporting some gun control. At about the same time, Harlan Carter and his supporters created the NRA Institute for Legislative Action which lobbies for, not against, gun rights.
So, to keep our discussion simple, and since we both agree that before 1977 the NRA WAS sometimes guilty, it only makes sense for us to discuss the "new" NRA. So if you want to edit your copied and pasted info to reflect only events after 1977 I will be glad to carefully read and discuss it with you.
Here is one item of firsthand, personal information you might find interesting regarding that organization Keep and Bear Arms founded by Angel Shamaya who lives in Fla. One of his strongest supporters writes a monthly gun rights column in one of the popular gun magazines. If it matters to you, I will look that information up. Anyway, what I'm getting to is how sometimes we can be used and not know it. About 10 years ago I stumbled across the organization Keep and Bear Arms and for some reason started emailing back and forth with that friend of Shamaya's who writes for the gun magazine. He told me about Shamaya and his organization. It sounded interesting to me and I have actually spoken with Shamaya on the telephone. He told me about his organization and how he was trying to spread the word about how "evil" the NRA was and he was trying to save our gun rights. Now, at this point I will confess that I was confused and thought he actually represented the gun rights organization the Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But anyway I told Shamaya I want to be a dues paying member of his organization to help with his gun rights fight. He quoted me a $35.00 member fee and gave me his mailing address. I promptly mailed off the $35.00 check. Some weeks went by and I heard nothing so I thought I had been ripped off. I phoned Shamaya and asked about my check. He said his bookkeeper must have lost it and he would check into that. I never heard another word from his and my check was NEVER cashed.
My point is I believe that Shamay doesn't even really have an "organization" at all. I think Shamay knows it too and knew that if he cashed my check, and I found out there really was no organization, then I could get him for mail fraud. I believe he is only one guy who has a front organization and his only purpose is to publish criticism of the NRA in an effort to bring the NRA down. Ask yourself one simple question: When have you EVER gotten news about Shamay or his organization actually doing something FOR gun rights? The only action I have seen from him is to publish critical informtion about the NRA. Which BTW is something that the anti-gun groups, the anti-politicians and the anti-gun media would also like to do. Makes you wonder why so many people who claim to want to save their gun rights are wanting the same thing as all those anti-gun people. They all seem to be on the same side and against a gun owner like myself.
One thing that astounds me about this forum is the millions and millions of words that tell us gunowners what NOT to do for gun rights, but rarely any advice on WHAT TO DO to protect our gun rights. What not to do is of course, don't support the NRA.
Anyway, there is a long answer for you and do as you please with it.