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.
N.R.A.
mcaso
Member Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
The only way to protect the 2nd Amendment is for the N.R.A. to file a law suit and shepherd it all the way to the Supreme Court. This they will not do! They wait until some poor soul is arrested for violating these illegal gun laws and file a friend of the court brief and the poor soul goes bankrupt.
The N.R.A. tells us about our victories. When we defeat anti gun legislation we are not winning anything. We are just maintaing the status quo. But when we loose and the proposed legislation passes, we loose some of the 2nd amendment. As a result we keep loosing ground. The N.R.A. has told me that it takes 20 years to get into the Supreme Court. This is not true, but of course if you never file then I guess they are correct! The N.R.A. has told me that this is not the right Supreme Court, well this is one of the most conservative courts ever. In 20 years who and what are we going to have. The way things are going, in 10 years we will have the same gun laws as our so called democratic allies. I think what we have is just plain old fashioned Job Security. After all, when the Supreme Court rules in our favor the N.R.A. will only have to worry about a proposed Contitutional Amendment. Which means that most of the N.R.A. bureaucy will not long be justified and will have to go job hunting.
The N.R.A. tells us about our victories. When we defeat anti gun legislation we are not winning anything. We are just maintaing the status quo. But when we loose and the proposed legislation passes, we loose some of the 2nd amendment. As a result we keep loosing ground. The N.R.A. has told me that it takes 20 years to get into the Supreme Court. This is not true, but of course if you never file then I guess they are correct! The N.R.A. has told me that this is not the right Supreme Court, well this is one of the most conservative courts ever. In 20 years who and what are we going to have. The way things are going, in 10 years we will have the same gun laws as our so called democratic allies. I think what we have is just plain old fashioned Job Security. After all, when the Supreme Court rules in our favor the N.R.A. will only have to worry about a proposed Contitutional Amendment. Which means that most of the N.R.A. bureaucy will not long be justified and will have to go job hunting.
Comments
Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
Don't be discourged..many here share your disgust with the NRA.
This is one of the few subjects TR and I disagree on ....
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Mark,TR....I believe that the future will prove my point about the NRA....
And if the NRA grows a pair and proves me wrong...I will be the first to eat crow over it...[:D]
I REALLY hope I am wrong....[:(]
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
You have a valid point. Hearsay, and what are purposed as facts, that are actually "made up" have no place in an intelligent discussion. Even HAIRY has (at times) backed away from a topic, when asked to document the "source" of his information. When I first read mcaso's post, I was also wondering where he got some of his "facts."
The gene pool needs chlorine.
The enemy ALWAYS lies..with just enough facts thrown into the mix to sound believable.
We,on this side...need to tell truth.
Admit a mistake..and if bad info IS passed on,,try like H*** to make amends and get the right story out there.
I try very hard to live up to this...and let me tell you,it ain't always easy to admit an error.
We grow as humans if we can do this , tho...
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
The only way to protect the 2nd Amendment is for the N.R.A. to file a law suit and shepherd it all the way to the Supreme Court. This they will not do! They wait until some poor soul is arrested for violating these illegal gun laws and file a friend of the court brief and the poor soul goes bankrupt.
The N.R.A. tells us about our victories. When we defeat anti gun legislation we are not winning anything. We are just maintaing the status quo. But when we loose and the proposed legislation passes, we loose some of the 2nd amendment. As a result we keep loosing ground. The N.R.A. has told me that it takes 20 years to get into the Supreme Court. This is not true, but of course if you never file then I guess they are correct! The N.R.A. has told me that this is not the right Supreme Court, well this is one of the most conservative courts ever. In 20 years who and what are we going to have. The way things are going, in 10 years we will have the same gun laws as our so called democratic allies. I think what we have is just plain old fashioned Job Security. After all, when the Supreme Court rules in our favor the N.R.A. will only have to worry about a proposed Contitutional Amendment. Which means that most of the N.R.A. bureaucy will not long be justified and will have to go job hunting.
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
You know me highball; I'll call a spade a spade and I don't agree with much of what the NRA says or does and I'd love to be the one to hand Wayne LaPierre his walking papers. My point is that mcaso did not back up his statement with acurate facts and while I respect those like you who I sometimes disagree with, this is because you back up your statements with solid documentation. As soon as I read "The NRA has told ME...", I wondered how this fellow mcaso had managed to enter the NRA's inner circle where policy is decided and where even I, a long time NRA supporter, have yet to be invited.
I'd love to sit on the NRA board of directors but it is clear that this borad is once again becoming an old boys network. Things will have to change at the NRA in a few more years because the organization has nearly doubled its size (thanks to Clinton/Gore) and the current members are much more firearms rights oriented than even 10 years ago. Time will tell and you may well prove to be right-- although I hope not!
Mark T. Christian
How does calling the phone number on the back of my membership card and asking questions that all of us should be asking have anything to do with inside information or entering the inner circle? And no I did not write down the names of those in the legal dept. that I spoke with, nor did I ask how many freckles they had on their butts! When I was told that it takes twenty years to get to the Supreme Court I did say that this is not true. But the NRA person on the phone kept saying that yes it does.
Sorry Mark T. Christian, but I believe what you wrote are called red herrings. As for the cases you mentioned were those 2nd Amendment issues or about something else like privacy, government intrusion on other Amendments, etc.? Not that it matters to my point of view. Which is we need and must have a ruling on the 2nd Amendment not just on the infringe issues here and there. All proposed illegal legislation will never stop until it is shown once and for all that all are illegal.
Need someone whose rights have been violated, name any citizen in America. When the ACLU, that upstanding garbage organization, wants to take a case to court it has no trouble finding someone. But the NRA can't find anyone? Maybe those who "happen to be an endowment member" don't count! The NRA is not doing it's job!
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
But aside from that, one of THE MOST IMPORTANT things about arguing before the US Supreme Court is that you MUST be able to count to "5". Most elementary schoolers can; can you, mcaso? Let's try, shall we?
1, Rehnquist.
2, Scalia.
3, Thomas.
4, Kennedy.
5..............oops! We don't have a fifth Justice here. We risk losing!!!
And if you lose at the Supreme Court, you can lose the whole ball game.
Then you get off your butt and do as the Bush-toady Rush Limbaugh has been suggesting all day about Homo's..you stage massive civil disobedience demonstrations....and if necessary..you do as the Founders did...
Please don't insult our intelligence by telling us that since 1934 we have NEVER HAD A SUPREME COURT that believed in the Constitution...No,the NRA will not support a case for other reasons...ugly reasons.
i would like to explain something about the law, in order to file a suit you must have sufferred a loss of some sort that is actionable. if all goes well and you make it to court you have the potential for losing and then appealling. the judges in the appellate division may only rule on a error in fact or an error in law nothing new can be introduced at the appellate level.you can lose here too and all you need to do is look at some of the activist judges with agendas to know why.
the supreme court as the highest court in the land has special privileges, they can refuse to hear a case without giving a reason among them. this is done because otherwise their caseload would be an impossibility so they get to decide(mostly) what cases they will or wont hear and how narrowly they may define the case.
the nra is rarely an injured party and needs to wait until someone is charged with violating a gun law that may be unconstitutional and then can come in as an amicus in the case. the case may or may not go all the way to the supreme court and as we know even when it does there is no gaurantee they will even hear it. everyone thought that the conflict in law between the 5th and 9th circuit would cause an automatic hearing on the rights conferred an individual by the 2nd amdt.but even that did not cause the court to hear the case.
the last time the courts heard a case on the 2nd it allowed "reasonable" restrictions to be placed by the states, i do not believe the court would consider hearing a broad case on the right to bear arms because of the uproar it would cause no matter what the decision is(no restriction vs a collective right) and are content to allow the lowere courts to use the doctrine of stare decisis to guide their decisions. as long as the right is only "reasonably" restricted this will continue and the court will decide narrow areas of the 2nd amdnt.
some one brought up the brady case and if i remember correctly it was not even about the second amdt. it was about whether the federal govt. could compel local law enforcement to do a background check and that was all the courts decided.
problem is that for now any advocacy group has to consider what they can gain by going to court especially since the reality is that majority of american now are urban as opposed to rural and have less acess and reason to use firearms and tend to see guns as something dangerous without considering the human element. such people being the majority, it stands to reason that the majority of officials would come from this group and bring their biases with them to the legislative and judicial bodies they are on. if you look at this you begin to understand why the branch davidians were dangerous because they may have converted weapons to full auto,they are evil to have because they are not because the owners are evil.
at the same time as the weapons themselves are looked at as dangerous and unlawfull the same people would want more protection from the percieved threat that these weapons exist and would support militarizing the police to even the threat(whether or not the threat actually exists).
by now you follow the logic of the gun banners who fear the gun and want to always make sure the police have an edge on the criminal even though the crime they are fighting doesnt really exist.
even though it sounds pretty gloomy and we are fighting a reargaurd action against the banner on one side based on the why do you need them?issue, there is a positive side as well since fl. enacted its right to carry law many more states have followed in its path realizing that an armed responsible citizenry does deter crime far more than adding thousands of police will.there hasnt been a surge of shootouts betweens legally armed gunowners as was predicted.
with the steady progress in right to carry states i think we will begin to see a change in the general populaces thinking abut being armed, perhaps then the courts will be willing and able to hear a case about the 2nd amdt. in a more positive enviroment
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
But aside from that, one of THE MOST IMPORTANT things about arguing before the US Supreme Court is that you MUST be able to count to "5". Most elementary schoolers can; can you, mcaso? Let's try, shall we?
1, Rehnquist.
2, Scalia.
3, Thomas.
4, Kennedy.
5..............oops! We don't have a fifth Justice here. We risk losing!!!
I dont even think you can count on four. I have read some of Kennedys pontification on the second amendment. At first it seems encouraging-but they call him "flipper" for a reason. And I think anyone who can find an inalienable right to sodomoize in the constitution, can very easily not find a right to bear arms in the constitution.
Depending on the case, you cant count on Scalia. In his book, "A matter of interpetation", he discusses the second amenmdnet. It is very apparent that he opposes federal legislation dealing with guns. But he does say that the constitution does not bar state gun laws. So if you had a case dealing with a federal gun law, Scalia would listen. Buta state gun law, I dont think so.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
As for "standing", all the NRA has to do is pay for an attorney and file a case against a law that violates the 2nd Amendment. If it is a law against arms it is illegal! Do we have any of those standing around in America? Then that case is shepperded through the court system, is that not what the aclu does? And they pay for it too. Learn from the mistakes of others you know, how about learn from the successes of others? Now, look at the definitions of the words contained in the 2nd, at the time of their use of course, not todays. Also, what those words meant in British law of the day and what the Founding Fathers said in their discussion about the 2nd.
If any judge wants to denie those facts, well there is a greater chance of that happenning tomorrow than today.
2gun says "must have sufferred a loss of some sort that is actionable." Is that like loosing one's Constitutional Rights because of illegal government action? We can only state the truth. If some judge wants to rule against the truth then there is an error in fact and in law. "The NRA is rarely the injured part", like the aclu is? The reason the NRA files amicus briefs(friend of the court, yes?)is so they have job succurity and when the injured party, who can't afford a proper defence loses then the NRA can say injured party did not do it right.
As for rual people wanting more protection, etc. Well let us see, tomorrow they will change their minds and want less, yeah sure you betcha! Reargaurd actions, gee I wonder why we are loosing? But then everyone knows the best defence is concentrating on skermishes and rearguard actions as oppossed to offence!
to prevent such common sense we have the cplr and other rules. in order to practice law in a state you mus be a memeber of the bar, there are associations you must belong to practice in front of particular courts. appellate briefs must be presented in certain manner with a proper colored binder(yes)so to differentiate between appellant and appellee.there are questions of where to file a case in order to attempt te best outcome, longarm jurisdiction. ad nauseum.
you see a lo more aclu cases because its easier to find a little kid whose dad doesnt want her exposed to prayer than some average joe whose pistol permit was denied for an unjust cause(the little sweetie is usually more sympathetic in pictures too).
as much as anyone talks about the big bad nra, they dont publish newspapers all across the country with a first amendt axe to grind and they have the power to make people look better or worse(thats why you dont hear about the big bad aclu but the nra is satan in the media no matter who has deeper pockets).political leaders, judges all understand bad press too and are a lot more careful about alienating them. in spite of all that a lot of aclu stuff doesnt go their way on appeal either.
youve also got the human factor, judges as much as juries have biases, they may be subconcious and they may be confirming to societies norms as well(not liking black rifles).
i think the biggest problem we face is the idea that what affects some of us doesnt affect us all.so most hunters arent too worried about the loss of black rifles or pistols with flahiders , hi capacity magazines. well my right to hunt isnt being infringed.so i have 10 bullets in my magazine to defend my home, its not like an armed gang will invade my house.thats from gunowners. what you hear from non gunowners is way worse. why would anyone want a 50 cal unless they were aterrorist trying to shoot down a plane? the police are there to protect you. that was then, they diddnt mean you should be allowed to own a tank.
youve heard this stuff i bet and what noone is really facing up to is that a good hunting rifle is a bolt action sniper rifle like they use in the army to kill people "over a mile away". and if youre trained properly why would you need ten bullets to defend you home? youre probably a maniac who will empty the clip at the slightest sound. small cheap guns are dangerous, they are poorly made/criminals can easly afford them.
all of those lead to what has been called reasonable restrictions by the states so that in certain areas you can be prosecuted for defending yourself against crime. the skirmishes and rear actions have lead to most of the country allowing concealed carry.eventually we will get into the supreme court and it will take many times there to win back the freedoms we once had and the trust the govt had of its citizens. beware it just takes once there to lose it all though with no recourse.
just as one edict from the presidents pen banned the importation of assualt weapons other edicts can further steal freedom with almost no recourse.
one of the responses to unjust laws has always been civil disobedience, refusing to recognize or follow a law a that is morally unjust.one thing about civil disobedience learned from the civil rights movement in the sixties is that it has to be large enough to not be able to be ignored and would theaten to overwhelm the system.for instance if evryone in califrnia rkba violated the law in one day and bought ar15s to bill lockyers office to register them would the state be able to prosecute them all and handle the appeals?or would they have to back off? because noone wants to be the first guy in line and bacuase theres not enough of the cali population that cares whether they can have a legal ar or not it would be doomed to failure.
happiness is a warm gun, preferably preban
Disobey the unConstitutional laws..and they kill you first and ask questions later.
The civil rights marches of the 60's..yes,some few people were killed in those actions..but by and large,it was fists and clubs,water hoses...
There is really little recourse for law abiding,Constitutionally minded folks in this country to right the wrongs perpetrated upon themselves by society at large...
Like it or not..we must submit until the elites push the issue so far away from reality that enough people rebel..then,and only then...will we have the one chance to take it back.
Your paragraph three is of course my point. Daddy went to the aclu and asked for a lawsuit to be file on his behave, because of a possible violation of the law. Are you saying that the NRA can't find a daddy? If so I would suggest that the next issue of the American Rifle simply asks if there is anyone out there who has had their rights stepped on, or use whatever the proper wording should be. In other words let people know that the NRA is approachable and of course fund such law suit. You are making excusses for the NRA. Everyone know that this can be done! The NRA just will not do it.
Ah! Yes hunters. The 2nd only covers ARMS. Not all guns are ARMS. The founding fathers said that if the congress supplies it to the army it is an arm. Some sources say that the context was, if commonly supplied to the foot soldier. It has been too long for me to give quotes. So what is commonly supplied? Lets see over and unders, 25.06, 30-30, .375H&H, not being a hunter I can't name all the rifle cal. Now hand guns we shoot so, .45winmags and, well you all see my point. Once the Arms are taken care of there is ABSOLUTLY nothing to stop the taking of hunting rifles of course there is nothing to stop that now, except the out cry would be toooooo great and the gun grabing would be totally stopped! That is why we have been divided into the asault rifles and non asault rifles.
I have not heard about the Club of Rome and their recommendations since the second half of 1988. Before that I would see documentaries or interviews on programs like CrossFire every couple of years sometimes yearly. Up until that time the recommendations were still on line for implementation. I remember that there was a deadline and it is very near. I think we need to win this before the deadline or all will be lost!
Good readings are:
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms by the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate 97 Congress second session(it is dated Feb.1982).
The Yale Law Journal(the embarrassing 2nd Amend. by Sanford Levinson - 99 Yale L.J. 637).
By the way, the NRA is not the only progun organization out there. Those others are Not filing lawsuits either. They just soak up our dollars, hob nob and make themselves feel important. And every session we loose more and more of our rights!
I would have to say that I agree with some of your last post.
But,Why do you think a lawsuit is the "end all" of gun rights issues?
In a society this damn litigious,even the NRA doesn't want to pick this fight...Why would you think this is?? Maybe,just maybe, they have some reason for concern regarding the Supreme Court,check the balance right now..I personally don't think it would be the time.Also,that would have to be the last resort because,if we lose that case,we lose it all.Think about that some.Helluva chance to take at this point.Just a thought
We are never going to get to a Supreme Court that will defend the 2nd because if we wait until there is a court in our favor those Justices will be dead by the time the case gets to them. Then who and what will we have? We must have the right case moving through the courts, but we first have to get it started. One can not win the game if one does not play. We are not only not showing up to play, we do not even have a team ready. Just a lot of procrastination. I do have some faith in the Supreme Court. Yes I know what Pres. Jefferson said about them. One takes the tailored case to a third and fourth, etc. appealate court pointing out all the Supreme Court rulings that apply to the 2nd and that includes rulings that apply to the definations of the words of the Constitution. If the courts rule against us, well remember those who choose the courts members are and have always been the ones who choose who makes up the court. We still have a chance, but every day our chance gets slimmer and slimmer. Remember the frog in hot water he jumped out. But if he is in cool water which is slowly being heated he stays until he is cooked. We are being Cooked and with the help of our own progun organizations!
as far as finding someone to file a case on their behalfits a lot harder than it sounds, the aclu took a loooooooong time before it found someone to object to "under god" that would pass muster and a court that wouldnt toss the case.there are a lot of considerations here since the courts allow the states to place reasonable restrictions and do not really define what reasonable is, a case may be tossed because the judge feels the state is still reasonable if it doesnt allow anything except safety tested weapons to people that must jump through flaming hoops.you cant go to the appellate division say"i feel it is unreasonable". they will tell you " properly elected representatives felt it was reasonable and as representatives of the people they passed it into law, so tell why there is something legally flawed with their version of reasonable?" beware of thinking that the law is about justice. law itself can be very unjust.i will use nazi germany as an example, the law said jews cannot own property. if a jew said the law was unjust it wouldnt matter it was the law of the land. the same can be said of "reasonable restrictions".it is the law and unless a court rules that the restriction is unreasonable, it will remain so. it is up to us to decide to follow the law, ignore it, or to flout it in such numbers that it is seen as a bad law.
flouting the law in large numbers is the reason why there is such controversy over our drug laws. it is the reason why blacks and minorities have a seat on the bus today.even though the subject is guns and the goverment jbt's are likely to shoot first civil disobedience still has a place as long as we are not violent. ask black folks who were involved in the civil rights movement as to whether it was hoses and onl;y a few people killed in those actions, they were fighting against a pervasive culture that said blacks lives werent worth anything anyway and for decades there was lynchings and killings and terrorism to make sure they diddnt try to take a seat at the table and as much as those things were used the law was there to make sure they knew their place and anything they were allowed to have was a privilege.
i hesitate to draw comparisons but i will anyway.the law is being used to make sure that we get used to the idea that we are not free and entitled to the right of self defense.it is a privilege to given and taken away by the govt if you meet their criteria for approval. society accepts that leo's lives have a higher value than that of an ordinary serf and that there must be restrictons placed on the populace so they wont get rowdy. the assumption that anyone with a gun will eventually kill a large number of children if they have more than 10 rds available is the same as assuming that certain races are very musical.i'm not sure how far to take this but i believe that civil disobiedience has a place. if everyone stuck a flashhider on the end of their ar15 or a bayo lug or brought ar's and ak's to places where they are not legal, no gang wars would erupt children would still be able to go into schoolyards etc.
as long as we are willing to wait for some advocacy group to fight for us and get our rights back, it wont happen any more than bill lockyers office will start accepting new ar's for registration. a lie told often enough becomes the truth and for the majority of americans guns are dangerous and by extension the gunowner becomes dangerous. just as you would not tolerate a dengerous situation around your kids they demand the same with reasonable restrictions no matter how unreasonable they become. a gunowner who would practice civil disobedience is twice as dangerous and should be gotten rid of or put away kinda like some of the black leaders that spoke up during civil rights struggle.
what do you think?