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
1968 and 1986 Gun Control Act
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Among the countless things people complain about regarding their complaints against the NRA are how the NRA sold out gun owners by supporting the 1968 and 1986 gun control act. Here is how U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT describes those acts in their March 17, 2008 edition.
1968 GCA. After three very high profile Americans were shot to death, the 1968 GCA was passed. It expands llicensing and record-keeping requirements. It prohibits felons and the mentally ill from buying guns and bans buying guns through the mail and delivered to whatever address you desire.
1986 GCA. Eases some gun sale restrictions and bars the government from creating a database of gun dealer records (national gun registration, my words) The 1986 GCA also authorizes sales between private owners.
Keeping in mind that we do not live on planet gun, and have to, like it or not, take into account the wants, needs and desires of our fellow citizens who believe that can find just as much lawful and fair reasons to impose some restrictions on our gun rights as we can find to justify those rights, the above doesn't sound to me like the NRA sold anyone out as is so often claimed.
1968 GCA. After three very high profile Americans were shot to death, the 1968 GCA was passed. It expands llicensing and record-keeping requirements. It prohibits felons and the mentally ill from buying guns and bans buying guns through the mail and delivered to whatever address you desire.
1986 GCA. Eases some gun sale restrictions and bars the government from creating a database of gun dealer records (national gun registration, my words) The 1986 GCA also authorizes sales between private owners.
Keeping in mind that we do not live on planet gun, and have to, like it or not, take into account the wants, needs and desires of our fellow citizens who believe that can find just as much lawful and fair reasons to impose some restrictions on our gun rights as we can find to justify those rights, the above doesn't sound to me like the NRA sold anyone out as is so often claimed.
Comments
tr, the simple fact is that you seem to have no inherent problem with government regulation of firearms....as long as you can still get permission to have a firearm, you have no real problem with such regulation and no real problem jumping through whatever hoops the government "ring-masters" tell you to in order to do so.
You also seem to have no problem with the simple fact that what was a fundamental right, has morphed into a government granted privilege,
I make this assessment based on your own words, repeated many times.
Save us all the trouble of having to review your tortured "logic" and your rationalizations and justifications. I know, I know, I don't have to read your posts, but I keep hoping that something in one of them will either make sense, or you'll make the "big admission".
Just admit you are supportive of gun-control and then we can debate issues from an honest perspective.
Among the countless things people complain about regarding their complaints against the NRA are how the NRA sold out gun owners by supporting the 1968 and 1986 gun control act.
Please show me where anyone has said the NRA supported the 1968 and the 1986 gun control acts. I must have missed it.
I can show you where it has been said, that in 1986, NRA HELPED WRITE the federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Among the countless things people complain about regarding their complaints against the NRA are how the NRA sold out gun owners by supporting the 1968 and 1986 gun control act.
Please show me where anyone has said the NRA supported the 1968 and the 1986 gun control acts. I must have missed it.
If no one else has (edit, it46 already has...), I'll be the first to use their own words to prove they were trying to look "reasonable" and supportive of "reasonable" gun controll laws during the 1968 GCA debates: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=293126
http://www.nrawol.net/Compromising_Strategy.html#68_American_Rifleman
I wonder if you've seen this clipping from the same 1968 American Rifleman?
Take note of the last paragraph. OOOPS. [B)]
Let's addrsss a few other of the NRA's misssteps and outright backstabs:
How about the NRA's attempt to kill Heller before it got to SCOTUS?
quote:Carefully Plotted Course Propels Gun Case to Top
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: December 3, 2007
Click here for original online story
Robert A. Levy, a rich libertarian lawyer who has never owned a gun, helped create and single-handedly financed the case that may finally resolve the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, District of Columbia v. Heller. Persuading the court to take its first look at the scope of the right to bear arms in almost 70 years is the culmination of a meticulous litigation strategy that was consciously modeled on the civil rights era and strenuously opposed by the gun lobby.
"This is far bigger than - I won't say than we ever imagined," Mr. Levy said over coffee in a conference room at the Cardozo Law School in New York. "But it is as big as it can get."
Mr. Levy, 66, is a small man with a bald head, big ears and an impish smile. He talks very fast, but he is methodical in his logic and disarming in his candor. He was in town for a series of lectures and debates, and he explained how he and two other lawyers had constructed the case, which challenges Washington's ban on handgun ownership, one of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
They started by interviewing dozens of potential plaintiffs in Washington.
"We wanted gender diversity," Mr. Levy said. "We wanted racial diversity. We wanted age diversity. We wanted income diversity."
The lawyers picked three men and three women, four white and two black. "They ranged in age from 20s to 60s," Mr. Levy said, "with varying incomes and varying occupations."
The appeals court knocked five plaintiffs out of the case in March, saying they did not have standing to sue because they had never tried to register a gun.
Mr. Levy called that ruling a Catch-22. "If you want to apply for a license or permit for a handgun, you have to prove ownership of a handgun," he said. "Where do you get one? You can't buy a handgun in Washington, D.C., and federal law says you can't buy a handgun in any state except where you reside."
Mr. Levy said his team had anticipated the issue. The remaining plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, a security officer, was turned down by the Washington police when he tried to register a pistol he had bought while living elsewhere.
Along with carefully selecting the plaintiffs, the lawyers working with Mr. Levy shaped their case in a second way, consciously keeping their distance from some groups that support gun rights.
"We didn't want this case pictured as another case sponsored by the usual suspects, which is to say the gun community," Mr. Levy said. "Basically we wanted this to be a grass-roots public interest case, so I decided to fund it."
He would not say how much he had spent.
"If you were paying market rates for a case that has been around almost five years, you'd be getting up to half a million bucks," he said. "I haven't spent anything near that. Not even in the ballpark."
Mr. Levy and his colleagues, Alan Gura and Clark M. Neily III, have worked hard to make what they say are modest claims. They said they were inspired by the work of Thurgood Marshall, who masterminded the litigation campaign against racially segregated schools.
"We didn't want to be going to the court with a radical case," Mr. Levy said. "All we are asking is to let law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia possess functional firearms to defend themselves where they live and sleep."
Mr. Levy, who said he is "not particularly interested in guns," pursued the case to vindicate his libertarian principles.
"Free markets," he said, ticking off his basic beliefs. "Private property. Individual rights. And most of all, strictly limited government in accordance with the constitutional structure the framers established."
The road to the Supreme Court has been a bumpy one, Mr. Levy said, thanks mostly to the National Rifle Association.
"The N.R.A.'s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case," he said. "It was a very acrimonious relationship."
"Their thinking was," Mr. Levy said, "`good case, might win in the appellate court but it could be a problem if it reaches the Supreme Court.'"
Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s chief executive officer, largely confirmed that characterization. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.
Both men said the N.R.A. and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.
Mr. Levy came to the law late in life, after making a fortune in money management. He entered George Mason University's law school in 1991 at 49, and he exited as the class valedictorian. He went on to two prestigious clerkships with federal judges in Washington.
"The marshals at the D.C. court couldn't imagine that somebody as old as I was, was clerk, and so they always referred to me as, `Good morning, Your Honor,'" he said. "And I never disabused them of that notion, so I was treated royally in the corridors. It wasn't until I got up to chambers that I was treated like a clerk."
In the judges' chambers, things were different, but Mr. Levy said that did not bother him. "I've always been a sort of street guy," he said. "It's never a big deal that I have a lot of money and someone says, `Go fill the water jug.' I go fill the water jug."http://nrawol.net/Other_Issues.html#Levy
OOPS. [B)]
Or their SUPPORT of a Wisconsin Handgun Ban?
quote:Did NRA leadership make a 'clerical error' in support of statewide handgun ban?
December 3, 2007
A recent NRA-ILA alert accuses Wisconsin Gun Owners of "intentionally misrepresenting" the NRA's position on statewide handgun ban legislation -- a position that remained on the state lobbying website for several months to be viewed by scores of legislators, staff members and citizens
Today NRA-ILA released an e-mail attack campaign against WGO ('Pro-Gun' Group Misrepresenting the Facts!', December 3, 2007, NRA-ILA) claiming "an unjust and irresponsible attack was launched by Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) incorrectly stating that the National Rifle Association had taken a position in support of Senate Bill 104."
Members of Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) once again deserve a "salute" for their hard work in calling NRA leadership out to clarify their position on a major statewide handgun ban affecting private sales.
The real question is, Why is NRA-ILA attacking WGO when they should be thanking us?
Background: Back in July, 2007, pro-gun activists in Wisconsin learned the NRA was -- according to the Wisconsin Ethics Board website -- supporting SB104 -- dangerous legislation banning private citizen-to-citizen handgun sales in Wisconsin, a bill introduced by Milwaukee Democrat Spencer Coggs.
We were saddened -- though not surprised, given NRA leadership's past willingness to compromise -- that the national gun lobby purporting to represent gun owners had taken a position on the bill via the Ethics Board website publicly undermining the Second Amendment.
WGO staff shot photographic proof of the Wisconsin Ethics Board website page showing NRA's position on the handgun ban as "Support" (see photo here). No facts were misrepresented. Quite the opposite.
Indeed, wouldn't it have been "unjust" and "irresponsible" for WGO to remain quiet -- to not inform our members -- the gun owners of Wisconsin -- who would be directly impacted by this egregious bill?
For the record, WGO has always consistently OPPOSED SB104 and all other gun control bills currently before the Wisconsin legislature. Opposing this bill was and is a top priority for us.
In fact, WGO blasted the bill and its sponsor in a scorching media campaign through radio ads that impacted hundreds of thousands of constituents in the Milwaukee area.
We are proud of our 100% pro-gun record. All legislators, their staff members and gun owners are urged to view WGO's lobbying page to track our position on gun bills. See our positions on bills here:
While NRA-ILA tried to paint a picture that they have always opposed SB104 -- citing the fact that NRA testified against the bill at a public hearing -- we all know that a great deal of water passed over the dam in between then and now, and just because a group opposed a bill then, is no absolute assurance that the group opposes it now.
'Just trust us,' seems to be the message.
The purpose of the Wisconsin Ethics Board and their online reporting tools is to provide people -- elected and unelected alike -- with up-to-date information on positions lobbying organizations take on legislation.
Even if backroom deals are cut with the enemy on a bill, registered groups are still required to update their position on the bill. This is a good thing, a check and balance, that keeps citizens in tune with the legislative process via open government.
Wisconsin's lobbying laws are designed to keep the position of groups in the OPEN rather than behind closed doors.
Rather than criticize WGO for reporting the truth about the NRA's position as it appeared online, NRA-ILA should fire its state lobbyists who apparently were asleep at the wheel.
In its attack on WGO, NRA-ILA did not specify who made the clerical error - NRA-ILA or the Wisconsin Ethics Board. If NRA made the error, don't they know their own position on gun bills? If it was the Ethics Board, why didn't NRA's paid lobbyists catch the error?
The NRA did testify against this bill on May 29, 2007 -- that fact is not disputed.
However, on July 30, what WGO reported, was the truth: according to the Wisconsin Ethics Board website, the NRA was now supporting the handgun ban according to public document.
Given the dynamic, fast-changing nature of bills as they move through the legislative process, the Ethics Board website provides registered lobbying organizations (like WGO and the NRA) the ability to update positions on bills and amendments.
This is what we do - it is what our members rightfully expect from us -- we monitor the progress of important actions in Madison.
We simply tell the truth as it is - we don't sugar coat issues or obscure them in emotionalism -- and that's the responsible thing to do. In fact, it's our duty -- despite the risk of drawing heat from political hacks intent on silencing that dissemination of vital information.
NRA CLAIMS ONLINE SITE SHOWING SUPPORT FOR BILL WAS A 'CLERICAL ERROR'
During the expansive time the Wisconsin Ethics Board page depicted NRA's position in support of the handgun ban, how many legislators, staff and citizen activists believed the NRA was supporting the handgun ban?
How could NRA leadership in Washington or the NRA's state lobbyists not notice - for many months on end - that their organization was publicly supporting (again, according to the Ethics Board website) a major statewide handgun ban - one of the most egregious gun control proposals facing Badger State gun owners in recent history?
A clerical error? On something as critical to you and me as this proposed ban?
Our members are sharp - and vocal. We hear from people within days if there are typos in our newsletter or in their mailing address -- THOSE are clerical errors. Official records of an organization's stance on a major and threatening statewide handgun ban are not what we would consider clerical errors.
This speaks to the concern that we've had for a long time -- since our inception, in fact. We fear the NRA as an organization (not speaking of individual NRA members who we consider to be honest, smart and staunch gun rights supporters) is simply too large to concern itself with the issues of one state.
It's easy to understand in a seeming bureaucracy such as theirs how the right hand wouldn't know what the left hand was doing -- and "clerical errors" are made.
We're not willing to take that chance or play these games with your rights.
We're relieved to hear NRA leadership is not supporting SB104. We are also proud that it was WGO's reporting of the facts that seem to have compelled NRA leadership to get its own position straight.
You see, the NRA's dispute isn't with WGO -- the NRA's dispute is with itself.
In the past, WGO has attempted to contact NRA state lobbyists for comment -- we've reached out our hand to them to gain understanding of their positions for our reporting and to work together -- only to receive a "cold shoulder" as our phone calls were never returned.
It seems as if those holding to a proper view of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are viewed as a threat that needs to be silenced and outcast from insider-politics.
Even so, NRA members are smart. These gun owners need to ask NRA-ILA leadership a few simple questions, starting with:
How did NRA not know its own position was being reported on the Ethics Board website for several months in SUPPORT of a statewide handgun ban?
In light of this major strategic embarrassment for NRA "leadership," should gun owners in Wisconsin conclude NRA's Washington, D.C. leadership is too distant and bureaucratic to pay attention to gun control bills affecting Wisconsin gun owners?
Why is NRA-ILA attacking an honest, state-level gun group when they should be thanking us? Had it not been for WGO's reporting of the facts, NRA's position may still be online showing "Support" for the handgun ban bill - doing further damage to our unified cause against the bill -- and shouldn't NRA leadership be standing united with Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) -- Wisconsin's only registered state-level gun rights lobbying organization -- instead of being divisive and attacking their fellow gun rights group?
Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc. (WGO) commends the hard work of Badger State gun activists who "sounded the alarm" as it now appears these outcries have forced NRA leadership to correct the "clerical error" which indicated the group had once again jumped across the aisle on another useless gun control scheme.
All of this proves the drastic need for an honest, state-level gun rights organization who works for grassroots gun owners and not politicians. Thanks to your support, WGO is that organization.
It's now official: As of today's date, NRA is opposed to SB104. Let's hope it stays that way.
OOPS. [B)]
How about the New Orleans Suit?
quote:They should have been all over New Orleans the second they heard the words "firearms confiscation," and New Orleans' Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley's announcement "No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
They weren't, SAF was, and then it was "We'll take it from here! (O, and thanks.)"
And it's been SAF which has stayed on top of things for the past two years (actually 27 months next week!). Go to http://www.saf.org/ and scroll down to "SAF Stops New Orleans Gun Confiscation."
Doubt me? Check out:
New Orleans Gun Grab Saga
Federal Judge Halts New Orleans Gun Seizures (Instructive, if not dispositive, is Alan Gottleib's willingness to spread the credit around; I defy anyone to provide a link to any official NRA statement which deigns to even mention SAF! Does anyone for a moment think that the names Levy and Gura would be known had NRA been successful in convincing a Judge to consolitate Seegers, et al. v. Ashcroft, et al. with Parker.?) http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=53254&p=468934
C'mon TRF, you'r not even making it difficult. [}:)]
and Article:
quote:The NRA Has Lost Its Way
by Jack Harbinger
April 15, 2002
The gun control advocates say we are paranoid in our defense of our Second Amendment rights.
I think of the Bill Doss case in California and ask "Which side is really paranoid?"
The actions of the NRA in this case show that they are behind us -- waaay behind us.
I have realized that, just as politicians need a certain level of crime and violence for the public to accept more intrusive laws to control us, the NRA needs a certain amount of gun control in order to continue to exist and prosper. Before I learned about the Doss case, I emailed the NRA to say I was doubtful about renewing my membership, saying that I wanted to see no more compromise. I didn't want to slam them, just express my opinions about what I as a member would like to see done.
I realize that the NRA does not make the laws, I said, but the NRA endorses candidates who do. Sometimes candidates who are indifferent to or even hostile to gun rights get an NRA passing grade because they are the lesser of two evils. What a losing proposition.
A local politician was the guest of honor at a Friends of NRA dinner until a member pointed out that he had voted for one-gun-a-month purchase restrictions and registration. Suddenly the politician had to be elsewhere. Then it was back to the fun and fund-raising. I think the man was endorsed again for the next election.
Demanding enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws such as those promoted by NRA's Project Exile, instead of calling for the repeal of all gun laws, is agreeing with our enemies that guns, not criminals, are the problem, I wrote.
Supporting laws taking away more gun rights to prevent a worse law from being passed is merely delaying the gun control advocates' ultimate victory, I wrote. It's not a compromise if the other side doesn't give up anything, and they don't.
I'm still an NRA member because the gun club and range I belong to requires it, I said. I'm going to suggest to the club officers that other, no-compromise gun rights organizations such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) be accepted instead.
I long ago stopped donating to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action because they had strayed off the path, I said in conclusion. I received a canned email response thanking me for my support. They've gotten too big, too rich and too comfortable with the power brokers in Washington.
Imagine four million NRA members multiplied by $35 a year, minimum, in membership dues. Imagine even half of it going directly to educate the public about their rights. JPFO is working hard to raise a small fraction of that, $170,000, to make a documentary for television to promote gun rights. The NRA could sign a check and just do it. Why don't they? Sure is a nice office building, museum and member magazine they have, though. I do see lots of gun rights ads by the NRA, I have to admit. In the members-only magazines.
If the civil rights struggle had been run this way, black people would still have to sit in the back of the bus, but it would be a nice new bus, and it would have a bumper sticker reading "Jesse Jackson is MY President."
Charlton Heston said on the radio after the Oklahoma City bombing that he's sure that no NRA members are involved with "militias." Why was he not explaining that ALL the people ARE the militia according to the United States Code Title 10, Section 311? What a loss of an opportunity to educate the people. Again.
Someone, not a recognizable gun rights advocate celebrity, I forget who, when pressed by a member of Congress to produce a list of militia members, held up ... a phone book. Exactly.
Anyone who promotes the phrase "illegal gun," other than when describing a convicted violent felon, is NOT your friend, no matter how many times he swears his flintlock musket will only be taken from his cold dead hands.
Hold up a semi-auto or full-auto military-style rifle and say that after one of your inspiring speeches about defending freedom, Mr. Heston. Then we'll follow you.
Or are some NRA events held in localities that no longer allow civilians to possess those? Wouldn't want to be seen holding an "illegal gun" and be considered an extremist, would we?
Neal Knox and other Bill of Rights "purists" got evicted from the NRA because they refused to compromise with the gun grabbers and were "too radical." And many bad things they warned us about have arrived.
What a shame the NRA, the biggest kid on the block, is afraid to really fight, for fear of being mistaken for the bad kid.
The truth is that anyone who believes that the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean what they say is viewed as extremist these days.
Bill Clinton said those documents were radical and that when people abuse a freedom you have to limit it. And got elected twice.
Most people responding to a man-on-the-street survey didn't recognize the Bill of Rights and said they wouldn't vote in favor of making it law. The clueless people Jay Leno talks to on his Tonight Show "Jaywalking" segments are real, folks. And they vote. They are helping shape our future, and we aren't in it.
O-oh, Jay, can you see ... that the smiling celebrity Janet Reno you're pitching softball interview questions to still says she did nothing wrong as attorney general? There are people who want her for governor of Florida because she says she wants to help families and children.
Like she helped Elian Gonzalez and the families and children at Mt. Carmel in Waco?
Yet to the Jaywalkers, those who try to educate people about their rights and restore our constitutional republic are "hate radio" and "right-wing fanatics" and, yes, "terrorists."
Why? THEY don't ram houses and churches with military combat engineering vehicles, flood them with flammable tear gas and hold back fire and rescue trucks a mile away as women and children burn. THEY don't send armored paramilitary police to kick in doors, stick a submachine gun in a child's face and return him to a Communist dictatorship. THEY don't threaten a person's life if he doesn't give up an object our Constitution plainly says he has every right to own.
Reno did those things, gets to be a gubernatorial candidate, a guest on Jay Leno and "Saturday Night Live," and is pronounced "cool."
Thomas Jefferson might have foreseen our times when he wrote:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Holocaust Remembrance Day was this past week, and Patriots Day (the Revolutionary War battles of Lexington and Concord) and the anniversary of the fiery conclusion of the Waco siege in 1993 are April 19th.
All of these events involved the efforts of tyrannical government against an idea represented by the allegorical figure that guards the dome of the U.S. Capitol: Armed Freedom.
Most have forgotten that not so long ago, hiding Jews and others consigned to the Nazi liquidation camps was punishable by death under the law of the land in much of Europe.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership tells us that the council of Jewish leaders at that time thought it best to cooperate in the mass murder process. They hoped to buy time for some Jews by keeping the genocide orderly and on schedule, rather than provoke a massive Nazi onslaught against civilians by having anyone resist.
I'm sure those leaders were the last to board the cattle cars to the camps.
As your English teacher used to say, compare and contrast:
Recently, California officials promised Bill Doss that his SKS Sporter rifle would be legal to keep if he moved there.
Later they promised him a SWAT assault if he did not give up his gun.
He was not a criminal, but they were so afraid of his rifle that they offered him a choice between compliance with an unjust law or possible death.
What kind of people must these government officials be, and how about the people who elected them? What other outrages will they find perfectly reasonable?
Substitute "Jew" for "rifle" and "her" for "it" in the following sentence and think about how it makes you feel:
The NRA accepted the surrender of the rifle and turned it over to the police, saying that the man "did what any honest citizen would have done" by complying with the law.
I thought they were the "cold dead hands" people.
I guess they're saving that for when they tell us to turn in our flintlock muskets. If enough members demand change, they will change. Have they heard from you?
I'd like to think there are enough intellectually honest NRA supporters here who will actually read it.
What Project Exile REALLY Means
Wayne (Vichy) LaPierre:
"Armed gangbangers should be afraid of getting caught. But in the past 2 years, the President's Justice Department has prosecuted only 11 juveniles anywhere in the country for illegal possession of handguns."
[This could be your 15 boy or girl to whom you have given a .22 revolver to go shoot cans at a rural dump, or to go plinking at the country home of a friend. YOU YOURSELF can be criminally prosecuted for giving him or her the gun. And the "Winning Team" wants you to bePROSECUTED. Remember: ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
--Quote above taken From NRA WEBSITE on ad campaign:
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/ad1.shtml
Wayne (Vichy) LaPierre:
"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
[This means no ROTC marksmanship programs at schools. This means that if you have a CCW "permit" from your state, and you have your carry pistol in the trunk of your car, and you drive into a school parking lot, then you're an instant felon. Don't think you'd be prosecuted? Don't bet on it.]
(Cont'd)
"The National Rifle Association believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period. We have a lways supported holding adults responsible for willfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms."
[This means that even if you leave a gun in a safe place, if your child gains access to it -even by accident, and even if no crime or accident occurs involving the gun-YOU become a felon if a jury decides to convict you. And by the way, so much for Thomas Jefferson's advice about giving young men a firearm to shorten and straighten their path into manhood and responsibility. So much for hundreds of years of American outdoors tradition. The "Winning Team" says "Flush it all down the toilet."]
(Cont'd)
"So we support mandatory penalties for juvenile criminals caught carrying guns. But out of the thousands of these armed teen thugs, we believe the Clinton Justice Department should have prosecuted more than just 3 in 1997 and 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance."
[This mean that if your minor child is caught hunting or plinking by himself with a handgun, he BECOMES a felon--and the "Winning Team" wants him PROSECUTED. Remember--ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU and YOUR FAMILY.]
(Cont'd)
"We believe that a lawful, properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ... with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement that's making America a safer place to live. The truth is, very few actually choose to carry a gun -- but the bad guys don't know which few they are."
["took the courses"? "passed the tests"? So much for the Second Amendment! So much for "shall not be infringed"! So much for the "right" to bear arms! A right that requires taking courses and passing tests is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the government and revocable by the government.]
--Quotes above from Wayne (Vichy) La Pierre on NRA website, at:
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_wlp.shtml
Wayne (Vichy) LaPierre:
"But the baseline ought to be, if you catch a felon with a gun, a felon trying to buy a gun, a violent juvenile, a violent gang member with a gun, they ought to be prosecuted."
[The "Winning Team" wants these unconstitutional laws enforced -- but ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
(Cont'd)
"Some of these are being prosecuted at the local level. But the truth is, and the criminals know it, if they are, they get a slap on wrist not a long jail sentence. If you're prosecuted at the federal level, you serve 85 percent of your sentence, not a fourth of your sentence or a fifth of your sentence like at the state level."
[The "Winning Team" wants these unconstitutional laws enforced - but ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
(Cont'd)
"The federal level you have speedy trials. They have the ability to deny bail. They also eliminate judge shopping and that's going on all over the country. We ought to also computerize the records of those adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court of law so that they'll be flagged on the instant check system. We call that the Hinkley loophole, but they ought to computerize them."
[The "Winning Team" wants these unconstitutional laws enforced - but ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
(Cont'd)
"Has anyone bothered to look at the figures? Of those 4700, 4000 of them are 15- to 19-year-old juveniles. Everything they're doing is already prohibited and illegal with guns. And they're not being taken off the streets and they're not being prosecuted under these existing federal laws."
[The "Winning Team" wants these unconstitutional laws enforced - but ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
(Cont'd)
"You want to stop those children, as the President calls them, from dying, and we all do. You enforce the federal laws on the books against them to cut at the heart of the culture of violence, you'll do those juveniles a favor and you'll do the country a favor."
[The "Winning Team" wants these unconstitutional laws enforced - but ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
(Cont'd)
"But the truth is a tough criminal justice system with tough, no-nonsense enforcement of the federal laws we have on the books and tough gun prosecution of the federal laws we have on the books will cut to the heart of this culture of violence the President talks about."
[The "Winning Team" wants these unconstitutional laws enforced - but ALL OF THESE LAWS apply to YOU, too.]
(Cont'd)
"Prosecute and enforce the Gun-Free School Zones Act will at least give us a chance. You can't say zero tolerance and not mean it and not prosecute."
[This means that if you have a CCW "permit" from your state, you have your carry gun in the trunk of your car, and you drive into a school parking lot, you're an instant felon-and the "Winning Team" wants you PROSECUTED.]
(Cont'd)
"As I said, it's OK to raise the penalties on illegal possession of guns by juveniles, but why do only prosecute 11 in the whole country when we're talking about the gangbangers that are killing people on the streets of this country?"
[Juveniles should be able to own and use firearms as they always have in this country - at their parents' discretion. The federal government has no business keeping juveniles from owning a handgun or any other gun if his or her parents deem them responsible enough.]
--Quotes above taken from Wayne La Pierre speech found on NRA website at:
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/5_10press.shtml
I agree that as the debate raged back in "68" the NRA was quite proud of the gun control that it DID support. Making reference to what they supported in their American Rifleman magazine. The fact that they supported a multitude of other gun control measures, is not in question, concerning my request.
tr fox has stated the following as FACT.
"Among the countless things people complain about regarding their complaints against the NRA are how the NRA sold out gun owners by supporting the 1968 and 1986 gun control act."
I would still like tr fox to show me where anyone has said the NRA supported the 1968 and the 1986 gun control acts. Those two acts, SPECIFICALLY!
Call it support for the NRA if you wish. I have not found where they supported either of these two acts. If I had, you could be sure that I would have included it in my little fact finding post.
It is your claim tr fox, which is it?
Is it FACT, or it is FANTASY.
I may well be the guilty party here.
I tend to view things black/white....I am certain that you will find that the NRA sat down with the enemy and 'moderated' both these laws..attempting to 'soften the blow'..
Doing so put their stamp of approval on those laws.
One does NOT 'moderate' a Right into a privlige and call it 'not supporting this or that law'.
My take...let the Beast do his damndest. FORCE the ignorant gun owners to face the facts..they are going to HAVE to take their Rights back from overweening authority.
Or allow themselves to be disarmed.
Edit;
I take it back;
Go here and look it up...http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=293126..the research has been done.
1968 General Franklin Orth, Executive Vice President of NRA, testifies before Congress in favor of the Gun Control Act (GCA'68) that "[NRA does] not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States," /2/ (a ban on the mail-order sale of firearms). His statement of NRA support generates heated opposition from the (presumably insane) portion of the NRA membership, creating split between "sportsmen" and "hardliners."
http://www.saneguns.org/gunlobby/nra_earlyyears.html
OOOPs. [B)]
Pickenup;
I may well be the guilty party here.
OK, show me where "you" stated, that they supported the "68" "86" acts.
No generalizations, specifics only.
Not trying to start a big fight here..just an interesting discussion.
Did a quick web search..found something called 'Sane Guns'..
1968 General Franklin Orth, Executive Vice President of NRA, testifies before Congress in favor of the Gun Control Act (GCA'68) that "[NRA does] not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States," /2/ (a ban on the mail-order sale of firearms). His statement of NRA support generates heated opposition from the (presumably insane) portion of the NRA membership, creating split between "sportsmen" and "hardliners."
http://www.saneguns.org/gunlobby/nra_earlyyears.html
By 1968 the leadership of the NRA was fully against any and all gun regulations. The group undertook a mass-mailing lobbying effort to undermine the legislation. Their organized lobbying efforts proved successful in wiping out much of the support for gun licensing and registration restrictions.
From the same article...
quote:The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of "irrational emotionalism," and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership's support of the bill.
http://www.answers.com/topic/gun-control-act-of-1968?cat=biz-fin
Along with the "time line" article that OI posted.........
Somehow, I have not made myself clear.
I'm looking for "past" posts, on the GunBroker forums, where anyone has made the statements, that have been claimed by tr fox. As of the time he posted his statement. "03/12/2008 : 8:02:41 PM"
Either his statement was fact "at that time" or it wasn't. That is all.
Since this has come up, with a little research, I am amazed at what I have found concerning this. Well, not really amazed. Just more fuel I will add to the bonfire.
Thanks tr fox. Without you starting this thread, with all the other stuff I look at, I probably would not have looked into this, at least, not at this time.
The NRA and pro-gun members of Congress pushed for years for a legislative package to weaken the GCA. In 1986 they finally prevailed. The Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) was sponsored by former Representative Harold Volkmer, D-Mo., and then Senator James McClure, R-Idaho, who insisted it was necessary to curb abuses by federal officials of law-abiding gun owners and firearms dealers.
Although the parliamentary wrangling over the measure was intense, it ultimately passed and was soon signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The FOPA changed the GCA to:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/cflaw.htm
Pickenup;
Yeah...I finally tumbled to that. I prolly just confused the issue...sorry.
News flash!!
Gov't is a racket of liars!! Just because there is a law specifically addressing an issue doesn't mean they adhere to it. In fact, it may be to ease the minds of the malcontents while they do what they want anyway.
The first official word I had to this effect was a few years ago, when the then-head of the Batf proudly explained that they were putting ALL the gun records from defunct FFLs into the data base.
Since then, the BATF comes around quite often to collect new data from FFLs.....