In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
NRA vs. the Batf...
Highball
Member Posts: 15,755
Go look over the letter from the NRA to JPFO concerning the batf....quite revealing...and perfectly illuminates the sharp dividing line between freedom and serfdom mentality.
I am unable to copy and paste..JPFO has a block...but the link will take you to JPFO's website...and the letter link is below the 4473, about half-way down the page.
http://www.jpfo.org/
Anybody know a link to the list of killing fields that JPFO USED to have...and seem to have dropped off their site...? Odd...
I am unable to copy and paste..JPFO has a block...but the link will take you to JPFO's website...and the letter link is below the 4473, about half-way down the page.
http://www.jpfo.org/
Anybody know a link to the list of killing fields that JPFO USED to have...and seem to have dropped off their site...? Odd...
Comments
Otherwise, typing it all over again???
The reply from JPFO is text, and can be copied as usual.
Here it all is.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
JPFO RESPONSE TO THE NRA POSITION ON BATFE
Questions to ask:
1. According to the Letter, NRA supports "certain federal laws relative to firearms." What part of the Second Amendment's declaration, that that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," gives the federal government the power to enact laws "relative to firearms"?
BEST ANSWER: The Second Amendment prohibits federal legislation that infringes the right to keep and bear arms.
2. According to the Letter, NRA "does not object to many of the federal laws against violent criminal behavior committed with firearms." What efforts has NRA made to repeal federal laws regulating ownership and possession of firearms where violence is not an issue?
BEST ANSWER: All pro-rights organizations should work toward repeal of federal laws that infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Laws prohibiting violent criminal behavior already exist on the books in every State and territory. NRA needs to work toward repeal of federal laws regulating ownership and possession of firearms.
3. According to the Letter, NRA supports the existence of the BATFE. Under what provision of the U.S. Constitution is the federal government empowered to create a federal agency to regulate firearms, given that the Second Amendment declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
BEST ANSWER: Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. To an ordinary understanding, firearms ownership, possession and peaceful or defensive use of firearms do not amount to "interstate commerce." To the extent that Congress and the courts have expanded the scope of "interstate commerce" to include personal firearms ownership and use, they have exceeded the meaning of the Constitution. Regardless of the interstate commerce issue, the Second Amendment expressly prohibits federal legislation that infringes the right to keep and bear arms.
4. According to the Letter, NRA claims to have been the "driving force behind congressional hearings" to expose the "countless bungles and outrageous decisions by federal agents, including BATF agents, that led to the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and Waco."
(a) Can NRA name any BATF agents who were terminated for their misconduct as exposed in those hearings?
CORRECT ANSWER: None known.
(b) Can NRA identify any congressional action against BATF that would prevent recurrences of the tragedies at Ruby Ridge or Waco?
CORRECT ANSWER: None known.
(c) If NRA cannot identify substantial congressional action against BATF for its "bungles and outrageous decisions," then does NRA admit failing at its stated goal to "correct the problems within the Bureau itself"?
BEST ANSWER: We have learned from hard experience that BATF cannot be corrected from within the Bureau itself. It needs to be abolished.
5. According to the Letter, "NRA did consider calling for Congress to de-fund this agency in the 1980s."
(a) If NRA knew BATF was problematic in the 1980s, and if NRA thought it was possible to defund it, and if NRA actually opposed gun control, then why would NRA choose instead to favor retaining the federal gun control agency?
BEST ANSWER: It was a mistake to surrender the issue of an unconstitutional agency enforcing unconstitutional laws.
(b) When NRA discovered even more BATF abuses in the 1990s than previously known, why didn't the NRA press for de-funding BATF when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in the 2000s?
BEST ANSWER: It was a mistake to fail to press the advantage and abolish the BATF.
6. According to the Letter, NRA believes "dissolving the BATF will not eliminate the problem of overzealous enforcement of current federal gun laws."
(a) Wouldn't the abolition of the BATF constitute a major rebuke of federal gun control? Wouldn't such a rebuke encourage NRA members and other gun owners to rally and increase pressure to abolish unconstitutional federal firearms laws?
BEST ANSWER: Yes, abolishing the BATF would be an actual victory for gun owners, instead of just obtaining the "better of two evils" that too often occurs.
(b) Wouldn't the abolition of the BATF send a message to elected officials and judges that the American people will not tolerate an agency that abuses the citizens and denies them their Second Amendment rights?
BEST ANSWER: Yes, abolishing the BATF would show that the American people still have some impact on what really goes on in Washington, D.C.
(c) Why doesn't NRA publicize the instances of BATFE's "overzealous enforcement" in its publications?
BEST ANSWER: NRA has sometimes addressed BATFE overzealous enforcement in our publications, but have fallen short of making it a major priority.
7. According to the Letter, NRA favors Congress giving BATFE "additional funds to increase its enforcement of violations of [violent gun crime] laws at the federal level."
(a) What are some examples of violent crimes that can only be detected and prosecuted by federal government agents, and cannot be detected and prosecuted by state or local police forces?
BEST ANSWER: The only reason that state agencies in the various states do not take the lead on interstate crimes is that there are federal agencies with the revenue and manpower to do it. There is nothing special about federal agencies when it comes to detecting and prosecuting violent crimes.
(b) What actual violent crimes can only be investigated by BATFE, and cannot be investigated by the FBI?
BEST ANSWER: None. The FBI could investigate the currently existing federal violent crimes as well as any other federal agency, and it could enforce the various tax laws for alcohol and tobacco. For that matter, state police agencies could perform all of these functions.
8. According to the Letter, NRA has been attempting to pass the "Veteran Heritage
Firearms Act," under which veterans and their families "could register firearms acquired overseas" between 1934 and 1968.
(a) Why is NRA attempting to pass a law to give special privileges to certain groups of people to escape the operation of federal registration laws?
BEST ANSWER: It's a mistake to lobby for special privileges for a small group of gun owners, when all Americans' gun rights at risk.
(b) Why is NRA conceding that federal registration laws are acceptable, so long as NRA can acquire exemptions for special groups of people?
BEST ANSWER: NRA should not concede that any federal registration laws are acceptable.
(c) Why should American gun owners be pleased with NRA's work on this proposed Act to help a tiny minority, when NRA has achieved no rollbacks of federal firearms registration and prohibition laws under six years of a Republican-controlled federal government?
BEST ANSWER: NRA needs to restructure its priorities so that its lobbying efforts and political activism go toward repealing federal firearms registration and prohibition laws. NRA can rally its supporters to actually do something to take the power back from the unelected BATFE and abolish that unconstitutional agency.
JPFO invites concerned firearms owners to visit our website at www.jpfo.org to look at our organization's efforts to ABOLISH the BATFE and end federal control and regulation of your guns.
- Our "Boot the BATFE" campaign: www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm
- Our documentary-in-progress exposing the criminality of BATFE: www.jpfo.org/thegang.htm
For the computer ignorant..it amounts to the same thing..cause I had no idea how to get it here...[:0]
Thanks for posting the first page.
JPFO is an interesting organization. Jews 100% against gun control..unlike most Jews in political office in America today..and also totally unlike the NRA and similer organizations...
Pickenup; Help me out, please....How do I get the entire letter printed out...to present to people still utterly devoted to "The NRA Fights Gun Laws"....????
JPFO Is A Very Good Site. Just Not As Politically Correct As Many Would Like. Hard Core!!!! My Kind Of Folks!!!! Unfortunately THEY Had To Learn The HARD Way And WE (Actually The Voting Majority) Seem To Be To STUPID To Learn From History And These Anti-Gun Folks Just Keep Getting Elected/Reelected.
Meet The Gang:
http://www.jpfo.org/thegang.htm
Link to NRA pfd Letter:
http://www.jpfo.org/nraletter.pdf
I Think You Need An Advanced Version Of Adobe Reader To Be Able To Cut And Paste (Edit) A pfd file.
I've Got 3 Possibles. Are Any Of These What You Are Looking For?
1). Yvon Dionne-"Zog Nit Keyn Mol"
One Example, from History, of Necessary Armed Struggle
http://pages.globetrotter.net/yvon_dionne/nit_keyn_mol.html
2). The Signal: News for Santa Clarita Valley, California
http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=34757&format=html
3). Video, Innocents Betrayed:
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_12/issue_23/review_02.html
If What I Have Contributed Here Does Not Answer Your Question You Can E-mail Them At:
jpfo@jpfo.org
You May Be Interested In This As Well. Although Not DIRECTLY Related To The Subject It Is Relative. At Least It's Interesting.
When did we become Marxists?
Constitution Party News Articles 02/01/2007
http://constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=441
Geez man, come up with some original titles.
[:D]
The ATF is a joke, they should be a convience store not a goverment agency
Sure. But if we were able to get rid of the ATFE, the liberals would put another federal agency in its place. And the new agency might be worse than the present one.
Generally, the name of the agency has little importance. What the agency does or does not do is what is important. Just as with medicine your physician prescribes for your illness. You care little about the name of that medicine, you just want it to work for your and your situation.
In regards to this dispute between the NRA and the JPFO, I like and support both groups. But I don't like to see public disputes beween pro-gun groups or even indivdual gun owners. The more of a united front we present to the public, the stronger we appear to the governnment and to the anti-gunners. The more we squabble among ourselves, the weaker we seem (and are) in the eyes of the anti-gunners. But should be no surprise that if you go looking for it, you will find not only serious differences of opinion about gun rights between various pro-gun rights groups, but even between individual gun owners right here on GB.com. But if we gunners are to survive, we must try very hard to provide at least the appearance of a united front.
By itself, the NRA does not, can not, approve/disapprove a new law or the creation/destruction of a federal agency. So while the NRA can sometimes be given partial credit/blame for a particular action/inaction on the part of the government (s) and/or an agency, it cannot be given ultimate blame/credit FOR ANYTHING; as some people try very hard to do. The NRA does not run the show!
But just as we all need to find some way to provide a more united front in defending ourselves from the extremist Muslim's religious war on the West, we pro-gunners need to admit we have our various disagreements and always try to provide the best united front we can. Because along with all our disagreements, we also have one very important agreement.
That agreement is that we see, in various degrees of clear focus, that there has been, is and will always be governments, organizations, politicans, and citizens who think it is the right and proper thing to do to disarm each and every peaceful, lawful American. And most of us know that our gun rights enemies are more powerful, better organized, more determined and MUCH BETTER finaniced than we are we pro-gun people.
When (and if) we progunners are at least half-way to saving our gun rights, then maybe we can pause and try to pass around blame to various pro-gun organizations that we think have somewhat let us down. Or maybe at the half-way point we can pause and argue that the constitution actually gives citiziens to own fully-automatic firearms, or rocket launchers, or tanks, etc.
But for now and the foreseeable future PLEASE let's fight the enemy the best we can and quit fighting each other.