For The Record
Until further notice I shall not advocate for nor defend the NRA.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
Feb. 7, 2010 Update. I got the below in an email from the president of the Kansas Rifle Association. The KSRA is the KS state NRA affiliate. Note that the article credits the NRA with taking the right position and actually criticizes the group who filed the McDonald vs Chicago lawsuit in that group, while interested in constitutional freedom, IS NOT fully focused on the gun rights part of constitutional freedom. Also notice that the author of the below article does not represent any gun rights group and does not have any visible connection to the NRA.
McDonald Gun-Rights Case: Round One Goes to the NRA
Ken Klukowski
Monday, January 25, 2010
There is growing tension between the pro-gun parties to the upcoming Supreme Court gun-rights case. Perhaps concerned about the direction this case was going, the Court has taken the unusual step of granting the NRA's motion to be given separate time to speak during oral arguments. Round One in this historic fight for the right to bear arms goes to the NRA.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on March 2 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, presenting the question of whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only enforceable against the federal government, or whether it is also a right against city and state governments. This lawsuit challenges Chicago's gun ban, which is essentially identical to the federal ban in D.C. that the Supreme Court struck down in 2008.
The lawyers for Otis McDonald and his co-plaintiffs are libertarian activists, who are pushing an aggressive and potentially risky constitutional theory to the Court. Without getting too much in the legal weeds, McDonald is arguing that the Court should extend gun rights to the states through the little-known Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, and overrule a venerable precedent from 1873 called the Slaughter-House Cases, which protects state sovereignty by limiting the reach of Congress and the courts. The Slaughter-House Cases is only one step removed from Marbury v. Madison as one of the most important cases in American history.
The libertarian activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns. Instead, they want to advance a libertarian economic agenda, where federal judges could sit in judgment of state and local laws involving labor, employment, business regulations and other economic issues. Although the Constitution is silent on these matters, these activists want the courts to start declaring constitutional rights against such things, and using the power of the federal judiciary to strike down laws of this sort that the judges don't like.
The problem is that this approach could endanger gun rights. The narrower your focus when arguing a case, the easier it is to get a court to go along with you. The broader your argument, the steeper the hill you must climb.
In a case like McDonald v. Chicago, where the stakes are sky-high and the impact could be huge, the Court will be inclined to move very carefully. It's quite a horse pill to swallow under the best of circumstances. In a situation such as this, where the narrowest argument you can make is still a broad one with serious ramifications, pushing a much larger agenda than necessary starts to run the risk that the Court will choke on the whole thing.
For that reason, the National Rifle Association is working hard to keep the focus of this case where it belongs, on gun rights. Whether the Second Amendment gives 300 million Americans a right against state or local laws that ban guns is a monumentally-important issue for personal liberty, and so the NRA's argument presents only that issue before the justices.
The NRA's argument therefore stresses that the Court should apply (or "incorporate") the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Although this approach is beset with problems from a conservative legal perspective, it's nonetheless how the Court has always tackled these issues and so it becomes the safest route for extending gun rights to the states.
Accordingly, the NRA has committed the resources to retain one of the best Supreme Court lawyers in the country, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, to represent them in the McDonald case. Clement filed a motion requesting for the NRA to be granted some of the argument time on March 2 to make their case.
While it's not surprising that McDonald's lawyers opposed this motion, they took the surprising step of also offering that they would not object to the Court instead giving some of McDonald's time to James Ho, the well-respected and very capable Texas Solicitor General who had also filed a motion requesting divided argument on behalf of 38 states that filed a separate brief in this lawsuit.
On January 25, the Court surprised everyone by granting the NRA's motion but denying Texas' motion. In other words, when McDonald encouraged the Court to allow Texas to argue but to shut out the NRA, the Court said no on both counts, allowing Clement to present the NRA's argument. In doing so, the Court sends a signal that both routes for applying the Second Amendment to the states (one being Privileges or Immunities and the other being Due Process) would not be fully studied without allowing the NRA to the microphone. (It's also likely that the Court's decision reflects its deep respect for Paul Clement, as it's less likely the motion would've been granted to a less-accomplished lawyer.)
It must be noted that these activists do not speak for all libertarians, many of whom join conservatives in opposing the idea that the Court should overrule the Slaughter-House Cases. That's why the brief I wrote in this case for the American Civil Rights Union, arguing how the Court could incorporate the Second Amendment through the Privileges or Immunities Clause without overruling the Slaughter-House Cases, was joined both by the Committee for Justice (led by libertarian lawyer Curt Levey) and conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council.
But today's court order, taking some of McDonald's argument time and giving it to the NRA, shows the deep divisions between gun-rights advocates in this case. The Court did the right thing by bringing the National Rifle Association to the table, increasing the odds that this case will be about the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, which is exactly as it should be.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, and covers the U.S. Supreme Court for Townhall.com.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
Feb. 7, 2010 Update. I got the below in an email from the president of the Kansas Rifle Association. The KSRA is the KS state NRA affiliate. Note that the article credits the NRA with taking the right position and actually criticizes the group who filed the McDonald vs Chicago lawsuit in that group, while interested in constitutional freedom, IS NOT fully focused on the gun rights part of constitutional freedom. Also notice that the author of the below article does not represent any gun rights group and does not have any visible connection to the NRA.
McDonald Gun-Rights Case: Round One Goes to the NRA
Ken Klukowski
Monday, January 25, 2010
There is growing tension between the pro-gun parties to the upcoming Supreme Court gun-rights case. Perhaps concerned about the direction this case was going, the Court has taken the unusual step of granting the NRA's motion to be given separate time to speak during oral arguments. Round One in this historic fight for the right to bear arms goes to the NRA.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on March 2 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, presenting the question of whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only enforceable against the federal government, or whether it is also a right against city and state governments. This lawsuit challenges Chicago's gun ban, which is essentially identical to the federal ban in D.C. that the Supreme Court struck down in 2008.
The lawyers for Otis McDonald and his co-plaintiffs are libertarian activists, who are pushing an aggressive and potentially risky constitutional theory to the Court. Without getting too much in the legal weeds, McDonald is arguing that the Court should extend gun rights to the states through the little-known Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, and overrule a venerable precedent from 1873 called the Slaughter-House Cases, which protects state sovereignty by limiting the reach of Congress and the courts. The Slaughter-House Cases is only one step removed from Marbury v. Madison as one of the most important cases in American history.
The libertarian activists behind McDonald openly explain that the reason they are pushing the Court to overrule Slaughter-House has nothing to do with guns. Instead, they want to advance a libertarian economic agenda, where federal judges could sit in judgment of state and local laws involving labor, employment, business regulations and other economic issues. Although the Constitution is silent on these matters, these activists want the courts to start declaring constitutional rights against such things, and using the power of the federal judiciary to strike down laws of this sort that the judges don't like.
The problem is that this approach could endanger gun rights. The narrower your focus when arguing a case, the easier it is to get a court to go along with you. The broader your argument, the steeper the hill you must climb.
In a case like McDonald v. Chicago, where the stakes are sky-high and the impact could be huge, the Court will be inclined to move very carefully. It's quite a horse pill to swallow under the best of circumstances. In a situation such as this, where the narrowest argument you can make is still a broad one with serious ramifications, pushing a much larger agenda than necessary starts to run the risk that the Court will choke on the whole thing.
For that reason, the National Rifle Association is working hard to keep the focus of this case where it belongs, on gun rights. Whether the Second Amendment gives 300 million Americans a right against state or local laws that ban guns is a monumentally-important issue for personal liberty, and so the NRA's argument presents only that issue before the justices.
The NRA's argument therefore stresses that the Court should apply (or "incorporate") the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Although this approach is beset with problems from a conservative legal perspective, it's nonetheless how the Court has always tackled these issues and so it becomes the safest route for extending gun rights to the states.
Accordingly, the NRA has committed the resources to retain one of the best Supreme Court lawyers in the country, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, to represent them in the McDonald case. Clement filed a motion requesting for the NRA to be granted some of the argument time on March 2 to make their case.
While it's not surprising that McDonald's lawyers opposed this motion, they took the surprising step of also offering that they would not object to the Court instead giving some of McDonald's time to James Ho, the well-respected and very capable Texas Solicitor General who had also filed a motion requesting divided argument on behalf of 38 states that filed a separate brief in this lawsuit.
On January 25, the Court surprised everyone by granting the NRA's motion but denying Texas' motion. In other words, when McDonald encouraged the Court to allow Texas to argue but to shut out the NRA, the Court said no on both counts, allowing Clement to present the NRA's argument. In doing so, the Court sends a signal that both routes for applying the Second Amendment to the states (one being Privileges or Immunities and the other being Due Process) would not be fully studied without allowing the NRA to the microphone. (It's also likely that the Court's decision reflects its deep respect for Paul Clement, as it's less likely the motion would've been granted to a less-accomplished lawyer.)
It must be noted that these activists do not speak for all libertarians, many of whom join conservatives in opposing the idea that the Court should overrule the Slaughter-House Cases. That's why the brief I wrote in this case for the American Civil Rights Union, arguing how the Court could incorporate the Second Amendment through the Privileges or Immunities Clause without overruling the Slaughter-House Cases, was joined both by the Committee for Justice (led by libertarian lawyer Curt Levey) and conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council.
But today's court order, taking some of McDonald's argument time and giving it to the NRA, shows the deep divisions between gun-rights advocates in this case. The Court did the right thing by bringing the National Rifle Association to the table, increasing the odds that this case will be about the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, which is exactly as it should be.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, and covers the U.S. Supreme Court for Townhall.com.
0
-
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.[xx(] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Do you even know what position Sen. elect Brown has taken on RKBA? I doubt you do. If you did, you would have held it up like a trophy. His position is as lameazz as yours.
Define criminal. Do you mean felon who has served his time and met punishment obligations? Thanks for punishing law abiding citizens unnecessarily trying to stop something that is going to happen anyway.
He doesn't need to, the NRA will tell him which establishment anti-gunner to vote for. When you've paid $25 good dollars to have someone else do you research for you, you are "doing something". Right trfaux?
Putting forth real effort, by doing the research yourself, and deciding that "Once again, the NRA lied to me," would be "Not doing something". Right trfaux?0 -
WHAT?!?!
Ok, seriously.....who hacked Trfox's account?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
WHAT?!?!
Ok, seriously.....who hacked Trfox's account?
No kidding......0 -
Fox you were a tough one But good to see your seeing a little more clearly now, It happened to us all, They are not what they ARE............ nor seem to be even close to what they WERE. It happens to all of us who choose to do a little reasearch........Now where is my vending machine[:o)][:D] You really went out there on that one[8D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
Fox you were a tough one But good to see your seeing a little more clearly now, It happened to us all, They are not what they ARE............ nor seem to be even close to what they WERE. It happens to all of us who choose to do a little reasearch........Now where is my vending machine[:o)][:D] You really went out there on that one[8D]
Well, thank you for your kind words but I am confused about your statement involving "vending machines." It is a fact that if there were absolutely no gun control laws what-so-ever, then there would be no law prohibiting some idiot from selling firearms out of a vending machine. And if there were no gun control laws, there for sure would be some idiot that would come along and actually sell guns out of vending machines.
So, truthfully, I don't see how I "went out there on that." I merely described one very possible, extreme truth that could happen if there were absolutely no gun control laws. If I am incorrect in my thinking on this, please tell me how and why.0 -
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
Fox you were a tough one But good to see your seeing a little more clearly now, It happened to us all, They are not what they ARE............ nor seem to be even close to what they WERE. It happens to all of us who choose to do a little reasearch........Now where is my vending machine[:o)][:D] You really went out there on that one[8D]
You put too much hope in Larry.
He is just fine with guncontrol. He likes it as demonstrated by his postings.
He will be singing praises to the NRA again, soon.
Bet on it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
Fox you were a tough one But good to see your seeing a little more clearly now, It happened to us all, They are not what they ARE............ nor seem to be even close to what they WERE. It happens to all of us who choose to do a little research........Now where is my vending machine[:o)][:D] You really went out there on that one[8D]
You put too much hope in Larry.
He is just fine with gun control. He likes it as demonstrated by his postings.
He will be singing praises to the NRA again, soon.
Bet on it.
Just given him a chance as I too once was in his position........Thats all.... Dont expect much, But it was a hard blow when I figured It out.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
Fox you were a tough one But good to see your seeing a little more clearly now, It happened to us all, They are not what they ARE............ nor seem to be even close to what they WERE. It happens to all of us who choose to do a little reasearch........Now where is my vending machine[:o)][:D] You really went out there on that one[8D]
Well, thank you for your kind words but I am confused about your statement involving "vending machines." It is a fact that if there were absolutely no gun control laws what-so-ever, then there would be no law prohibiting some idiot from selling firearms out of a vending machine. And if there were no gun control laws, there for sure would be some idiot that would come along and actually sell guns out of vending machines.
So, truthfully, I don't see how I "went out there on that." I merely described one very possible, extreme truth that could happen if there were absolutely no gun control laws. If I am incorrect in my thinking on this, please tell me how and why.
Damn free mind............ You were right[:)]
Fox the reason you were out there on that is because it simply isn't feasible................NO different than bringing the wild buffalo back instead of the wolf, Just wouldn't work.........Damn man come back alittle closer to reality you were almost there.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Until further notice I shall not advocate for nor defend the NRA.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
An encouraging and heartening sign. It is a start, perhaps.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Until further notice I shall not advocate for nor defend the NRA.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
An encouraging and heartening sign. It is a start, perhaps.[:)]
Nope. Never happen. If he said it was the case, don't believe.0 -
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by IdahoRedneck
Fox you were a tough one But good to see your seeing a little more clearly now, It happened to us all, They are not what they ARE............ nor seem to be even close to what they WERE. It happens to all of us who choose to do a little reasearch........Now where is my vending machine[:o)][:D] You really went out there on that one[8D]
Well, thank you for your kind words but I am confused about your statement involving "vending machines." It is a fact that if there were absolutely no gun control laws what-so-ever, then there would be no law prohibiting some idiot from selling firearms out of a vending machine. And if there were no gun control laws, there for sure would be some idiot that would come along and actually sell guns out of vending machines.
So, truthfully, I don't see how I "went out there on that." I merely described one very possible, extreme truth that could happen if there were absolutely no gun control laws. If I am incorrect in my thinking on this, please tell me how and why.
Damn free mind............ You were right[:)]
Fox the reason you were out there on that is because it simply isn't feasible................NO different than bringing the wild buffalo back instead of the wolf, Just wouldn't work.........Damn man come back alittle closer to reality you were almost there.
Well of course selling firearms in a vending machine "isn't feasible." I was merely trying to make the most outlandish, extreme,crazy example I could think of regarding what could happen if there were absolutely no gun control laws. I offered that crazy example to the people here who advocate absolutely no gun control laws and asked if they were willing to let that happen. If someone did choose, what would be their right with absolutely no gun and control laws, to sell firearms out of a vending machine would they not want at least one gun control law forbidding the selling of firearms out of vending machines. Almost everyone here said that was fine with them. Yet your comment to me makes it look like I am/was the crazy one who thinks selling firearms out of a vending machine is protected by the constitution.
So let me clearly express myself one more time in case there is any confusion. I DO NOT want firearms sold out of vending machines. However, without a law preventing that, if someone chose to, they could sell firearms out of a vending machine. Such a question should have exposed the anti-gun law crowd here as being hypocrites because they should be sane enough to admit that yeah they want at least one law; a law against selling firearms out of vending machines. But that crowd here DID NOT disagree with a having a constitutional right to sell firearms out of a vending machine.
Bottom line. The crowd here favors selling out of vending machines. I oppose it. Now, with that said, how am I the one who "is out there?"
I really would like to know.0 -
Boy, its a cold day on GB for this little tid-bit.[:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Until further notice I shall not advocate for nor defend the NRA.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
Just copying your post for posterity.
Don't want it to be edited or deleted down the road. [;)]
If memory serves, a few years ago the NRA almost stepped over "your" line in the sand. You were about to join us who have opened our eyes to them. But shortly after, you came back with both barrels blazing, advocating for, and defending the NRA.....again. [V]
In those years of you trying to defend the indefensible, the NRA again and again and AGAIN proved that they were FOR gun control. What with them trying to derail the Heller case numerous ways, supporting gun control laws and gun control politicians, while ignoring politicians who advocate gun rights, along with their actions following Katrina, and on and on and on, now this.
Are their actions concerning the McDonald Case finally enough to open your eyes?
Time will tell.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Until further notice I shall not advocate for nor defend the NRA.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
Just copying your post for posterity.
Don't want it to be edited or deleted down the road. [;)]
If memory serves, a few years ago the NRA almost stepped over "your" line in the sand. You were about to join us who have opened our eyes to them. But shortly after, you came back with both barrels blazing, advocating for, and defending the NRA.....again. [V]
In those years of you trying to defend the indefensible, the NRA again and again and AGAIN proved that they were FOR gun control. What with them trying to derail the Heller case numerous ways, supporting gun control laws and gun control politicians, while ignoring politicians who advocate gun rights, along with their actions following Katrina, and on and on and on, now this.
Are their actions concerning the McDonald Case finally enough to open your eyes?
Time will tell.
Unlike some other members, yours is a fair and honest comment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Until further notice I shall not advocate for nor defend the NRA.
http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm
Until your next thread that is. [:(]
tr why now? Yes I've read the link and it's not suprising to me. But some how it seems your suprised after the extensive evidence exposed by many here about the NRAs support for gun control for many years.
Even you have reached for the sky(vending machines)to want/justify gun control. Yes I'll bet you could even argue we need gun control because a "vending machine" full of guns could fall over and kill someone.[xx(]
Yet you are disapproving? of the NRA in this link? Why don't you just fall back on the excuse that the NRA has good/positive intentions for Paul Clement.0 -
Time will tell.
Your resistance to logical arguements appears to have been the fear to trust other citizens with a full compliment of rights. I believe this to be the basis of most NRA reasonable restrictions advocates. Notice how most patriots appear to be brave and criminals appear to be cowardly and desperate? The patriots and free men do not fear the freedom of others, and would not arbitrarily take it away.
Look back to your vending machine thread. Your fear was that anybody could go to the machine and get guns. So what, anybody can get guns anyway. Only people who intend harm should be fearful(if they attempt harm they should know that the consequences could be deadly), the rest should be armed and safe.
Enough rambling, too sloppy. Wordsmith I am not.
Good luck Fox, but remember RKBA is not about keeping you safe. It is about keeping you free and allows others to be free. Gun restrictions of any kind are not about keeping society safe they are about controlling society.
Renouncing support for NRA sounds good but means little if you deny the meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed".0 -
Very, very good post lobo.
Guns from a vending machine? Fine. The problem is criminals who make their living infringing on other folks right's, not being dealt with by a completely broken in-justice system.
When I was 14, there was far less crime, and much more justice. I walked into the Coast to Coast hardware store and purchased my first firearm, a 12 ga. semi-auto Smith & Wesson. Was about the same as if I had bought it from a vending machine, except the vending machine wouldn't smile, and say "Have a nice day."0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Time will tell.
Your resistance to logical arguements appears to have been the fear to trust other citizens with a full compliment of rights. I believe this to be the basis of most NRA reasonable restrictions advocates. Notice how most patriots appear to be brave and criminals appear to be cowardly and desperate? The patriots and free men do not fear the freedom of others, and would not arbitrarily take it away.
Look back to your vending machine thread. Your fear was that anybody could go to the machine and get guns. So what, anybody can get guns anyway. Only people who intend harm should be fearful(if they attempt harm they should know that the consequences could be deadly), the rest should be armed and safe.
Enough rambling, too sloppy. Wordsmith I am not.
Good luck Fox, but remember RKBA is not about keeping you safe. It is about keeping you free and allows others to be free. Gun restrictions of any kind are not about keeping society safe they are about controlling society.
Renouncing support for NRA sounds good but means little if you deny the meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed".
Great post. Your ideas came across very clear.
I happen to agree with everything you said.0 -
Freemind, Thanks, great minds think alike. My problem is trying to get point across to not so great minds and and assorted Fudds. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Very, very good post lobo.
Guns from a vending machine? Fine. The problem is criminals who make their living infringing on other folks right's, not being dealt with by a completely broken in-justice system.
When I was 14, there was far less crime, and much more justice. I walked into the Coast to Coast hardware store and purchased my first firearm, a 12 ga. semi-auto Smith & Wesson. Was about the same as if I had bought it from a vending machine, except the vending machine wouldn't smile, and say "Have a nice day."
Appreciate it JP, been practicing.
I think if we had a digital machine it could be programmed to wish nice day or some such.[:D] Maybe "Now get to range and practice, kid".
Key is you walked in plopped down money walked out. The man behind the counter feared only GOD and his wife.0 -
Fox;
As Pickenup pointed out...several years ago, you very nearly broke the bonds of your brain-washing.
You regressed so far back as to not even see the light of day since then.
We will see what transpires in the future, concerning you.
Now...just as an aside ;
What are you telling your daughter, and the other members of your family, that you completely swung to the side of the NRA... ???0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Fox;
As Pickenup pointed out...several years ago, you very nearly broke the bonds of your brain-washing.
You regressed so far back as to not even see the light of day since then.
We will see what transpires in the future, concerning you.
Now...just as an aside ;
What are you telling your daughter, and the other members of your family, that you completely swung to the side of the NRA... ???
That is actually a pretty good question. I have said nothing yet to my family. I have sent an email to various officers in a shooting range and a gun club I belong to with a link to that article by the JFPFO which is at the top of this posted topic. I mentioned in that email that I have long supported the NRA and have often taken a lot of grief for doing so. But if the NRA does not explain this JFPFO article to my satisfaction, that may change.
My gun/range club requires NRA membership to be a member. My Kansas State Rifle Club, while it does not require NRA membership, is the KS state NRA affiliate. So someone there should have enough contacts within the NRA to get me some answers.
I have long believed that the NRA is much like a living person. It does some good, some bad and some for selfish, self-serving reasons. I would like a better organization, but for over 100 years the NRA has been the biggest and most powerful. No other gun orgaization is known, somestimes respected, sometimes feared by the politicians as the NRA. If the NRA wanted to it could do more for gun rights by ACCIDENT than anyother gun rights organization can do on purpose.
So I am really conflicted on this issue. Kinda like I was on a passenger airplane flight over the middle of the Atlantic ocean and we passengers discovered the pilot was drunk. What are going to do? Jump out of the airplane or kick the pilot out? Not until we get a soft landing.
Unless someone can step up and instantly replace the perceived clout of the NRA, I might just maintain my membership but not do anything else to help. I will probably transfer my help (as small as it is) to another organizaation in the hopes it can grow to be as powerful as the NRA.
So, to answer your fair and honest question, I haven't yet discussed this with my family. I will have to at some point. Thanks for asking.0 -
You should consider finding another place to shoot.. Supporting them inany capacity is like handing the brady bunch monthly fees... 0 -
Fair enough, Fox.
May I suggest, at this juncture, that you go back and re-read the information that Pickenup has compiled ?
As one progresses thru life, much as a traveled trail, ofttimes one gains a different perspective from different places on that trail.0 -
In regards to the addition I made to my orginal post (at the top of this topic) I am sure now many here will scream that tr fox got fooled once again by the NRA and those here know so much better and will happily remain NRA bashers and haters of people like me who still support the NRA.
That is fine, but if those people don't use the two articles involved in this topic post and actually use reason, common sense and comparsion of facts to try and explain/prove their position (like I have done) then they are just blindly hating the NRA.0 -
WOW, 2 days, I am almost surprised that you lasted THAT long.
Back trying to defend the NRA already. [V]
If you write to 10 different people, divided fairly, you will get 10 different answers. Half advocating this action, half against. I have read quite a few "opinions" from BOTH sides, have you read anything that isn't posted here?
I read from a number of sources that the NRA wants a "neutral" ruling from the court. If McDonald actually won, it could REALLY hurt the NRA's scare tactics for fund raising.
It's all about the money, where have I heard that before?
*******
You said in your post in General Discussion....
"note that the article is not from a gun rights organization and has no apparent connection to the NRA."
Maybe you should do some research. These 2 organizations have been patting each others backs for a while. Oops, that's right YOU DON'T DO RESEARCH. You have stated more than once, that to do anything like that (to actually look up facts) would take up too much of your valuable time. As I asked before, have you read anything concerning this case, that isn't posted here, or was sent to you?
*******
No where in your article does it mention that the lawyers representing McDonald include Alan Gura. The lead lawyer that argued the Heller case. I wonder why? It also doesn't say that Paul Clement was the lead lawyer AGAINST Gura. Again, I wonder why?
It also doesn't say that when Clement filed a brief in the Heller case, he argued that the D.C. handgun ban ...... was not necessarily unconstitutional........
Clement also said....
....we take the position, as we have consistently since 2001, that the
Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional....
(and)
....Nothing in the Second Amendment - calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms....
Ya right, this is the person that I want arguing FOR my rights.........NOT [:(!]
Considering what Clement FILED IN A COURT OF LAW ---- HIS BELIEFS, the proven anti-gun record of the NRA, and the fact that they are now working together. The fact that they BOTH had a hand in the Heller case.....BOTH ON THE WRONG SIDE, Now you want us to believe that, by some miracle, this union between them is going to be good for our rights????
Amazing.
We are back to square one. [V]0 -
Welllll, he sounds just exactly like the kind of lawyer the NRA would embrace with both arms. Invite the wolf in, let's have a sit down with the sheep. 0 -
If the NRA had not intervened in the McDonald vs Chicago lawsuit, the court would have had to have heard the case and decided it based on the 14th Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment. All of us gun owners are more interested in preserving the 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun rights. So I would think that gun owners would we happy that the NRA did intervene in the lawsuit as it might very well save our gun rights.
But of course if anyone is one of those here who feel that if the NRA does something, then it was wrong and if the NRA doesn't do anything then that was also wrong, then those people are sure to disagree .Just like when the NRA tried to act against the Heller vs Washington D.C. lawsuit saying that Washington, D.C. was violating the US Constitution by not allowing citizens to possess firearms. The NRA said that particular lawsuit could actually cause problems even if we won. Of course, we DID win and everyone here did not like that decision, but that is another story.
Anyway, the NRA did not want the Washington, D.C. lawsuit to proceed because it felt that even a win decision in our favor would leave confusion about the issue. Such confusion as whether or not our win decision only meant the federal government now had to treat gun ownership as an individual right instead of a government right. Meaning that the states could still ban gun ownership by individuals. Which is what happened because that is the position that Chicago took on the issue and is the reason for the McDonald lawsuit.
Another reason the NRA opposed the Washington, D.C. lawsuit is because it felt that a win for gun owners would only help gun owners who lived in a federal enclave. The only federal enclave I know of is Washington, D.C. Reason being that Washington, D.C. is not a city, state or county. It is a federal enclave created by Congress. And the anti-gun crowd is claiming exactly that in still trying to limit our gun rights. They are claiming that the SCOTUS ruling saying that gun rights are indeed an individual right only applies to federal enclaves. Which means it only applies to Washington, D.C.
But even at that, after the NRA tried to stop the Heller vs Washington, D.C. lawsuit from moving forward, and the NRA realized it could not stop it, the NRA joined in the lawsuit and spent time, money, effort and lawyers helping to work to be sure that we gun owners got the best out of the decision that we could hope for.
Course, all of the above means nothing to the NRA haters here, but I thought I would take the time to post it in the hopes there is one or two of you that might still have a functioning brain cell or two.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If the NRA had not intervened in the McDonald vs Chicago lawsuit, the court would have had to have heard the case and decided it based on the 14th Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment. All of us gun owners are more interested in preserving the 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun rights. So I would think that gun owners would we happy that the NRA did intervene in the lawsuit as it might very well save our gun rights.
At what point has NRA supported "Shall Not Be Infringed"?
But of course if anyone is one of those here who feel that if the NRA does something, then it was wrong and if the NRA doesn't do anything then that was also wrong, then those people are sure to disagree .Just like when the NRA tried to act against the Heller vs Washington D.C. lawsuit saying that Washington, D.C. was violating the US Constitution by not allowing citizens to possess firearms. The NRA said that particular lawsuit could actually cause problems even if we won. Of course, we DID win and everyone here did not like that decision, but that is another story.
NRA as a gun rights organization is wrong. Sports, training, safety, certification great. When they get involved compromise is the game. Rights should not be compromised.
Anyway, the NRA did not want the Washington, D.C. lawsuit to proceed because it felt that even a win decision in our favor would leave confusion about the issue. Such confusion as whether or not our win decision only meant the federal government now had to treat gun ownership as an individual right instead of a government right. Meaning that the states could still ban gun ownership by individuals. Which is what happened because that is the position that Chicago took on the issue and is the reason for the McDonald lawsuit.
Heller case should have been expanded to entire country and should have been about "Shall Not Be Infringed". SCOTUS was not going to allow that, and those involved wanted to do something, even though it was a somewhat hollow victory.
Didn't know Chitcago was a state.
Another reason the NRA opposed the Washington, D.C. lawsuit is because it felt that a win for gun owners would only help gun owners who lived in a federal enclave. The only federal enclave I know of is Washington, D.C. Reason being that Washington, D.C. is not a city, state or county. It is a federal enclave created by Congress. And the anti-gun crowd is claiming exactly that in still trying to limit our gun rights. They are claiming that the SCOTUS ruling saying that gun rights are indeed an individual right only applies to federal enclaves. Which means it only applies to Washington, D.C.
So you would think they would have already tried to get a better case before the SCOTUS.
But even at that, after the NRA tried to stop the Heller vs Washington, D.C. lawsuit from moving forward, and the NRA realized it could not stop it, the NRA joined in the lawsuit and spent time, money, effort and lawyers helping to work to be sure that we gun owners got the best out of the decision that we could hope for.
They didn't want to miss the boat in attempt to claim credit.
Course, all of the above means nothing to the NRA haters here, but I thought I would take the time to post it in the hopes there is one or two of you that might still have a functioning brain cell or two.
Why does NRA encourage the compromise of gun rights?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments