Look What The NRA Lawyers Did
San Francisco Gun Ban Ruled Null and Void
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals
Fairfax, VA - The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
"Today's decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco," declared Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation's most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City's mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.
"We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven't given up that fight," continued Cox. "Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City's attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court's first decision to overturn the ban. Now we've beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law."
Today's decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.
"This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion," concluded Cox. "I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms."
-nra-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals
Fairfax, VA - The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
"Today's decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco," declared Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation's most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City's mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.
"We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven't given up that fight," continued Cox. "Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City's attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court's first decision to overturn the ban. Now we've beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law."
Today's decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.
"This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion," concluded Cox. "I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms."
-nra-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
All this talk about the so-called veteran disarment bill, I have yet to hear about any veteran that has been unfairly "disarmed". When and if that starts happening I will join the choir and complain along with them.
We are going to hold you to that TR...what part of the Constitution do you NRA types not understand?
Oh, one more thing. The Second Amendment has existed as part of the US Constitutional Bill of rights, unchanged, for over 200 years. So your questions implies that "we NRA types" don't understand the constitution. Your position implies that therefore "you non-NRA types do understand the constitution. Yet over the years we gun people have lost a tremendous amount of gun rights.
So shouldn't we blame you and yours for that loss? Since you understand the constitution so well and all?
Your sacred NRA has actively worked to take those rights away...can't say that about the folks who understand the 2nd...
So you blame nobody but the NRA for our loss of gun rights over the years?
No...Rabid Liberals, who are intent on disarming America, do work with them...
So....Rabid liberals and the NRA have caused a tremendous loss of gun rights for us over the years? So what have you and the other "anti-NRA types" been doing to stop the NRA and the rabid liberals? Whatever is has been it doesn't seem to have been very successful BTW.0 -
TRFox...the NRA has a track record of over 100 years long, compromising our rights away. This is not some new thing...it's been going on for over 100 years. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
Speaking of other organizations, I have always wondered why the gun makers always seem to be absent from the gun rights battle. Or I have I missed something? This is in their best interest.
One of the best questions I have heard in a long time. I also have wondered. My hope is that the gun makers fund the pro-gun rights groups. It would be interesting to know how the gun makers feel about the NRA.0 -
TR,
There are other issues that they turned their back on gun owners, look at UPS and its requirement to ship handguns via air shipment, now the NRA touts it "grassroots activism" why did they not call for a boycott of UPS services? This occurred after the advent of the internet, if they had got behind it, UPS would be booting their thieving employees and you could still pay cheaper ground shipping.
Don0 -
Just one point here. I have often heard people complain about the NRA not helping indivdual gun owners or FFL holders. I myself, if I ever got into a situation with my gun, would not expect the NRA to help me. Just as the American Motorcycle Assn doesn't help indivdual motorcycle owners or dealers. Even though the AMA does lobby for motorcycle rights.
I have never read about the American Medical Association coming to town and helping an individual physician who got into trouble. Even though the AMA lobbies for medical professional rights.
I have never heard of the National Association of REALTORS coming to town to help any individual REALTOR (I used to be one). Even thought the NAR lobbies for real estate agents rights.
Most national organizations don't have the resources to help indivduals. They are lucky if they can help the organization as a whole.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
TR,
There are other issues that they turned their back on gun owners, look at UPS and its requirement to ship handguns via air shipment, now the NRA touts it "grassroots activism" why did they not call for a boycott of UPS services? This occurred after the advent of the internet, if they had got behind it, UPS would be booting their thieving employees and you could still pay cheaper ground shipping.
Don
That is a good question. If we gun owners kicked out the present executives in the NRA, and replaced them with ones to our liking, maybe we could turn the organization around.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
TR,
There are other issues that they turned their back on gun owners, look at UPS and its requirement to ship handguns via air shipment, now the NRA touts it "grassroots activism" why did they not call for a boycott of UPS services? This occurred after the advent of the internet, if they had got behind it, UPS would be booting their thieving employees and you could still pay cheaper ground shipping.
Don
That is a good question. If we gun owners kicked out the present executives in the NRA, and replaced them with ones to our liking, maybe we could turn the organization around.
TR,
That would be a start, I doubt wayne would allow it though.0 -
Hey, all you NRA haters. Wouldn't it give you more pleasure to be able to tell Wayne LaPierre and his flunkies "YOU'RE FIRED", than to just post your anger about the NRA here on GB.com? Well, if you get enough of your buddies to join the NRA (com'on, at $25.00 per year that is pocket change) and after 2 or 3 years you can vote for the board of directors. Organize your NRA haters groups, join the NRA, vote in your favored board of directors and then fire Wayne LaPierre.
What is not to like about that plan? Total cost to you= $75.00.
Then everybody is happy. (well, except for LaPierre)0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Hey, all you NRA haters. Wouldn't it give you more pleasure to be able to tell Wayne LaPierre and his flunkies "YOU'RE FIRED", than to just post your anger about the NRA here on GB.com? Well, if you get enough of your buddies to join the NRA (com'on, at $25.00 per year that is pocket change) and after 2 or 3 years you can vote for the board of directors. Organize your NRA haters groups, join the NRA, vote in your favored board of directors and then fire Wayne LaPierre.
What is not to like about that plan? Total cost to you= $75.00.
Then everybody is happy. (well, except for LaPierre)
Last I heard it was 5 years, unless they changed it.0 -
Pretty sure it is 3 years and then you can vote for board of directors. But even if 5 years, the total cost to you would only be $125.00 spread over 5 years and then you could "own" the NRA, lock, stock and barrel.
A hell of a good deal if you ask me.
Be a whole lot cheaper and quicker than trying to build another pro-gun organization, as big as the NRA, from the ground up.
This whole pro-anti NRA thing here on GB.com is to me kinda like this. Say a group of gun owners thinks that a family who lives in a large, luxurious mansion has been working against gun owners and gun rights. Many of the gun owners are urging that we burn the mansion down and run the residents out of town.
By contrast I am, and have been, saying "Lets run the residents out of town and move into the mansion ourselves."
Which is the better idea, because they are both possible regarding the NRA.0 -
quote:Originally posted by daveald
every step forward is a good step.
Yes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
TR wears NRA underwear. Don
On the outside of his pants...
Tactical.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Pretty sure it is 3 years and then you can vote for board of directors. But even if 5 years, the total cost to you would only be $125.00 spread over 5 years and then you could "own" the NRA, lock, stock and barrel.
A hell of a good deal if you ask me.
Be a whole lot cheaper and quicker than trying to build another pro-gun organization, as big as the NRA, from the ground up.
This whole pro-anti NRA thing here on GB.com is to me kinda like this. Say a group of gun owners thinks that a family who lives in a large, luxurious mansion has been working against gun owners and gun rights. Many of the gun owners are urging that we burn the mansion down and run the residents out of town.
By contrast I am, and have been, saying "Lets run the residents out of town and move into the mansion ourselves."
Which is the better idea, because they are both possible regarding the NRA.
TR,
How does one get to be on the ballot for a directors seat?0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Pretty sure it is 3 years and then you can vote for board of directors. But even if 5 years, the total cost to you would only be $125.00 spread over 5 years and then you could "own" the NRA, lock, stock and barrel.
A hell of a good deal if you ask me.
Be a whole lot cheaper and quicker than trying to build another pro-gun organization, as big as the NRA, from the ground up.
This whole pro-anti NRA thing here on GB.com is to me kinda like this. Say a group of gun owners thinks that a family who lives in a large, luxurious mansion has been working against gun owners and gun rights. Many of the gun owners are urging that we burn the mansion down and run the residents out of town.
By contrast I am, and have been, saying "Lets run the residents out of town and move into the mansion ourselves."
Which is the better idea, because they are both possible regarding the NRA.
TR,
How does one get to be on the ballot for a directors seat?
Ya got me there Don. It could be an easy, predictiable, simple and fair democratic process; or it could be an unfair,biased, tightly controlled process. I do not know which. If it is the latter, then my suggestion about taking back the NRA is worthless.0 -
"...the BATF called me and told me I would be prosuceted for federal perjury, being a NRA dealer"
Not sure how an FFL becomes affiliated with a gun-rights organization(NRA dealer-does this mean you sold memberships instead of guns?), or why Federal perjury would be any worse than what Clinton did during his presidency (slap on the wrist?); but it seems that anytime the NRA is mentioned as a force for good (repeal/overturn onerous gun law, present arguments to SCOTUS, get DC gun ban declared unconstitutional, etc.), many take the opportunity to point out that 100 years ago, the NRA didn't allow a groundhog shoot or some such trivial carping that apparently makes everything the NRA does EVIL.
NRA has almost NOTHING to do with FFL decisions, zoning laws, "community standards" laws, or anti-gun local politicians; so why are they responsible for covering each and every FFL's backside when they get a little grief from the regulating authority: the BATFE?
As far as I'm concerned; FFL's make enough money to afford their own attorneys to defend their livelihood and any other "assaults" made by anti-gun politicians. If they are satisfied that the NRA is such a bad deal for gun owners/buyers; why don't they start their own 4 million strong organization to fight for their rights? Maybe because the liberal locals have made enough inroads that they don't need any cohesive strategy, just badmouth the NRA, and everything will be OK!0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
"...the BATF called me and told me I would be prosuceted for federal perjury, being a NRA dealer"
Not sure how an FFL becomes affiliated with a gun-rights organization(NRA dealer-does this mean you sold memberships instead of guns?), or why Federal perjury would be any worse than what Clinton did during his presidency (slap on the wrist?); but it seems that anytime the NRA is mentioned as a force for good (repeal/overturn onerous gun law, present arguments to SCOTUS, get DC gun ban declared unconstitutional, etc.), many take the opportunity to point out that 100 years ago, the NRA didn't allow a groundhog shoot or some such trivial carping that apparently makes everything the NRA does EVIL.
NRA has almost NOTHING to do with FFL decisions, zoning laws, "community standards" laws, or anti-gun local politicians; so why are they responsible for covering each and every FFL's backside when they get a little grief from the regulating authority: the BATFE?
As far as I'm concerned; FFL's make enough money to afford their own attorneys to defend their livelihood and any other "assaults" made by anti-gun politicians. If they are satisfied that the NRA is such a bad deal for gun owners/buyers; why don't they start their own 4 million strong organization to fight for their rights? Maybe because the liberal locals have made enough inroads that they don't need any cohesive strategy, just badmouth the NRA, and everything will be OK!
Please send me the contact info for your dealer so I can forward your comments, I am sure he would love to charge you more.
0 -
TrFox has yet to explain exactly HOW this 'takeover' of the NRA is going to occur...when 95% of NRA members are very comfortable with gun control..as he is ?
We HAD a Neal Knox in there..a few years ago...and the gun controllers in the NRA rode him out of town on a rail...tarred and feathered.
As far as the latest case...congratulations. Even the Devil has to tell the truth and do right occasionaly..or there would be no defense at all for him by his followers.0 -
With all the criticism of the NRA...
What other group / organization was involved in this fight, or significantly represents our 2A rights? Maybe it could be done better - but who else is in the fight?0 -
quote:or significantly represents our 2A rights? Maybe it could be done better - but who else is in the fight?
Dig up the numerous threads dealing with the REAL actions of the NRA since 1935 before you get too deeply involved with defending them.
Contrary to the simple-minded statement that the" NRA refused to get involved in some blablabla"...find out the REAL truth.
From supporting the original NFA to the latest collaboration in the Veterans Disarmament Act.0 -
I wouldn't defend them for the world - but, same question, what group represents us better?
Maybe the best solution is to revitalize the NRA leadership?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:or significantly represents our 2A rights? Maybe it could be done better - but who else is in the fight?
Dig up the numerous threads dealing with the REAL actions of the NRA since 1935 before you get too deeply involved with defending them.
Contrary to the simple-minded statement that the" NRA refused to get involved in some blablabla"...find out the REAL truth.
From supporting the original NFA to the latest collaboration in the Veterans Disarmament Act.
Highball,
perhaps you should not insult those who are on your side.....
They are a pied piper, leading gun owners the wrong way.0 -
quote:Originally posted by MVP
The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country,
That's just so They can take it to the next level and waste more Tax Payer money fighting about what should be a non-issue.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lpaalp
I wouldn't defend them for the world - but, same question, what group represents us better?
Maybe the best solution is to revitalize the NRA leadership?
TR mentioned that also, I still wonder how one gets on the ballot for the board of directors?
Anybody know?....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TrFox has yet to explain exactly HOW this 'takeover' of the NRA is going to occur...when 95% of NRA members are very comfortable with gun control..as he is ?
We HAD a Neal Knox in there..a few years ago...and the gun controllers in the NRA rode him out of town on a rail...tarred and feathered.
As far as the latest case...congratulations. Even the Devil has to tell the truth and do right occasionaly..or there would be no defense at all for him by his followers.
You, who is anxious for a citizens armed rebellion against our government, cannot think of even the first steps to overthrow the present NRA leadership?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
TrFox has yet to explain exactly HOW this 'takeover' of the NRA is going to occur...when 95% of NRA members are very comfortable with gun control..as he is ?
We HAD a Neal Knox in there..a few years ago...and the gun controllers in the NRA rode him out of town on a rail...tarred and feathered.
As far as the latest case...congratulations. Even the Devil has to tell the truth and do right occasionaly..or there would be no defense at all for him by his followers.
Highbail, your comments do not logically add up. Perhaps a sign that your position you have taken is somewhat bogus.
In one sentence you basically claim that 95% of the NRA members like gun laws. You have accused me of that before.
Yet in another sentence you claim that the only reason the NRA ever has any success fighting gun laws (the S.F. gun ban for example) is that the NRA must also keep their "supporters" (read members).
Which is it?0 -
Dong;
I do not insult those understand the Constitution.
Once again;
quote:Maybe the best solution is to revitalize the NRA leadership?
As mentioned by TR; The NRA is much like the run for President..and can be changed the same way.
The Problem;
Massive ignorance by the voters..in the NRA....AND the U.S.A.
HOW DO YOU CHANGE THE LEADERSHIP when most voters BELIEVE in gun control ? Those leaders are IN there because they have been elected by people that accept without question the RIGHT of the Federal Government to limit and control firearms !!
There are THOUSANDS of people here on GB...yet in the 7 years on here I have seen only a dozen or so people change their minds about this problem.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Dong;
I do not insult those understand the Constitution.
Once again;
quote:Maybe the best solution is to revitalize the NRA leadership?
As mentioned by TR; The NRA is much like the run for President..and can be changed the same way.
The Problem;
Massive ignorance by the voters..in the NRA....AND the U.S.A.
HOW DO YOU CHANGE THE LEADERSHIP when most voters BELIEVE in gun control ? Those leaders are IN there because they have been elected by people that accept without question the RIGHT of the Federal Government to limit and control firearms !!
There are THOUSANDS of people here on GB...yet in the 7 years on here I have seen only a dozen or so people change their minds about this problem.
HB,
The things they don't do are just as important as the things they do.
The NRA could be a viable organazition if it had the proper leadership.
IIRC, you have to be nominated by the board to be put on the ballot to be elected to the board, that is why it is impossible to change it as it stands. all are lining their pockets at the members expense.0 -
TrFox; Never have I 'accused' you of being for gun laws.
You have stated on many occasions that you support Nics checks and waiting periods.
quote:In one sentence you basically claim that 95% of the NRA members like gun laws. You have accused me of that before.
Yet in another sentence you claim that the only reason the NRA ever has any success fighting gun laws (the S.F. gun ban for example) is that the NRA must also keep their "supporters" (read members
No problem at all. Even such as you will fall away from the NRA at some point in the gun controllers drive...even you will reach a 'gorge' point.
Some law...bought off on by the NRA..will be the line in the sand.
Your endless defense will crumble away much sooner if you don't get thrown a crumb, now and again.0 -
quote:TrFox has yet to explain exactly HOW this 'takeover' of the NRA is going to occur...when 95% of NRA members are very comfortable with gun control..as he is ?
...and herein lies the problem!0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Dong;
I do not insult those understand the Constitution.
Once again;
quote:Maybe the best solution is to revitalize the NRA leadership?
As mentioned by TR; The NRA is much like the run for President..and can be changed the same way.
The Problem;
Massive ignorance by the voters..in the NRA....AND the U.S.A.
HOW DO YOU CHANGE THE LEADERSHIP when most voters BELIEVE in gun control ? Those leaders are IN there because they have been elected by people that accept without question the RIGHT of the Federal Government to limit and control firearms !!
There are THOUSANDS of people here on GB...yet in the 7 years on here I have seen only a dozen or so people change their minds about this problem.
HB,
The things they don't do are just as important as the things they do.
The NRA could be a viable organazition if it had the proper leadership.
IIRC, you have to be nominated by the board to be put on the ballot to be elected to the board, that is why it is impossible to change it as it stands. all are lining their pockets at the members expense.
Valuable information in red above. I always kinda wondered how that worked. I still wonder if there might be an easier, alternate way to be able to run for board of directors. Otherwise it appears to be a "closed society". And I don't llike that.
Might be worth it to think about urging all NRA members to lobby the board of directors to change the bylaws so that a member can run for board simply by writing them in on the ballots. Although I wonder if the NRA makes it difficult to become a board member to keep out rabid, radical anti-gunners like Sarah Brady who could join, run for board and then her army of anti-gunners could proceed to take over the NRA?
If I ever have enough free time,(putting in bathtubs, etc. right now) I might check into this and see if there is an alternate, easy way to run for NRA board of directors. If there is not, then I will be facing a situation I cannot support. Because it would seem to me to be too elitist and un-democratic.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
65 comments