IMACLONE...
I saw where you stated that the NRA has publically stated their support for the 2007 AWB...Do you have a source or link to back up this information???? If so, I think it's absolutely critical to get this info out to as many gun owners as we can...
0
-
Saw the NRA comments the first part of this week.
Looking to find it & will link it back.
I dont kid around on statements like that, too much is at stake.
Walte
Sorry took so long, was leaving out from work to home, now at home.
THIS IS REALLY LONG!!!!
Here goes..
Here is the comments from 3 sites on the NRA that I found that relate to the AWB both the 1994 & 2007 versions.
http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2004/04/28/yet_more_on_the_nra_bush.html
Yet more on the NRA & Bush
Greg of The Hobbesian Conservative took issue with my take on the Chris Cox speech at the NRA convention. He did so in the comments to that post & in a post of his own. Clayton Cramer weighed in in part over at his place. I'll attempt to cover their objections in the extended entry.
First, from the comments to my post on Cox's speech:
"I'll probably regret asking this, but what is the problem with the NRA?
Sure, they're not a 'no compromise' group like GOA, but we are talking about Washington DC here-- if you don't compromise a little, you don't get any of what you want. The NRA is willing to settle for some of the pie, while groups like the GOA make desperate lunges for the whole pie, and end up without crumbs-- that's why I let my GOA membership lapse."
This is inaccurate. The NRA doesn't just compromise a little in order to protect the rest of our Rights; they compromise quite a bit in order to protect their own interests. They support candidates when a more pro-gun candidate is running against them in order to serve their interests - not those of gun owners. They support gun control legislation despite said legislation being unconstitutional. They call for the strict enforcement of these unconstitutional laws & all too often they oppose truly pro-gun legislation.
So it's not a case of the NRA compromising a little because it's necessary in D.C. & elsewhere - it's that their interests are too often contrary to the interests of gun owners.
The no compromise groups such as the GOA & local & regional groups often lose not because their position is so extreme that it lacks any support, but that the NRA &/or its state affiliates actively oppose them. Fights in various states for Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry are the most obvious examples, but there are others.
"They don't advocate for the immediate repeal of all firearms laws, mainly because there's no way it will ever happen. And if the NRA took up that position, they'd end up as marginalized as the GOA is, and then there'd be nothing standing in the way of future laws but a ragtag group of organizations boasting of how well they lose on principle."
Nope. The reason the NRA doesn't advocate the repeal of all gun laws is that they like some of the gun laws (if not most) that are on the books. Hell, they helped write a good portion of them. It has nothing to do with it being a fruitless move - it's that they like some gun control laws & therefore wouldn't want them repealed. But if they did take that position (repealing all unconstitutional gun control laws) they wouldn't be as marginalized as the GOA seems to be mainly because they wouldn't have to fight the gun control lobby as well as the largest "pro" gun lobby at the same time.
"Like it or not, the NRA is your standard bearer as well as mine. They have more members, more money and more juice than any other organization out there. By weakening them, you're hurting all of us."
& whether you like it or not, the NRA is not my standard bearer. I don't approve of prior restraint based gun control laws that conflict with the constitution. They do. It'd be akin to stating as fact that PETA is the standard bearer of vegetarians (which is absurd because many people have no problem with hunting or the use of fur but they prefer not to eat meat) because both seem opposed to the cruel treatment of animals.
The NRA is bigger & more influential than the other groups out there, but it's their direction, not their size, that I take issue with. As far as hurting the NRA equates to hurting all gun owners I couldn't disagree more.
First of all I would like to see the NRA change & actually become pro-gun in more than reputation amongst the anti-gunners. But barring that I would prefer them to go back to being a hunting & shooting sports oriented organization. That is something they're good at & have been good at for some time. But calling the NRA on their oatmeal does not hurt gun owners - unless you're of the opinion that gun owners as a whole would rather see gun control laws that violate their Rights continue to be passed & strictly enforced. But then it's an argument over what is best for gun owners in terms of ideology as opposed to strategy.
"And why? Because they won't waste money to take a case they have no chance of winning before the supreme court? Because they killed the Protection of Lawful Commerce act to prevent the Clinton 'Assault weapons' ban from being renewed? Because they endorse G.W. Bush's imperfect gun rights record over John Kerry's gun-grab record?"
The reason they don't back cases that they think will lose isn't because they fear it will hurt our cause; it's because they like to have good stats. They back candidates with less than stellar gun records over truly pro-gun candidates simply so they can say that their record is in the high 80's when it comes to winning elections for their candidates. Ditto with court cases, albeit with a twist: the NRA would love to be able to say they have a very high success rate in court cases, but the thing that complicates things is that they don't want to win some court cases. They approve of most federal gun control laws, remember? It wouldn't be in the NRA's interests to have those laws, some of which they wrote, overturned now would it?
& I have no doubt in my mind that the no-compromise orgs & disgruntled NRA members were the deciding factor in the NRA pushing to kill the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act at the last minute. If it'd been ten years ago & the no-compromise groups weren't as well known, or the internet wasn't chock full of pro-gun message boards, news sites & blogs, then we'd have been listening to the NRA tell us they were sure they could have stripped off the nasty provisions in committee but they were betrayed which is why we have a renewed AWB & a heinous gun show law to deal with.
2nd ARTICLE:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/search?q=gun+show+loophole
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
2008 Elections and the Assault Weapon Ban
Is H.R. 1022 (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) a trial balloon, or is it a serious effort by the Dems to launch a new AWB? A nod to the trial balloon folks would be the fact that this bill currently has no co-sponsors. If it were a serious piece of legislation, the Dems would be crawling all over each other to get their names on it. I wonder why they would need to send up a trial balloon. The Dems have the majority in both the House and the Senate, plus they have a president who stated that he would sign an AWB if it crossed his desk. As I see it, there is no need for trial balloons, unless of course this is not the legislation that they intend to pass.
H.R. 1022 is another time limited law. It would only be in effect for 10 years. It is probable that this bill will not get any traction with the Dems because it is not permanent. H.R. 1022 also includes a grandfather clause which would exempt firearms owned prior to the ban going into effect. The anti's don't want to just ban new "evil black rifles", they want to take them all.
So maybe the "real" AWB will not be introduced until after the 2008 elections. How would our front-runner GOP candidates react to Evil Black Rifle restrictions crossing their desks in the Oval Office? Can we count upon them to stand up for our rights?
How about Giuliani? Where does he stand on gun control, supposed assault weapons in particular?
"We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons..."
"The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up."
"Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues."
"I'm in favor of gun control."
I don't know, it sure looks like Rudy would be advocating for some very restrictive gun control if he were at the helm.
Okay, let's look at Mitt Romney, where does he stand?
Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Geez, isn't this the same guy who had his picture taken at SHOT Show 2007 with Wayne LaPierre? Maybe Wayne was just trying to convert him, yeah, that's the ticket...
Last, but not least of the front runners is John McCain.
On the plus side, John McCain voted against the original AWB and it's renewal. He also voted against the Brady Bill. On the negative side McCain authored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. I understand that he has come out against inexpensive firearms but is for concealed carry.
The best I can say for McCain is that he is wishy washy at best on gun control issues.
I am not a one issue voter, there are quite a few issues that are very important to me. This is basically a gun blog, so I am looking at these folks from a RKBA view. You can learn a lot about a candidate by looking at his views on the Second Amendment. If a politician can easily dismiss the Second Amendment, what does that say about his or her attitude about the entire Bill of Rights? If a politician feels that the populace can not be entrusted with firearms, what else will they take away "for our own good"?
These are the contenders according to the news media and major pundits, are any of them acceptable to you?
Hat tip to Irons in the Fire for Giuliani quotes,
iBerkshires.com for the Mitt Romney article,
and OnTheIssues for information on John McCain.
Posted by JR at 12:59 PM 5 comments Links to this post
The Federal Assault on Our Weapons
After it was obvious that Nancy Pelosi was to be our new majority leader in the House, I penned the commentary "Consequences of Yesterday's Elections ". My opinion at the time was that with the Democrats back in power, there would be a push for a new Assault Weapon Ban and then they would propose legislation to close the imaginary "Gun Show Loophole". It turns out I was wrong, they went after the Gun Show Loophole first. Michael Castle of Delaware introduced H.R. 96, the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 in January. It took Carolyn McCarthy all the way to mid February to get H.R. 1022 introduced.
H.R. 1022 is the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. This bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee. Others mentioned that an AWB would not be proposed until after 2008. Now that one has been introduced, I have seen it stated that the Dems are just testing the waters, that it is just a trial balloon. H.R. 1022 is in committee, so it is serious.
These past couple of days have seen firearm owners and advocates band together and strike against a Quisling in our own ranks. We need to put forth even more effort in getting these two pieces of anti gun legislation stopped in their tracks. Even if H.R. 1022 is just a "trial balloon", we should do everything we can to deflate that balloon right now, we need to keep it from gaining any altitude at all.
Contact your congress critter and let them know that you are opposed to both H.R. 96 and H.R. 1022. Write the members of the House Judiciary Committee and inform them that an AWB has no effect on violent crime and that H.B. 1022 should not be allowed to reach the House Floor. Write letters to the editor of your local papers speaking out against H.B. 96 and H.B. 1022. Fight for your rights, and the rights of your children (I had to throw in a "do it for the children" quote, seems to work so well for the anti's). There is a cultural war going on in America and on Capitol Hill, it is a war between freedom and servitude. It is a soft war that must be fought with the same fervor and intensity as any battlefield conflict.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Closing the "Gun Show Loophole"
The gun show loophole
The anti's have done a very good job of introducing that nonsensical phrase into the American psyche. That phrase is meaningless, a false representation, and basically a lie. There is no such thing as a "Gun show loophole". Firearm transactions at gun shows are regulated by the same local, state and federal laws as any other firearm transaction in that locale. There is no special pass related to gun shows that allows you to purchase a firearm outside of the laws of the state.
The anti's, with the willing help of the media, are effective at spreading propaganda. Just ask a couple of your friends and acquaintances about the "Gun show loophole" and see what they say. There is now this belief that anyone can go to gun shows and purchase any firearm they desire without .gov regulation. This belief is, of course, wrong.
Along with the propaganda assault, comes the legislation.
On the federal level, House Bill H.R. 96 has been introduced by Representative Michael Castle of Delaware. H.R. 96 has three co-sponsors and is titled "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007". This is a horrendous bill which must be stopped. The purpose of this bill is not to close an imaginary loophole, but to put a stop to gun shows, period. Passage of this bill would make operating a gun show a paperwork and criminal liability nightmare. H.R. 96 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
On the local level, here in Texas we have HB 594 submitted by Yvonne Davis. Yvonne Davis is the same anti who submitted HB 595 which I commented upon here. HB 594 is titled "An act Relating to the creation of certain offenses concerning firearm sales at gun shows." HB 594 has no co-sponsors and no real support in Austin. I doubt that this bill will even be debated, this time.
Neither one of these bills are new. Legislation such as this has been introduced before, and has failed. The problem is that each time legislation like this gets introduced, it gets a little bit more support. The Texas bill will fail this time around. I am not so sure about the federal one. I would hope it never makes it out of committee.
If there is no such thing as a gun show loophole, why are the anti's and the politicians pushing so hard to enact anti-gun show legislation?
Well....
If the answer you came up with has anything to do with criminals and illegal guns, then you have been influenced by the anti's propaganda machine. The Bureau of Justice Statistics performed a study in 2001 that determined that less than 1% of firearms owned by criminals were purchased at gun shows. Of the ones that were purchased at the gun shows, the majority were not purchased by the criminal, but by a friend or relative (straw purchases, already against the law). Gun shows are not major sources of firearms for criminals. The politicians know this, even the anti's know this, they have the same reports and facts that we do. So then why are they so determined to close gun shows?
The answer is a simple one, closing down gun shows will have a major negative effect upon the firearm industry and more importantly, the gun culture in the United States. Gun shows are a place to meet and interact with other like minded individuals, to learn about new products, and enjoy a bit of history. Most folks that attend a gun show don't purchase a firearm. I have attempted to get stats from local promoters on what percentage of attendees actually purchase a firearm, I will let you know when I hear back from them.
Gun shows are where most of us get a chance to see and handle the new products that are advertised in the gun magazines and at SHOT Show. I am interested in several of the new products that were introduced at this years SHOT Show and it will not be long before they are all available at one of the local larger gun shows. It would take several days of traveling from one gun shop to the next to check out all of these new products, and I would still probably not be able to see the wide array of historical firearms that are available at a good gun show.
It used to be that just about every department and hardware store had a gun department. Firearms were just a normal part of life. Now finding a gun section in a hardware store is the exception rather than the rule, guns have disappeared from the everyday life of most individuals, and the sale of firearms is no longer considered to be "normal". Taking someone who is not familiar with firearms to a gun show allows them to see the wide variety of individuals who attend. At a gun show you will find people from every background, culture and economic level, drawn together by one interest... firearms.
If the anti's succeed in this attempt to close down gun shows, it will be another major coup. We will lose a lot more than just a place to go and buy firearms, we will lose a bit of our heritage and tradition as gun owners. We will lose access to new products and our ability to make informed decisions concerning new purchases will be restricted. We will lose one avenue of disseminating and discussing information relating to gun laws and other political issues important to gun owners. Grass roots organizations will have a harder time recruiting members and volunteers. Gun shows bring together all aspects of the gun culture, the hunters, target shooters, collectors, police and military. Closing down gun shows will give the anti's better leverage in driving wedges between these different groups of firearm enthusiasts and make further gun control easier to accomplish.
It is very important that we put a stop to legislation such as this. Call, write and fax your congress critter and let them know that legislation meant to curtail the business of operating gun shows will not be tolerated. Inform them of the facts concerning criminals and firearms (that the vast majority of firearms owned by criminals are either stolen or purchased on the black market), and that their time would be better spent focusing on the criminal, not the tool.
A couple of related articles from the NRA/ILA:
Gun Shows: An American Tradition
Fables, Myths & Other Tall Tales; FABLE XV: A gun show "loophole" exists that allows many criminals and terrorists to purchase guns.
Posted by JR at 9:12 AM 2 comments Links to this post
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Consequences of Yesterday's Elections
Well, it is the day after Election Day, and Nancy Pelosi is our new Majority Leader in the House. The Senate is still up for grabs, but that point is moot. There are plenty enough RINO's in the Senate to swing the vote to the Democrats every time. There is a lot of talk on the internet about what this means for Republicans and for the country. If you are interested in that discussion, check out some of the "Blogs I Read" on the sidebar. There are some very smart people there that go into great detail on what will be the results of this election.
This, my friends is primarily a gun blog that occasionally delves into First Amendment and other Constitutional issues. But first and foremost, it is a gun blog.
So what does having a Democrat controlled Congress, and an Administration lead by President Bush mean to gun owners?
Here are my thoughts:
1. I expect to see a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban coming down the pike fairly quickly. The Democrats were not happy to see the sunset of the AWB, and they will be quick to try and get it back on the books. During his first campaign, President Bush promised to sign the AWB if it came across his desk. I fully expect him to keep that promise and sign a new AWB.
2. Next on the list will be closing the "Gun Show Loop Hole". Now we all know that there is no such thing as a "gun show loop hole", but that phrase has made it into the psyche of the American public. Even though all gun shows follow all state and federal firearm laws, they have been vilified by the press and the anti gunners. They want gun shows closed, period. Expect this to become a big issue, we will see calls for a national waiting period on all firearms sales, and a requirement that all firearms sales go through a licensed FFL dealer.
3. The Brady Bunch are chomping at the bit to get started on more "Common-Sense Gun Laws". You know, the above mentioned AWB and waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and most importantly, a National Firearms Registry for all handguns. They are feeling pretty bold at the moment, and have lots of support in the legislature. Just remember which California city Nancy Pelosi represents. From the Brady website:
Candidates supporting a common sense approach to gun violence prevention did very well. In races where the Brady Campaign endorsed candidates went head-to-head with competing candidates endorsed by the NRA, Brady won 5 of 5 Governorships (Patrick in MA, O'Malley in MD, Rendell in PA, Doyle in WI, and Blagojevich in IL) and 4 of 4 U.S. Senate seats (Cardin in MD, Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in MI, and Nelson in FL). Candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign won over 95% of their races.
4. If an Assault Weapons Ban slides through easily, and they close the "gun show" loophole, expect the idea of taxing ammunition out of existence to re-emerge. I really doubt that this will happen while Bush is President, but it will be on the back burner waiting for an opportune moment to raise its ugly head once again.
This is what I fully expect to see coming down the pike from a Democrat led Congress. They might try to add restrictions to what they consider arsenals, but I do not think it will happen in the near future. I do not have much hope in the President using his veto pen on much of this legislation either. We have made some good gains these past few years, but I am afraid that they are just temporary.
Gun Owners of America has a slightly different take on the consequences of this election, you can read it here.
3RD ARTICLE:
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf
You have to follow the above link, as the document is in PDF.format. And Iam unable to C&P it.
From the above information, it leads me to belive that the NRA will compromise, again, and will endorse the AWB of 2007.
As their history shows from the 1994 AWB compromise, and the orginal AWB being passed.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
1 comment