Email from GOA vs NRA
In an effort to honestly present both sides of this issue I have C&P an email I received from GOA and below that an answer from the NRA. Read them both and make up your own mind.
An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Thursday, October 4, 2007
It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in
anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about
NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe,
would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun
movement.
Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board
member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid
consultant for the NRA.
So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our
wonderful friends who are NRA members.
In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked
with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from
McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun
liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."
But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have
now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes
of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe
that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies
which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.
Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye
shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to
produce much pro-gun legislation.
Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has
vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would
rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which
have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It
would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans'
most private medical records to the federal instant check system
without a court order.
But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without
hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a
roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in
the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or
floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good
legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call
vote or debate in committee?
Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own
membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its
heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.
Understand this:
* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun
control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for
the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already,
the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this
"victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.
* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA
victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA
staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex.
Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first
major gun control measure in over a decade."
* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations
dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them
unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT
"maintaining the status quo."
* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed
because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited
from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already
such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason
why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT
LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer.
It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has
blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability"
provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid
version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard
to destroy.
Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the
cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits
whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing
funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so
much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than
rewarded.
We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a
battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing
McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.
And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this
letter and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.
Sincerely,
Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman
Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel
An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Thursday, October 4, 2007
It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in
anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about
NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe,
would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun
movement.
Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board
member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid
consultant for the NRA.
So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our
wonderful friends who are NRA members.
In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked
with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from
McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun
liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."
But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have
now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes
of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe
that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies
which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.
Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye
shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to
produce much pro-gun legislation.
Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has
vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would
rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which
have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It
would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans'
most private medical records to the federal instant check system
without a court order.
But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without
hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a
roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in
the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or
floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good
legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call
vote or debate in committee?
Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own
membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its
heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.
Understand this:
* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun
control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for
the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already,
the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this
"victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.
* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA
victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA
staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex.
Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first
major gun control measure in over a decade."
* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations
dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them
unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT
"maintaining the status quo."
* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed
because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited
from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already
such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason
why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT
LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer.
It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has
blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability"
provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid
version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard
to destroy.
Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the
cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits
whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing
funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so
much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than
rewarded.
We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a
battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing
McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.
And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this
letter and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.
Sincerely,
Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman
Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel
0
-
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 40 10/05/07
THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL: MYTH AND REALITY
Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.
The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.
MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."
FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons." The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.
Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.
MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."
FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.
Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website www.vawatchdog.org) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics." Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh.)
Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.
MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."
FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."
Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."
They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position. In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions." Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.
Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.
MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.
FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms. NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.
MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark."
FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation. The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.
Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.
Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMagazines/HR 2640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.
MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.
FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.
Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.
MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program.
FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill. The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health. BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.
MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.
FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea. NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.
MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call."
FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote. This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)
After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.0 -
Thanks for posting both sides, Fox.
After the NRA's:
1) Attempt to bring down the Parker case
and
2) This "deal with the devil" legislation with Chuck Schumer
I can no longer in good concience provide them with any money or support.
These moves by the NRA are only serving to drive a wedge in the membership. I was a member for years before I let it lapse....I joined again under persuasion from you, Fox. I let it lapse following the Parker case. I will not renew it unless drastic changes are made.
The NRA's transformation has sadly paralled the transformation of the Republican party......both are now merely "light" versions of what they once stood against.0 -
HOW IN THE WORLD DID YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THE NRA TRIED TO BRING DOWN THE PARKER CASE?
From what I have read the NRA has strongly supported this case as it moved through the courts and now anxiously awaits what the NRA hopes will be a favorable ruling from the Roberts-led Supreme Court. I have never, until you just wrote it, heard anyone suggest the NRA tried to stop this case. Where do you get this notion?0 -
*sigh*
I've posted this article about 6 times.....
Robert Levy is the man behind Parker, by the way
Battle of the gun ban
By Robert A. Levy/Gene Healy
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
*sigh*
I've posted this article about 6 times.....
Robert Levy is the man behind Parker, by the way
Battle of the gun ban
By Robert A. Levy/Gene Healy
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.
I am not saying here that the NRA is right or wrong. But I have a personal opinion about betting the ranch (gun rights) on a single case before the US Supreme court. It is a given that if we gunners win then we have won big. But if we lose, and we could lose, we have lost everything.
Things are going pretty well for the majority of Americas gun owners what with CCW legislation, stand your ground legislation, preemption of city laws sticter than state laws, experation of Clinton's so called assault weapons ban, protection for gun manufacturers act, etc. I would almost be happy to see such success with legislation continue rather than risk a train wreck of a single supreme court decision.
One reason for my feeling is that as citizen's gun rights become more and more free and more accepted by the general population, when a gun owning citizen encounters the law or the courts in time gun owners will find that they are getting a better and better reception. Where in the past gun owners often got a hostile reception. This change of attitude among the general public will filter up to various courts (US Supreme Court, etc) and if and when the final decision is made on the 2A, it is more likely we gunners will win. Plus, it is possible that the US Supreme court will become more and more conservative in the following years and that would also give us a better chance of winning in court.
Long story short, with the general attitude (public, politicians, courts, etc) at present we are kinda facing what a family man gambler at the craps table might face. Say he has been betting small and winning. His wife comes by, sees how well things are going and urges family man to bet EVERYTHING (all the money, car, house, etc) on the next roll. Some people here would go for that bet (kinda like asking the Supreme court to make an all or nothing gun rights decision) but in my case if the game is going pretty well for me I don't want to play "all or nothing". It might be that is how the NRA feels.0 -
Fox, the assumption that if we lose Parker "we lose everything" is silly.
If they decide against us, nothing will change. Anti-gun folks have been operating as if there was no 2nd Amendment to begin with for years. If we lose, Pro-gun types will still fight gun control in the state and federal legislatures. A decision against us won't mean JBTs start rounding up gun owners across America, it just means we can't claim gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.
Look at Abortion, which is currently constitutionally protected. If Roe v Wade was overturned tomorrow, it doesn't mean abortion is now illegal...it just means abortion is no longer protected and subject to the whims of lawmakers. Abortion would continue to be protected in some areas and outlawed in others.
A win for us is huge...because we can then start rolling back laws. The Bradys know this....they are screaming it to the high heavens. If we lose, nothing changes except the terms of the debate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Fox, the assumption that if we lose Parker "we lose everything" is silly.
If they decide against us, nothing will change. Anti-gun folks have been operating as if there was no 2nd Amendment to begin with for years. If we lose, Pro-gun types will still fight gun control in the state and federal legislatures. A decision against us won't mean JBTs start rounding up gun owners across America, it just means we can't claim gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.
Look at Abortion, which is currently constitutionally protected. If Roe v Wade was overturned tomorrow, it doesn't mean abortion is now illegal...it just means abortion is no longer protected and subject to the whims of lawmakers. Abortion would continue to be protected in some areas and outlawed in others.
A win for us is huge...because we can then start rolling back laws. The Bradys know this....they are screaming it to the high heavens. If we lose, nothing changes except the terms of the debate.
You already know I disagree, but I thank you for taking the time to read my unintentioal long post. I believe that a large part of the reason we gun people have not been disarmed, as in England, Australia, Japan, etc. is mostly, or even solely, because of the US 2A. And to a lessor degree, the various states that have the equivelent of the US 2A in their state constitution. If those 2A's are ever ruled to toally not to apply to citizens I believe that our gun rights will be gone in two years.0 -
The 2nd Ammendment, as it stands right now, is protecting no one.
It hasn't stopped the bans in D.C., Chicago, New York, ect. It hasn't stopped the "assault rifle ban" in any form.
When have lawmakers killed a gun bill because of its infringment upon the Constitution? The antis are still going to be antis and, most importantly, the pro-gunners are still going to be pro-gun
If the court rules that gun ownership isn't protected, its not like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell are going to suddenly say "I guess we were wrong. Mr and Mrs America, turn 'em in!"0 -
By any chance was the timing on the NRA advising holding off before the confirmation of Roberts and Alito? I recall some discussion before they joined the court of stalling until these (presumably) gun-friendly judges were on the bench. If it was before the confirmations that the NRA was advising to wait then it makes sense. But I DO NOT believe for one moment that the NRA is opposed to parker being heard or winning a ruling from the court.
Oh, BTW a great big *SIGH* to all the misrepresentations from groups opposed to the NRA. I have read these messages from these people and I find them filled with half-truths and questionable "facts" that some take as gospel because they are predisposed to believe anything against the NRA.
From what I have seen the NRA has been pushing hard for Parker to move forward and anticipates victory. I have seen nothing to shake this belief. I think some people are so blinded by their hatred for the NRA they have gone over the edge.0 -
Roberts and Alito were both on the bench prior to this. So much for that theory.....
Wanting to believe the NRA is "pushing hard for Parker to move forward" doesn't make it so....0 -
I do not hate or bash the NRA, No one asked me if i supported joining forces with Kennedy, Shulmer,and the rest of the anti gun people. i am as i have said several times a Life Member.i believe in the 2nd ammendment. I just think the High Up suits are wrong supporting this gun control bill HR 2640 and i have contacted my Senators on this issue. I am getting tired of having to contact my congressman, and Senators about gun control legislation it seems almost every day. If a magic wand could be waved and all mental cases would pop up it would be great, but until all firearms are banned they are not going to stop. if this bill passes will speeders, or jay walkers be next? 0 -
I've said it once and I'll say it again. I won't join the GOA because they spend so much of their time and their membership dollars trying to bring down the NRA who is responsible for spearheading such important legislation in so many states such as the Castle Doctrine.
Their little "letter" begins with a tired old conniving and deceitful approach to the issue.
"Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board
member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid
consultant for the NRA.
So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our
wonderful friends who are NRA members."
While the facts may be true, the use of the facts to generate a certain sentiment is deceitful and is an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. It sounds like the talk show seminar callers. "I'm a staunch conservative republican who voted for Bush twice but Bush just did (fill in the blank) and it's the last straw. I'm voting Democrat now." The GOA's opening lines in this so-called "open letter" (so disgustingly cliche by now--almost as cliche as their seminar caller approach to the letter itself) are so transparent to the discerning eye that it's insulting to one's intelligence.
They're doing nothing more with this letter than creating a house divided in order to capture membership market share. This is dishonest and I can't believe it's not apparent to more people.0 -
CCW's. Castile Doctrines.Projects Exiles..PROTECTION FOR MANUFACTURERS ACT.....
EVERY ONE admiting to the government that there indeed is NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...unless codified into law, regulated by government, and taxed.
You blind, arrogant NRA supporters keep right on cheering our Rights into oblivion.
I could go along with your position MUCH better..if you would put forth a clear statement. That being:
" I do not support the Second Amendment as written..but DO support the Second as REWRITTEN by the NRA and the Federal Government"
See..if you did that..they would be no confusion any more in the minds of those undecided on their stand on the Constitution.
You NRA supporters weaken the Second every time you open your mouths.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
CCW's. Castile Doctrines.Projects Exiles..PROTECTION FOR MANUFACTURERS ACT.....
EVERY ONE admiting to the government that there indeed is NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...unless codified into law, regulated by government, and taxed.
You blind, arrogant NRA supporters keep right on cheering our Rights into oblivion.
I could go along with your position MUCH better..if you would put forth a clear statement. That being:
" I do not support the Second Amendment as written..but DO support the Second as REWRITTEN by the NRA and the Federal Government"
See..if you did that..they would be no confusion any more in the minds of those undecided on their stand on the Constitution.
You NRA supporters weaken the Second every time you open your mouths.
Highball I've quietly read your posts for around four years. I never say much if anything because there is truth to what you say BUT by and large it is always how wrong "we" are with nothing contributed to making things "right". How can you have such clarity about our foolishness and our blindness and our desire to bind together and rarely offer any remedy that will work better than what we are trying to do? I respect your insight but you frustrate me with "what I perceive", as a lack of genuine help.0 -
It's not just wishing. I have gone back and reviewed public statements regarding Parker from and about the NRA and there is no doubt at all that the NRA has supported the Parker case from the beginning and continues to do so.
I think the critics are so hateful towards the NRA that everything gets characterized as sell-out. It seems that some people feel that so much as a discussion with politicians about gun laws equals a sell-out by the NRA and enrages them. I have read the the statements from GoA and others and I find them lacking in merit.
And I am now officially OUT of this debate. It's pointless.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
The 2nd Ammendment, as it stands right now, is protecting no one.
It hasn't stopped the bans in D.C., Chicago, New York, ect. It hasn't stopped the "assault rifle ban" in any form.
When have lawmakers killed a gun bill because of its infringment upon the Constitution? The antis are still going to be antis and, most importantly, the pro-gunners are still going to be pro-gun
If the court rules that gun ownership isn't protected, its not like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell are going to suddenly say "I guess we were wrong. Mr and Mrs America, turn 'em in!"
I believe that powerful politicians like Diane Feinstein have not gone full bore for full gun confistication because she/they know such actions would lead to a case being heard by the US Supreme Court. A case that the anti-gunners might lose because, among other reasons, the existance of the 2A in the US Constitution as well as some state consitutions.
So with the 2A gone, out-lawing guns would appear to be no different than severly restricting/outlawing any other product.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
It's not just wishing. I have gone back and reviewed public statements regarding Parker from and about the NRA and there is no doubt at all that the NRA has supported the Parker case from the beginning and continues to do so.
I think the critics are so hateful towards the NRA that everything gets characterized as sell-out. It seems that some people feel that so much as a discussion with politicians about gun laws equals a sell-out by the NRA and enrages them. I have read the the statements from GoA and others and I find them lacking in merit.
And I am now officially OUT of this debate. It's pointless.
Many NRA critics, right here on GB.com. are mindlessly hateful. They always complain about how the NRA won't take any/enough action to help with gun rights or the "suits" at the NRA only want your dues so the "suits" can live large, and on and on and on. I guess the NRA critics here would be happier if the "suits" changed into ragged overalls, wear a straw hat, when addressing Congress, etc. Yet when the "suits" use a large chunk of NRA dues to file a major lawsuit trying to advance gun rights, now the NRA critics are no longer able to claim the "suits" won't do anything for gun rights and won't spend NRA money to advance gun rights.
So of course to still have something to complain about regarding the NRA, they now claim that the actions taken by the "suits" were the wrong actions. This attitude is especially odd when coming from , just for example, GOA supporters. Unless I am mistaken, I don't believe the GOA has contributed any time or money towards any gun rights lawsuit anywhere .
I bet the rabid NRA critics would resent having a boss that treated them the way they treat the NRA. First their boss would claim that they don't do enough. Then when they DID do something their boss would claim they did it in the wrong way.
It would almost be funny if it wasn't so serious.0 -
Diane Feinstein hasn't pushed for full confiscation because she doesn't have the votes to pull it off...She has stated that.
She's not sitting up there on Capital Hill hemming and hawing over pushing the gun issue because she sees some higher duty to the Constitution. Her action, or lack therof, will be based on her perception of the political ramifications of action for her party.....Right now a gun ban would be a death blow for her party, she knows that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Diane Feinstein hasn't pushed for full confiscation because she doesn't have the votes to pull it off...She has stated that.
She's not sitting up there on Capital Hill hemming and hawing over pushing the gun issue because she sees some higher duty to the Constitution. Her action, or lack therof, will be based on her perception of the political ramifications of action for her party.....Right now a gun ban would be a death blow for her party, she knows that.
If the real or imagined gun rights protection offered by the US 2A and various state constitutions suddenly disappeared, Feinstein would suddenly have many more votes in favor of firearm confiscation. Probably enough votes to actually do the gun confiscation. This is especially true with the present Democratic controlled Congress and in the near future a probable Democratic president.
But here is a question for you. You seem to indicate that the 2A is basically worthless in regard to protecting our gun rights. So why do so many of us pro-gun people even bother to mention the 2A when defending our rights to own guns?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If the real or imagined gun rights protection offered by the US 2A and various state constitutions suddenly disappeared, Feinstein would suddenly have many more votes in favor of firearm confiscation.
Fox, this is absurd. You don't honestly believe there is going to be a sea-change in public (and political) opinion based on a court decision do you? Look at abortion....If Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow, Feinstein and Boxer wouldn't become card-carrying pro-lifers. Even though Abortion is currently "constitutional protected" we still have some of the most brutal political fights over it.
A loss for us does give the antis the upper-hand, but the fight doesn't end there....not by a long shot. The same can be said if we win
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
But here is a question for you. You seem to indicate that the 2A is basically worthless in regard to protecting our gun rights. So why do so many of us pro-gun people even bother to mention the 2A when defending our rights to own guns?
Only the naive think their rights are protected by a piece of paper. At the same time, knowing the rights that one has as a citizen of this country gives us a "moral high ground" that we wouldn't otherwise have. That high ground is our stake in the Parker fight and why it is vital to win it. It means we lose the means to seek redress in the judicial system when we feel our rights are being trampled.
That being said, we have MUCH more to gain than to lose in Parker.0 -
Claimitywood;
My position is quite clear..and been stated many times.
We have advanced down the road of tyranny entirely too far to 'Right' it by 'voting the rascals out'..or to fight each gun law one at a time.
They outnumber us...the Beast and its supporters. While you fight one gun law..they bury you with another 1000 laws designed to subjugate you...and I.
The answer.as I, one man, see it.is simple.
Withdraw from the cesspool of the political arena..stop the letters to the editor, the bucks sent to the `gun Rights' organizations.WITHDRAW.
ALLOW the garbage on the top to believe that they have won. ALLOW them their head..ALLOW them to pass a total gun ban.or some other freedom taking law that NO decent human being can live with.
Then decide if you are really an American..or a subject.
Decide NOW to no longer crawl on your bellies and beg politicians to `obey the Constitution" ...so there is a chance for your children to live in peace.in a free land.0 -
idsman wrote:
"They're doing nothing more with this letter than creating a house divided in order to capture membership market share. This is dishonest and I can't believe it's not apparent to more people."
+1
The agenda of the GOA comes through loud & clear in this letter. It is the election year the tactic of divide & conquer by causing dissention amongst the ranks. Makes me wonder just who they are actually working for and or against.
Trinity +++0 -
I think TrinityScrimshaw is correct. This does smell like election year politics. Should the NRA actually think a compromise is in order I will not renew either. That being said, the NRA has been leading the fight for many years and their defense of the decision seems to be legit. The issue seems muddy. The NRA seems to believe the bill actually defends the RTKBA the GOA believes the opposite to be true. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Claimitywood;
My position is quite clear..and been stated many times.
We have advanced down the road of tyranny entirely too far to 'Right' it by 'voting the rascals out'..or to fight each gun law one at a time.
They outnumber us...the Beast and its supporters. While you fight one gun law..they bury you with another 1000 laws designed to subjugate you...and I.
The answer.as I, one man, see it.is simple.
Withdraw from the cesspool of the political arena..stop the letters to the editor, the bucks sent to the `gun Rights' organizations.WITHDRAW.
ALLOW the garbage on the top to believe that they have won. ALLOW them their head..ALLOW them to pass a total gun ban.or some other freedom taking law that NO decent human being can live with.
Then decide if you are really an American..or a subject.
Decide NOW to no longer crawl on your bellies and beg politicians to `obey the Constitution" ...so there is a chance for your children to live in peace.in a free land.
You are correct. I have heard you say this before and I suppose it would be redundant to have to repeat yourself everytime a thread like this comes up. I just don't agree with your solution. Withdrawing is what I've seen other countries do and it hasn't helped their cause at all. I don't see things as bad as you paint them. For the 1st time in my life I can carry a firearm concealed leagally. For the 1st time since I have been old enough to purchase a handgun I don't have to go the the sheriff's office and purchase a permit and have my friends fill out a document attesting to my moral character before I could buy that handgun. Yes, these are rights that we should have had all along but the fact is we didn't. Maybe i'm foolish, maybe i'm blind but these things seem like victories to me. I believe you do have the courage to fight the fight you speak of but I don't believe there are enough like you to win the victory you expect. I certainly don't see it happening anywhere else in the world where people have just withdrawn.0 -
Clamitywood;
quote:I just don't agree with your solution. Withdrawing is what I've seen other countries do and Of course..and I understand completely.
Those other countries are NOT America...might I add, tho...nor are they the caliber of the American male.
As far as all those things you enumerate as being 'legal', now..well, understand that cowardice is the reason we didn't enjoy them previously..see, they were ALWAYS our RIGHT to enjoy...we as a people were just entirely to cowardly to force the power-mad Elites to admit it.
Now..it is codified into law that NOTHING is 'legal'..till the Elites say it is.
Net gain..negative numbers, in an order of magnitudes that will become more apparent as time goes o.0 -
quote:For the 1st time in my life I can carry a firearm concealed leagally. For the 1st time since I have been old enough to purchase a handgun I don't have to go the the sheriff's office and purchase a permit and have my friends fill out a document attesting to my moral character before I could buy that handgun.
You and every American carried these rights from the moment you were conceived. ("God given") Due to efforts of anti-gun rights folks, and compromisers, the govt. has turned it all into a revocable privelege, In their opinion.[:D] That changes nothing about the fact that you were born with a right granted by God almighty, unrevocable.
quote:I certainly don't see it happening anywhere else in the world
Is that a world you want to live in? There is only one reason for government to deny God given rights, only this time it's not just a country size scale they're after before they crack the whip and turn you into slaves of the state, it's global sized this time. So until all the dominos fall, they wait. What they are waiting on is the American domino to fall. All these namby pamby countries that have allowed their govt.'s to confiscate their guns, but have not yet been subjugated, have the American citizen to thank. Rest assured, if the victory comes over that last "citizen"(America), life as we have known it will cease. EU, NAU, AU, and no more guns to stop it? One Government of the elites, by the elites, and for the elites. What's stopping it? American "citizens". What's the difference between a citizen and a subject? The citizen is armed! I am afriad the vast majority out there still have that "it'll never happen to me" mentality going. All that requires is that you disregard what our government has been doing for the last seven years.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
26 comments