NRA Support of Gun Control? C&P
There have been some recent posts relative to the history of "compromise" and/or support of gun control by the NRA. The below is a long read, but worth the time. Use it as a basis for your own research and make up your own mind.
Lt
_______________________________________________________
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
(This page was copied in its entirety off of Keep and Bear Amrs. Original Page can be found here).
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/(Former) Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term " NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record - to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did - and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
KeepAndBearArms.com - The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" - elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman - NRA's premier magazine, then and now - and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." -American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later - decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch - a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service - another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has - over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder - their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source )
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these
terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
Many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
Lt
_______________________________________________________
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
(This page was copied in its entirety off of Keep and Bear Amrs. Original Page can be found here).
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/(Former) Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term " NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record - to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did - and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
KeepAndBearArms.com - The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" - elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman - NRA's premier magazine, then and now - and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." -American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later - decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch - a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service - another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has - over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder - their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source )
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these
terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
Many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by lt496
There have been some recent posts relative to the history of "compromise" and/or support of gun control by the NRA. The below is a long read, but worth the time. Use it as a basis for your own research and make up your own mind.
Lt
_______________________________________________________
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
(This page was copied in its entirety off of Keep and Bear Amrs. Original Page can be found here).
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/(Former) Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term " NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record - to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did - and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
KeepAndBearArms.com - The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" - elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman - NRA's premier magazine, then and now - and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." -American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later - decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch - a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service - another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has - over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder - their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source )
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
-American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these
terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
Many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
ok then0 -
And thats why we like GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, they're no ice cream NRA'ers 0 -
Lets live in the here and now. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
Lets live in the here and now.
Is the NRA's efforts to sabotage the Parker case recent enought for you?
God forbid a gun law be overturned as unconstitutional......the NRA might not get as much money. After all, they have to pay for those Africa safaris somehow.....[V]0 -
logic would say that had a law been overturned the NRA would get more money to support its cause. Efforts are then rewarded. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
logic would say that had a law been overturned the NRA would get more money to support its cause. Efforts are then rewarded.
If the law was overturned in the court, the NRA wouldn't be needed to lobby congress to overturn the law....
Less money comes into the NRA, more money goes into organizations seeking litigation.....Wayne can't go on Safari as much
Also note: Word is getting out that the NRA is trying to wreck Parker.....Just like Zumbo, this won't be forgotten0 -
The 'here and now " ???
Okay...20,000+++ gun laws..
Time for a new plan...just MY opinion....
The classic defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over..expecting diferent results.
You'all keep sending in those dollars...'ya hear ?0 -
I see you point, but I still have an opinion that any effort is better than none and in fact if you do not like it you can join or create your own organization and make decisions that effect this issue far greater than discrediting another organization; however it is important for you to understand others views just as much as your own. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chrishiher
I see you point, but I still have an opinion that any effort is better than none and in fact if you do not like it you can join or create your own organization and make decisions that effect this issue far greater than discrediting another organization; however it is important for you to understand others views just as much as your own.
No one is discrediting the NRA, they have been doing a fine job of that themselves. The issue is, that most people are under a false impression of them and their ACTUAL activities in the "fight to retain and protect" firearms.
This is called "getting an education". Go in with your eyes open. Join and/or support if you wish, but do not perpetrate a myth, or false impression, of the organization. I, for one, would love to see the NRA change into what they purport to be.
Speaking for myself, I am a Life Member of NRA. I went into it as a somewhat ignorant, "thinking I was doing "something " to fight gun-control", type of guy.
Over the years, I have seen many disturbing actions taken at all levels of government that awakened me to a much larger agenda, that of civilian disarmament. Again, I felt that being in the NRA was the proper thing to do to fight this encroachment on my freedoms. This was in addition to, writing and calling my elected representatives, continuing my education of specific pro and anti-gun groups, politicians, various and sundry anti-gun agendas and the overall threat to the US Constitution.
Then I began to see the real action, not the words, of the NRA as contrasted by some of the newer, but hardcore gun-rights organizations.
I will not renounce my NRA membership, because it is already paid for and I can exercise my NRA voting rights to try to improve the leadership, doubtful that will ever happen, but worth the effort nonetheless. It seems as if they have been working some agenda, along with the gun-ban crowd, for more years than I have been alive.
Gradual encroachments, continual compromise, gradual weakening of Amendment II, all facilitated by a willing NRA. Sorry if you don't like the facts, but "it is what it is", period.
I have however, committed my efforts, my support and my money to organizations that are actually fighting to stop and/or repeal unconstitutional gun laws. This certainly does NOT include the NRA. I became a life member of GOA and am doing the same with the JPFO soon.
I honestly think that the best we, as citizens, can do, is to become "hard" men and women. By this I mean to loudly, publicly and with ZERO compromise, confront EVERY incident of infringement of ANY of the Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment II. This should be in ALL situations, be they public, or private. The Bill of Rights is the yardstick by which all government actions and activities should be measured, period. Be vocal, let no bad action, or proposed action, pass. Spread the word and the philosophy with no fear and no hesitation.0 -
Folks don't buy into the claims by distractors. Their agenda is clear!
The NRA has done 95 % good stuff and 5 % mistakes. They are not the "God" of the pro-gun movement. They work with Congress to make sure the least damaging bills are passed and in that way many times they get their way and hold off the continued onslaught of gun graber bills.
I wonder about folks on this forum that pick out a few mistakes that are made and turn it into a NRA agenda. This is a twist of the truth similar to the work that the Democratic Liberal system is working on us now and has for many years.
I see no posting about the success of the NRA which number 1000 to 1 to the issues that you hang your hat on.
The Parker Case: I have not seen any proof that the NRA has blocked that action. But I do know that they have been waiting for the court to be complete with justices that will vote in favor of the second amendment. To take a case to the Supreme Court of the land that is not a strong case that stands a chance to win could put us behind the eight ball if a ruling comes down in favor of the anti-gun crowd. Then that ruling becomes the law of the land and we are screwed. Wayne L. has stated in public that he is behind the Parker Case to be taken to the Supreme Court.
To spin a negiative pictue of the NRA has but one purpose in my opinion, to embolden that enemy and strengthen the anti-gun crowd. The NRA is the only gun in our arsonal at present with any clout! So what is your real intent?????
If you are truly pro-gun then join other groups, there are many. Form your own group. But to blow up the NRA at this time is like Nancy Polosi going to Syria and cuddling up with the enemy in the middle of the war. How cool is that?
The NRA is in battle on many fronts as we speak, many court cases, all in our favor. None of them are to restrict gun ownership!
We need Unity now not fragmentation of our pro-gun forces.
I hope others on this forum step up to the plate and see this for what is really is!!0 -
sig: I have posted all the evidence you'll ever need about the Parker case several times.....would you like me to do so again? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
sig: I have posted all the evidence you'll ever need about the Parker case several times.....would you like me to do so again?
Yes I would like to read it again. I have a letter in mind for Mr Wayne L. and would like to include comments about that case.
I still think its necessary to focus on the big picture and dig yourself out of the details.0 -
I see Angel didn't include in her article, that the "Uniform Machinegun Act" which provided for registration of machine guns, was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby clearing an ever widening path for further infringements. The NRA has supported "most" major gun control bills that has been introduced and passed since 1934.
A clear agenda? You bet.
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME then I want to know what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the issue. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where no one is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable? Why not?
Am I advocating withdrawing your membership from the NRA...NO. Work within the system to CHANGE it, if you don't agree with what they are doing. VOTE the bad guys OUT. VOTE the good guys IN, if they do NOT agree with the current administration. People (members) NEED to wake up.
Many are afraid to post anything detrimental to the NRA, knowing they will be chastised, criticized, and accused of being anti-gun. Simply because they point out the TRUTH??? Keep in mine, that you CAN'T FIX IT, if you DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN.
Only problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do may be irreversible. Example, take a look at the current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "a good portion" of them enacted.
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. But I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights too, shouldn't you be watching too?0 -
Isn't this kind of like blaming a politician for mistakes that were caused by the previous administration? I'm sure the NRA is not pleased with the actions some of their predecessors have taken.
I'm sure they would love to start over with a clean slate, just like our government would love to start their finances over with a clean slate, but the past is past.
Surely they would admit that they've made some bad decisions. But how many times have we only had the option of the lesser evil? They would not be able to 'negotiate' anything if they didn't have some window dressing.
If a union puts their foot down and demands 50% raises (zero gun laws), on the spot for all, or they're going on strike, what's going to happen? Answer: NOTHING! Only the situation will get worse for the workers (gun owners) because they will go from making money (having guns) to being out of a job (disarmed completely) because the employer (govt.) wouldn't/ couldn't (because of whiny liberals) meet the demands. So the union becomes useless.
Despite how angry some of us may be about how they haven't done enough, the fact remains....
The NRA to Pelosi is like holy water to the possessed. Just as they have no clue about firearms, they have no clue that the NRA is weaker than the membership would like them to be or what they actually are. The NRA gets blamed for a lot of bills not passing over the years. Without them we would be much worse off by now. They have done a lot more good than bad.
How about if the people don't want gun control, we don't vote the gd politicians into office in the first place?
The people are the ones, bi-anually giving the NRA an uphill battle.
How do people like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton retain their jobs year after year? Beyond the gun control issue, these are not outstanding people. Are the opponents that bad?0 -
How does garbage stay in office ?
One is left with the only logical answer. The "Quality" of the voters obviously leaves MUCH to be desired.
As pointed out above by a rather thoughful individual;(Thanks,LT.)
I honestly think that the best we, as citizens, can do, is to become "hard" men and women. By this I mean to loudly, publicly and with ZERO compromise, confront EVERY incident of infringement of ANY of the Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment II. This should be in ALL situations, be they public, or private. The Bill of Rights is the yardstick by which all government actions and activities should be measured, period. Be vocal, let no bad action, or proposed action, pass. Spread the word and the philosophy with no fear and no hesitation.
READ these words... allow them to become PART of you..allow the Spirit of the Founders to once again flow in your veins...and you will SPIT on most of the 'gun organizations' out there today.0 -
Great idea, HB.
Let's ALL spit on gun rights organizations and see where THAT gets us.
According to you, no NRA is better than the NRA we have.
I've emailed this thread to Wayne, let's see what HE thinks of all your assertions.
I'll post his reply when it arrives.0 -
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm
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.0 -
I'm a proud member of the NRA ! The principle is fairly simple. You may belong or not. If a few here thinks they are going to change anybodys mind, me don't think that's going to happen. [8D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by BT3
I'm a proud member of the NRA ! The principle is fairly simple. You may belong or not. If a few here thinks they are going to change anybodys mind, me don't think that's going to happen. [8D]
Who is trying to change you mind?
My only intent is for NRA Members to be aware of the facts, not what are purported to be the facts.
I for one, would love to see the NRA become a "hard" Pro-Constitution group. I encourage you and others, who seem to have a "NRA Herd" mentality, to educate yourselves in the reality of the organization and to at least be honest about the organizations actions, past and present.
Work from within to change it, if that so suits you. If not, keep grazing with your fellow beasts.[;)]0 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
Folks don't buy into the claims by distractors. Their agenda is clear!
The NRA has done 95 % good stuff and 5 % mistakes. They are not the "God" of the pro-gun movement. They work with Congress to make sure the least damaging bills are passed and in that way many times they get their way and hold off the continued onslaught of gun graber bills.
I wonder about folks on this forum that pick out a few mistakes that are made and turn it into a NRA agenda. This is a twist of the truth similar to the work that the Democratic Liberal system is working on us now and has for many years.
I see no posting about the success of the NRA which number 1000 to 1 to the issues that you hang your hat on.
The Parker Case: I have not seen any proof that the NRA has blocked that action. But I do know that they have been waiting for the court to be complete with justices that will vote in favor of the second amendment. To take a case to the Supreme Court of the land that is not a strong case that stands a chance to win could put us behind the eight ball if a ruling comes down in favor of the anti-gun crowd. Then that ruling becomes the law of the land and we are screwed. Wayne L. has stated in public that he is behind the Parker Case to be taken to the Supreme Court.
To spin a negiative pictue of the NRA has but one purpose in my opinion, to embolden that enemy and strengthen the anti-gun crowd. The NRA is the only gun in our arsonal at present with any clout! So what is your real intent?????
If you are truly pro-gun then join other groups, there are many. Form your own group. But to blow up the NRA at this time is like Nancy Polosi going to Syria and cuddling up with the enemy in the middle of the war. How cool is that?
The NRA is in battle on many fronts as we speak, many court cases, all in our favor. None of them are to restrict gun ownership!
We need Unity now not fragmentation of our pro-gun forces.
I hope others on this forum step up to the plate and see this for what is really is!!
What is it "really"???
Many of the assertions above, are just plain incorrect and seem to have been pulled out of someone's proverbial a ss. Seems like nothing but an emotional response to the subject and to the possibility that the NRA may actually support gun control.
Remember, an infringement is an infringement, a restriction is a restriction and Amendment II says what it says and all that superfluous rhetoric and nonsense.
It's kind of like finding out your wife has been sleeping around, isn't it?.
None of this is a personal attack on anyone, so don't get all shook up, it is just information, to use, or not to use, as you see fit.
The hyperbole is mildly amusing.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Geez James, don't actually show anyone the evidence for God's sake!
Heck, with actual hard proof, we may have somebody eat their gun or something, due to the massive realization and resultant shock.
We keep this up and the next thing you know, someone will actually open their eyes or some such crazy thing like that.[:D][:o)][;)]0 -
I'm a member of the NRA. Have been since January 1966. As I remember it, and this is just my memory so it could be wrong, back in the early 1970s there was an open rebellion in the NRA against the leadership. The membership took over the NRA and did an about face on legislative matters. It appears they (we) have slid in the other direction in recent years, but having an NRA is better than not having an NRA. Without the NRA, I believe today's generation would be telling their friends that their grandfather could remember when private ownership of firearms was legal. 0 -
About 1977, Neal Knox initiated the Cinncinatti Reforms...and took the NRA into hardball politics.
They demanded no more gun control...and roll-backs of existing gun laws.
There were no more back room deals made with politicians..
The old guard bumped Knox in the mid-eighties...but it took another ten years for them to retake the NRA..there was still " Jack-Booted Thugs" in the mid-ninties.
Shortly thereafter, the nra went back to what it does best....advising the government as to what gun control they can support today.0 -
Unless you contribute a whole lot of money for waynes african safarias, don't hold your breath waiting on a reply.quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
Great idea, HB.
Let's ALL spit on gun rights organizations and see where THAT gets us.
According to you, no NRA is better than the NRA we have.
I've emailed this thread to Wayne, let's see what HE thinks of all your assertions.
I'll post his reply when it arrives.0 -
quote:Originally posted by gunnut505
I've emailed this thread to Wayne, let's see what HE thinks of all your assertions.
I'll post his reply when it arrives.0 -
I like this statement:
Quote:
I honestly think that the best we, as citizens, can do, is to become "hard" men and women. By this I mean to loudly, publicly and with ZERO compromise, confront EVERY incident of infringement of ANY of the Bill of Rights, particularly Amendment II. This should be in ALL situations, be they public, or private. The Bill of Rights is the yardstick by which all government actions and activities should be measured, period. Be vocal, let no bad action, or proposed action, pass. Spread the word and the philosophy with no fear and no hesitation.
I agree with this completely and that reflects my stance about gun laws and infringments on the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.
Problem is................I don't know if you all have noticed or not. Congress and the President don't seem to be reacting to what the majortiy of Americas citizens beleive and scream about. Something is amiss in DC folks and the big cities of this nation. They don't care what we think, they appear to be marching to the orders of a different agenda!! Both Parties Folks!
Immigration is an issue to point to. Gun ownership is another! We have a big problem and it will take a big organization to take them to task in the media. The media will not listen to us or print our opinions. They distort the truth and hunt for subjects to interview that will support their position. We have a march to socialism underway now that is difficult to confront.
It will take, what we are not willing to do to change this trend. A big massive protest the like Government has never seen. We will never do that as gun owners until our rights are gone.
So you have to hire a big gun to take them out into the street for a showdown. I don't care who the gunfighter is but you better wake up and hire someone quickly to do your bidding or the fight will be over in the back halls of Congress.
I took the easy way out and hired the biggest gun in the country, the NRA. I know they are afraid to confront the Congress head on by themselves but if they have a big Possie behind them they will be fearless. I am only semi-smart and I figured this out on my own, so give it some thought my friends, and hire someone to fight your battle.
Your feeble attempts to handle it on your own will be like trying to pull your own teeth. You may get it done eventually but it will be bloody and you won't look good in the mirror!0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
They don't care what we think, they appear to be marching to the orders of a different agenda!! Both Parties Folks!
Ain't that the truth. [:(!][:(!][:(!]0 -
ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON WHY THE nra REFUSES TO FILE A LAW SUIT????? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
29 comments