Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why did the NRA oppose "the most important Second Amendment court victory in a long, long time"?
The Agitator ^

Posted on 03/19/2007 2:25:43 PM PDT by AZRepublican

A three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals has thrown out the District of Columbia's gun ban, citing an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

Which means residents of D.C. may soon no longer need to result to wearing whistles to thwart off violent attacks.

The suit was filed by legal whiz (and Agitator reader) Alan Gura, and includes a few of my former colleagues at Cato, including the brilliant Bob Levy. Congratulations are in order all around. This is a huge ruling, one that could well facilitate a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gene Healy has more details. His comment about the NRA is worth repeating. The organization has fought this suit every step of the way. The question is, why?

The NRA has said it's because they don't think the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is right for a Second Amendment case. Maybe. But it is the most conservative court we've had in at least a generation. A less charitable explanation for the NRA's opposition may be that the organization didn't want a suit to go forward that didn't include its name.

Of course, now that the case has made history (I don't think that's an exaggeration), the organization has to explain to its members not only why the group wasn't behind the most important Second Amendment victory in a long, long time, but why they actively opposed it each step of the way.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2007 2:25:45 PM PDT by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too. If the Court does to the Second Amendment what Roe v. Wade did to the sanctity of life, the issue of confiscation will be immediately be on the table. Imagine a majority opinion written by Ginsburg-it would be the death knell of gun rights and the Constitution. The liberals would like nothing better than to test our 'from my cold dead fingers' resolve, if they could get armed BATF agents to do it for them.


2 posted on 03/19/2007 2:35:29 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

The NRA is a very powerful organization but they have a history of appeasement. IMO, they have encouraged the lefties tactic of incrementalism.

The NRA does good things of course but the GOA is less likely to compromise.


3 posted on 03/19/2007 2:36:43 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too.



Yes, but maybe it is better to just have it out now, instead of boiling the frog gradually.


4 posted on 03/19/2007 2:38:59 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
A less charitable explanation for the NRA's opposition may be that the organization didn't want a suit to go forward that didn't include its name.

I think that this is the most likely answer. And I have been a life member for over 20 yrs.

5 posted on 03/19/2007 2:44:14 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok
Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too

The time is now. If a 'Rat wins the Presidency in '08 - and after amnesty for illegals instantly creates tens of millions of new Democrat voters, it's a distinct possibility - we can expect to see 2 to 3 more Ruth B. Ginsberg clones on the Court in the not-too-distant future. We can't afford to take that risk.

6 posted on 03/19/2007 2:44:46 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

I hadn't realized this was the case, but I think you could argue it either way.

Give the NRA credit, it's doubtful that Al Gore would have been beaten in 2000 if not for the gun issue. That was certainly one of the things that tipped the balance. Democrats who ran that year as vociferous gun grabbers were creamed at the polls, and they've been a lot quieter and more careful ever since.

I'm more familiar with the ins and outs of the pro-life movement, and what that tells me is that in a major cultural war it takes all sorts of different organizations, each doing its own thing, to move the battle forward, from picketing to legislative pressure to education campaigns to billboard trucks driving around the country, to youth groups speaking on campuses.

Maybe both these organizations are right.


7 posted on 03/19/2007 2:47:12 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

ping for later


8 posted on 03/19/2007 2:47:27 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

I don't think the DC court gets overturned very often. They're not exactly the 9th circuit.


9 posted on 03/19/2007 2:50:10 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803399/posts


10 posted on 03/19/2007 2:54:04 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; All

Help correct my memory if I have this wrong. Isn't this the same supreme court that upheld gun owners rights against confiscation in LA after Katrina?


11 posted on 03/19/2007 2:56:45 PM PDT by Godzilla (If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
Interesting. Saying that the current SC is the "most conservative" in a generation does not necessarily mean that the court will line up in favor of the originalist Constitutional ruling. Are there any cases heard by this current SC (with Roberts and Alito) dealing with 2A issues that can provide some hint as to how they would rule?

All I know of Alito in this regard is his dissent in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); he questioned the Constitutionality of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, but *NOT* with respect to the Second Amendment - he made the case for his dissent ONLY on Commerce Clause grounds. Anything more recent (that is easier to read Alito on)???

Roberts...his two year prior federal judge history does lend much information. Jones v. Flowers was a major letdown, but is not necessarily relevant here.

Regardless, unless the NRA knows something that is not a matter of public record, I see no reason for having not supported this case.

12 posted on 03/19/2007 3:10:51 PM PDT by M203M4 (Ignorance of basic math underlies economic ignorance and helps fuel socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

I'll die in the process, but I won't be the only one going down.


13 posted on 03/19/2007 3:11:35 PM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; Shooter 2.5; Joe Brower; All
"Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal."

That's from page two of the decision. I thought AZRepublican wrote that he read the decision when he called it terrible on one of my earlier threads. This is just more slander against the NRA.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund was established by the NRA Board of Directors in 1978 to become involved in court cases establishing legal precedents in favor of gun owners.

14 posted on 03/19/2007 3:12:06 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

An even less charitable interpretation is that the NRA depends on the Brady bogeyman and the threat of future laws or confiscations to retain its membership, clout, and contributions. Many might have to find other jobs if a sweeping pro-2A SCOTUS decision were to come down.


15 posted on 03/19/2007 3:12:58 PM PDT by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Because the NRA doesn't believe we'll win a Supreme Court decision right now. They don't believe the current judges can read English anymore than some Freepers can.


16 posted on 03/19/2007 3:14:22 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Thanks for the link!


17 posted on 03/19/2007 3:14:30 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

It's been clear for quite some time that the NRA has been heavily infiltrated by Brady Bunchers.


18 posted on 03/19/2007 3:18:20 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; All

---anybody that trusts the Supreme Court should remember what it did with McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment--


19 posted on 03/19/2007 3:21:19 PM PDT by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

Exactly, and with Stevens on the way out, it would have been better to wait...unless of course we win!


20 posted on 03/19/2007 3:22:06 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

"The NRA does good things of course but the GOA is less likely to compromise."

You hit that one on the head! I've been telling people that exact statement.


21 posted on 03/19/2007 3:22:22 PM PDT by jjones9853
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
That's bullshit. The Board of Directors are listed on the web and you can check their credentials.
22 posted on 03/19/2007 3:23:14 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Funny that this article just got posted. I was looking at the documents under "Consolidation / Recusal / Disqualification Dispute" at http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm and sent some unfriendly messages to the NRA and Stephen Halbrook for trying to subvert and undermine the case.


23 posted on 03/19/2007 3:25:51 PM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjones9853; driftdiver

Except for the fact the GOA doesn't do anything. Find a single thing they have ever done on their own. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committee have better records than than the GOA.


24 posted on 03/19/2007 3:26:26 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Spok

Right, little to gain, much to loose by letting the court decide. I had to jump through some hoops, but right now I can carry concealed, own a variety of handguns, rifles and shotguns, and basically enjoy the intended rights of the 2nd amendment. If they mess with it, that could all end up on the table, or worse, use any decision to make things much worse. Even a favorable ruling probably won't give blanket access to machine guns and .50s, so going back to the SC seems like a risk.


25 posted on 03/19/2007 3:29:59 PM PDT by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
The Board of Directors are listed on the web and you can check their credentials.

But you cant ask them: Your papers, please. ;-)

26 posted on 03/19/2007 3:32:20 PM PDT by lowbridge ("Of course Americans should vote Democrat" -Jihad Jaara, senior member, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

"The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committee have better records than than the GOA."

SAF is a good organization. I don't know much about the other.

My point was that the NRA is powerful but they are supporting the incrementalism. The laws never seem to swing back the other way. Its always inching towards the socialist dream of a total gun ban.


27 posted on 03/19/2007 3:34:50 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Except for the fact the GOA doesn't do anything. Find a single thing they have ever done on their own. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen's Committee have better records than than the GOA.

At least the GOA sent out alerts about the Lautenberg Abomonation before it passed.

28 posted on 03/19/2007 3:40:53 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Spok

The 1st amendment is already crippled with Campaign Finance Reform and the USSC's decision that it is Constitutional. There is the Eminent Domain decision by the USSC. Then there is Roe v Wade. The 2nd is pretty much all we have left. Without 1 and 2 or any right to property or life, the rest of it is not particularly significant. NRA might just be right.


29 posted on 03/19/2007 3:41:28 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think you're on to something here. It's interesting a website says the NRA tried to block the lawsuit but in further reading, find they lent support to the lawsuit.
It's also interesting the original poster doesn't agree with the decision.


30 posted on 03/19/2007 3:41:48 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

They only worked with what they had. The NRA doesn't manufacture Congressional or Senatorial votes. We have been losing for the last forty years and it never helped to go against a bunch of brain dead, union voting, dem voting deer hunters who never believed daddy's shotgun would be threatened.


31 posted on 03/19/2007 3:45:25 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

"NRA might just be right."

That's why I said it might be the end of the Constitution. There's precious little left once all of the exceptions and 'nuances' have been applied.


32 posted on 03/19/2007 3:48:17 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

You do make a good point.The future ain't looking so rosie for a number of our rights when we look at the shifting demographics here in the US. Problem is there's still a LOT of lib's on the SCOTUS !!!


33 posted on 03/19/2007 3:49:29 PM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

There may be a legal reason that the NRA is opposed to this.

Odd logic. For 70 years, the Justice Department supported the idea that the 2nd Amendment applied to organizations, not individuals. Now at first, this benefited the gun controllers in outlawing several weapons. However, over time, the pro-gun forces turned this idea on its head, in essence saying "Because the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias", the government is limited in how "well regulated" individual gun ownership could be.

But then, George W. Bush ordered the Justice Department to change their stance, and to say that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual rights.

AT THAT TIME, the NRA came out and was apprehensive, because they were afraid that if the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment was applied, it would be interpreted in the courts as "any restrictions the government wants it can have."

That is, you can have a gun, but you can't use it, keep it on your property or on your person, can be heavily licensed and registered, etc., ad nauseum. All part of "regulation".

Now this sounds weird, as if the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights would be utterly corrupted into a gun control and prohibition act, but stranger things have happened.

But push has come to shove, and now we get to find out, in a pretty irrevocable way, what the SCOTUS thinks. But that may not be the end of it.

Even if it is a "win" for gun rights, immediately the gun control organizations lawyers will try to use the "well regulated" angle to create a gun control regime. In the long run, then, winning might be losing.


34 posted on 03/19/2007 3:51:38 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
It that is true, and I'm not saying it is because I haven't read the context of their remarks, then what is the NRA's problem?
35 posted on 03/19/2007 3:52:06 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5

"We have been losing for the last forty years and it never helped to go against a bunch of brain dead, union voting, dem voting deer hunters who never believed daddy's shotgun would be threatened."

Thats a good point. Many people don't believe the dems would ever ban their hunting rifle.

However I think now is the time to push back the laws that have been put in place over the last 20 years. All we are doing now is slowly losing our rights.


36 posted on 03/19/2007 4:01:06 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
My point was that the NRA is powerful but they are supporting the incrementalism. The laws never seem to swing back the other way. Its always inching towards the socialist dream of a total gun ban.

The NRA was instrumental in the FOPA of 1986 that undid the worst of the 1968 GCA. They were instrumental in passing shall-issue CCW in two dozen states. For that matter, They compromise more than I wish they did, but don't discount the real progress that has been made in some directions.

37 posted on 03/19/2007 4:09:05 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Shooter 2.5; Joe Brower

Interesting, the NRA's amicus curiae states: "The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund did not file an amicus auria brief in the district court."


38 posted on 03/19/2007 4:09:41 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

I'd really like to see us have one more justice before this goes to SCOTUS. Right now we have 4 that should be on our side and maybe we can pull it off, but I really don't want to bet my gun rights on all 4 of the conservative justices voting for us and one of the liberal ones crossing over to our side. For the most part our justices are young and healthy and theirs are sick and old. We have 2 more years of Bush and we very well might win again in 2008. Time is on our side. Sooner or later this will have to go to the SCOTUS, but I'd rather it waited a couple more years.


39 posted on 03/19/2007 4:10:46 PM PDT by elmer fudd (Fukoku kyohei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
---anybody that trusts the Supreme Court should remember what it did with McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment--

and the stupid unconstitutional eminent domain decision.

40 posted on 03/19/2007 4:12:52 PM PDT by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

That's as much of a stretch as saying the 2nd amendment is only for hunting


41 posted on 03/19/2007 4:25:39 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
The NRA was instrumental in the FOPA of 1986 that undid the worst of the 1968 GCA.


The FOPA is more notable because it is the most egregious infringement of our RKBA ever, banning all modern machine guns made after that date.

And what it undid were innocuous things like ammo sales records keeping, and risks to a few traveling hunters. It did not undo the rules keeping militia-useful arms from ever being registered and transferable.

Hopefully, what the NRA passed might be overturned by the Parker principle (if upheld by SCOTUS).
42 posted on 03/19/2007 4:42:48 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
The FOPA is more notable because it is the most egregious infringement of our RKBA ever, banning all modern machine guns made after that date.

The machinegun ban portion of that bill was inserted by Charlie Rangel and William Hughes in a questionable voice vote when most of the chamber had gone home for the night. It wasn't a NRA compromise, it was Democrat abuse of procedure.

43 posted on 03/19/2007 4:53:43 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; AZRepublican; Everybody
neverdem wrote:

AZRepublican wrote that he read the decision when he called it terrible on one of my earlier threads. This is just more slander against the NRA.

The NRA has made a lot of mistakes worthy of criticisum. But to slander the US Constitutions clear intent protect our individual right to keep & bear arms.. -- To say that only States can protect that right. -- that sticks in my craw.

AZRepublican insists:

"-- It's a militia amendment, not a personal guarantee. Rights and liberties were left with the people to define and protect under their own constitutions...national govt had no power over personal liberties.
I think it is a terribly flawed decision. It makes Roe v. Wade almost respectable. --"
 Posted by AZRepublican to neverdem On News/Activism ^ 03/16/2007 7:01:44 PM PDT

44 posted on 03/19/2007 4:58:09 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK

The machinegun ban portion of that bill was inserted by Charlie Rangel and William Hughes in a questionable voice vote when most of the chamber had gone home for the night. It wasn't a NRA compromise, it was Democrat abuse of procedure.



I don't recall hearing that the NRA did anything to keep the abusive law from being signed.

That seems like accession to a terrible compromise of our most critical rights.


45 posted on 03/19/2007 5:21:33 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; neverdem; Shooter 2.5
This allegation appears to mostly be based on a 2003 opinion piece from the Washington Times by Mr. Healey and Mr. Levy. In the Washington Times piece, the Parker lawyers speculate as to why the NRA also initiated a similar lawsuit two months after theirs and as to why the NRA attempted to then have the cases consolidated. They also speculate as to the timing of a proposed law brought by Senator Hatch which, if passed, would have simply repealed the D.C. ban.

Their key assertion, of which they offer no supporting documentation: "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."

This wasn't brought out by the "Agitator" blogging quoted in the original posting, nor was it brought out that the NRA also filed its Jordan lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on Second and Fifth Amendment grounds, and also on civil rights law.

From page 73 of the June 2003 issue of the American Rifleman:

District Residents Demand Second Amendment Rights

NRA is actively supporting a lawsuit filed by five Washington, D.C., residents who seek to regain their Second Amendment rights, including the right of law-abiding citizens to keep handguns in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.

Commenting on the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ILA Executive Director Chris Cox said, "The core of any substantive policy designed to reduce violent crime ought to be on disarming criminals. The current District strategy is senseless. Law-abiding residents have to contend with a draconian law that leaves them defenseless when confronted with a violent criminal. In our nation's capital, the criminal has the advantage over the victim. That is unacceptable, and it is deplorable."

Plaintiff Absalom Jordan, Jr., who like all his fellow plaintiffs is eligible to own a firearm under federal statute, echoed similar sentiments: "Law enforcement is overworked and by definition, arrive after the crime has been committed when it's too late. Why can't I have the right to protect my family? The Mayor and all the VIPs on Capitol Hill get abundant protection from their respective security details... and at taxpayer expense! Why are their lives more valuable than those of my children? All I want is a means to protect my family, should the need arise."

The lawsuit also raises Fifth Amendment concerns, taking the position that District law deprives residents of liberty and property by authorizing them to possess pistols on the condition that they are registered, but simultaneously prohibiting them from registering those same pistols [see D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)].

The complaint further cites The Civil Rights Act of 1866 that provides in part: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory... the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens... ." This was intended to protect the same rights as its counterpart, the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 which guaranteed the right "to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [estate], including the constitutional right to bear arms."

I think this Agitator piece is simply wrong to condemn the NRA as "[t]he organization has fought this suit every step of the way"; it clearly did not do that. The Parker lawyers have asserted that the NRA tried to in some manner sabotage the case by bringing in more issues than just Second Amendment issues, but to cast that as more than simply lawyers having different opinions as to the strongest way to present a case is wrong in my opinion. If the NRA didn't support the case I don't think that they would have filed their amicus brief.
46 posted on 03/19/2007 5:39:51 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

Nonsense. The NRA, to which I have never given a penny, is constantly peppering me with expensive glossy literature touting what great fun it is for women to go hunting. Their website is heavily weighted toward sport and social aspects of gun use.

Over the years, I've lost track of how many times I've heard NRA spokespeople saying "We don't need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have." Really? We need to enforce all the unconstitutional gun laws that are on the books? The huge danger of promoting "fun" and "sport" as the primary reasons one would want to own a gun is that it makes some gun owners as well as many non-gun owners reason that it's no big deal to require registration of potentially dangerous recreational equipment, and since guns are primarily recreational equipment . . . Any gun message that doesn't put defending ourselves from our government front and center is a dangerous message.

The NRA is also busy running the silly Eddie Eagle programs in schools, brainwashing kids from a very early age that guns are very very very dangerous things and if you ever see one, you must immediately run and tell and adult. Don't even think about touching it, 'cause you never can tell when a gun might just go off. Not sure if it's real or a toy? -- don't try to find out, just run, run, tell an adult! Hard to tell at what age the NRA thinks it might be appropriate to start reversing that message, since they're not exactly loudly lobbying to make instruction in USING guns part of the regular school curriculum.

I know a wolf in sheep's clothing when I see one.


47 posted on 03/19/2007 5:51:47 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
The machinegun ban portion of that bill was inserted by Charlie Rangel and William Hughes in a questionable voice vote when most of the chamber had gone home for the night. It wasn't a NRA compromise, it was Democrat abuse of procedure.

How do you explain the NRA's silence re the Lautenberg Abomination?

48 posted on 03/19/2007 5:52:20 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
I don't recall hearing that the NRA did anything to keep the abusive law from being signed.

Back in 1986, I don't think the NRA had anything near the communications network it has now. Even if the NRA had immediately mobilized to stop the FOPA as soon as the machine-gun ban was added to it, what would it have been able to do before the amended bill was passed?

To be sure, I'm not sure the NRA would have been able to kill the Lautenberg Abomination either. On that one, though, it didn't even try.

49 posted on 03/19/2007 5:54:56 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

The case has taken so long, no one could foresee the changes in the courts.

I think it time we pushed this to the limits.


50 posted on 03/19/2007 5:55:05 PM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson