Posted on 01/10/2010 6:11:53 PM PST by neverdem
Please donate to the Brown Campaign(R) Mass. No donation too small, I donated today. Monday is a planned Money Bomb day. Send shock waves through the RAT party. Link to contribute in my signature line. I donated today. Election on 1/19/2010. Donate to Free Republic too, while you are at it.
BTTT
....forget about 9-11...the future of Muslim mass murder is Ft Hood...we can’t depend on the government to stop every lone wolf assassin...we will have to defend ourselves...take a gun safety class and get your concealed carry permit!...don’t put it off...you and your family’s life may depend on it.
No they haven't. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd pass anti-gun laws in a "New York second". The victories Schneider touts are the result of damned hard work on the part of gun owners, not any "enlightenment" on the part of Democrats. The new crop of supposed "Blue Dog" Democrats adopted pro-gun camouflage to get elected---but watch how they vote if given the opportunity.
The NRA, not just the GOA as I indicated, worked on the ObamaCare issue. The NRA worked with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to draft the pro-gun amendment inserted into the Senate bill by Senator Reid. It’s very unlikely the House will try to remove this pro-gun amendment, given the politics of the gun issue.
It appears the goa has yet to do a single thing on their own. Maybe it's time the members start demanding something for their dues. Lawsuits such as the ones the NRA and the SAF have filed?
This is incorrect. The NRA did everything they could to sabotage the Heller case and only came to the table when they realized that the plaintiffs weren't buying the NRA's 'go along to get along' bullsh**.
The NRA tried to stop Parker which at the time, we would have lost. It wasn’t until it changed to Heller and the nomination of Alito and Roberts did the NRA come on board.
Prove that assertion if you please.
I've been watching. It's been very rare that they cross the NRA. I don't recall any in the House except the committed gun grabbers. In the Senate, there's Gillibrand and shaky Pryor.
Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Colorado's Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote "no" if necessary.
Well duh. They are playing us republicans like a fiddle. As long as they let us keep our guns, they’ve figured out they can get away with anything.
By they time they’re done, we’ll be poor starving serfs with guns. Outdated guns I might add.
Meanwhile, the government will have atomic powered lasers, masers, and rasers...mounted on fully autonomous miniature flying robots that can ID you from a thousand yards away through concrete walls.
The government wont care about our pathetic bolt action rifles and ten round capacity handguns.
Overview: Parker v. District of Columbia, et al.
In February, 2003, we filed our complaint against the District of Columbia and then-Mayor Anthony Williams in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint challenges the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of the District’s prohibition on the home possession of functional firearms and handguns, and the requirement of an unavailable license to move firearms within a house.
Two days later, the Mayor’s spokesperson, and the Deputy Mayor for Justice and Public Safety, gave a front-page newspaper interview proclaiming the city’s zealous opposition to our lawsuit, and vowed that the laws would be enforced to the hilt against our clients. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss our case, claiming the Second Amendment secures only a “collective right.” We followed shortly with a motion for summary judgment.
Despite the various proclamations by city officials, the city abandoned its defense against our lawsuit, claiming that the case somehow “slipped through the cracks.” The defendants failed to oppose our motion for summary judgment, and failed to reply to our opposition to their motion to dismiss. Our case stood ready for resolution by the court within two months of its filing.
Before the court could rule in our case, the National Rifle Association sponsored a copycat lawsuit, entitled Seegars v. Ashcroft (subsequently Gonzales), and immediately sought to have their lawsuit joined with ours. The NRA had tried to dissuade the filing of Parker. Having failed in that effort, they lobbied unsuccessfully to alter our litigation strategy. Seegars was designed to raise issues we had rejected in our case, in an attempt to have the courts avoid interpretation of the Second Amendment. Seegars counsel was an attorney who had been involved in the early stages of our case, but who was not retained to proceed with us further.
It was not a coincidence that the NRA had failed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents in court for over twenty-five years, but suddenly sponsored a copycat action immediately upon our having filed suit. We successfully defeated the NRA’s attempt to use Seegars as a vehicle to muscle in on our litigation. The District Court agreed with us that the behavior of Seegars' counsel raised substantial ethical and attorney-client issues that would delay and complicate the litigation. Each case proceeded independently, on separate tracks before separate judges.
The NRA’s tactics in Seegars triggered the defendants in that case to raise substantial standing issues which were not raised by the defendants in our case, or their amici. Consequently, at oral argument in Parker, in October, 2003, the court asked the parties to submit additional briefing on the question of standing. However, during the course of the argument, the defendants’ attorney vowed that our clients would be prosecuted if they were to break the law.
In January, 2004, the District Court ruled that all but one of the Seegars plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their action. With regard to the one plaintiff that had standing, the court proceeded to adopt the so-called “collective rights” theory of the Second Amendment.
Two months later, the District Court in Parker rejected without comment all claims that our clients lacked standing to bring their action. The District Court further commended us for “extol[ing] many thought-provoking and historically interesting arguments,” but adopted the so-called “collective rights” theory and ruled against our clients.
Both cases were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Because the Seegars case was decided earlier, the D.C. Court of Appeals held the Parker appeal in abeyance pending its resolution of Seegars. In February 2005, the appellate court held that all Seegars plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate any specific likelihood that they would be prosecuted for violating the gun laws. The District Court’s substantive holding in Seegars, adopting the “collective right” theory of the Second Amendment, was vacated.
Given the lengthy record of specific threats against our clients, we filed a motion to have the appellate court hear our case notwithstanding the outcome in Seegars. The city and its mayor requested summary affirmance. Both motions were held in abeyance, as the appellate court considered whether to re-hear Seegars.
In June 2005, the appellate court declined to re-hear the Seegars matter and ordered the parties in Parker to again brief the question of how the case should proceed.
In November 2005, the appellate court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss our appeal or summarily affirm the judgment, and granted our motions to set the case for argument on the merits. Following extensive briefing, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on December 7, 2006.
On March 9, 2007, the appellate court reversed the lower court's opinion, and struck down all three laws challenged by the plaintiffs as violations of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The city and its new Mayor, Adrian Fenty, have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. We look forward to vindicating the Second Amendment rights of all Americans before the Supreme Court should it decide to hear the case.
Oh I forgot its ‘ole 2.5, the GOA hating NRA member…
Here is a thread where you spewed your typical, and not very enlightened, rant without listening to a word someone else says… Typical 2.5 whining rant about the GOA.
and here you are in another thread and using your typical whining rant with me… 2.5 gets the real facts and then gets caught in a couple of, well let’s say factual distortions.
...and after getting your butt severely kicked to the curb, you then resorted to distortions, twisting everyone’s words and then out right lying about your actions in attempting to defend your weak bias.
Many people have answered your stupid questions MANY times; you just refuse to see it. Point is if you can’t have an honest debate fighting a common enemy, then do everyone else a favor… stay on the sidelines and argue with yourself, don’t try to distort the focus of this fight.
Every 2A group, no matter what you may think of them should be WELCOMED to the struggle we are facing, many former NRA members, myself included, who definitely have no love for the NRA leadership have been going back into the group because the stakes are so high, don’t let your petty bias cloud the big picture.
AOV sends with warmest regards.
While we will never be the mighty NRA--or even the GOA (although most of us belong to those organizations), we are introducing women to shooting, and in many cases, taking away their fear of guns.
By the time they have finished one of our "Ladies Learn to Shoot" days, we've pretty well gotten them hooked on shooting.
We do give them some background in the politics of the 2A--and give them a bit of history in the left wing/right wing approach to our right to keep and bear arms, along with very serious, intensive safety lessons.
We try to keep everything as inexpensive as possible for our classes--going around and asking for donations of ammo--ear and eye protection, and the loan of lots of guns for the ladies to try out. We even are often able to get a gun range to donate us a few hours to hold one of our classes.
Our aim is to get them excited about shooting, and the politics will follow in most cases. If we can just make them aware of the struggle we have to maintain our rights, we have a new convert to the cause. Of course, one of the joys of doing what we do is seeing women learn to take responsibility for their own self-defense. Many of these women who first shoot a gun at one of classes go on to take shooting and self defense very seriously, and become quite proficient shooters.
If anyone here would like to join us and help in our fight to save the Second Amendment, we welcome you. We need all the volunteers we can get!
All well and good here on this issue BUT NEVER, EVER let your guard down.
Complacency has destroyed us more often than not on this issue. Read, the late Reagan and Bush years.
We are just one tragedy away from draconian laws on this issue.
And it’s old copy and paste AvOrdVet who still can’t relate a single thing the goa has ever done in it’s history.
Name a single thing the goa has every done in it’s history on their own.
SAS has the prettiest, sexiest pro gun women in the world as their founders and members.
Basil, I’m baaaack.
Welcome back! It’s always nice to have such discerning men on board-—LOL!
Thanks Sweetie.
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.