TexasCHLforum.com

dws1117 wrote:

If gun locks become standard issue, how long will it be before the anti-gunners whine that although everybody gets issued such a lock, not everybody USES them faithfully. So then they'll urge us to pass a law requiring their use, perhaps even on guns that the owners want to have quickly accessible for home defense, and they might add some kind of monitoring or home inspection clause so that cops can come into your home to check for the safe and secure storage of your guns.

Wouldn't that require registration? How would the cops know what houses to search for safe and secure storage of guns or would they just do random home searches? Where have I heard this story before. Is history not tought in public schools anymore?

This would be an illegal search and it isn't going to happen. Texas has a safe-storage law and LEO's can't come into your home to verify compliance.

Regards,
Chas.

stevie_d_64 wrote: Thats a good analogy...

That's a great analogy! I'm going to use it in D.C.

Chas.

stevie_d_64 wrote:Y'all still better be friends, or as someone said to me the other day...

Yep, just a friendly disagreement. I've had stronger disagreements with my wife of 32 years and we're still together and neither of us has drawn down on the other!

Chas.

S397 was never dead; GOA is wrong again, proving it doesn't have a clue what's going on in Washington. What GOA either doesn't realize, or chooses not to disclose, is that there is too little time left to push H.R. 800 through the House, then to a conference committee, then back to the House and Senate. If S 397 does not pass the House, then the American firearms industry will not get the protection it needs and gun owners will suffer.

Worse, the amendment leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage, . . . While the amendment does not require that gun owners use trigger locks at this point, it is easy to see how trigger locks, like automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, can quickly become compulsory.

S397 hardly "leads gun owners to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage." This would require an entirely new statute, but we've already covered this in detail.

Chas.

30Carb wrote:Where we are missing each other is the "mission creep" element, . . .

That's a valid point and a threat we must be constantly addressing. We saw it as we improved the Texas CHL statute and we'd better do it in the federal level in spades!

30Carb wrote:BCRA (McCaine-Feingold Act) comes to mind. Many organizations fought against this unConstitutional bill; lots of folks didn't because they thought the courts would strike it down later: it was part of their "strategy". Of course, it was no strategy at all: it was a hope. And a hope is a feeling, not a strategy.

You are absolutely right! We lost the BCRA fight in the Legislature and in the Supreme Court, primarily for the reasons you stated. Everyone thought the NRA was using Chicken Little's line "the sky is falling" and ignored our warnings. It wasn't that House Members and Senators had turned on us, but they thought we were over-reacting. I couldn't count the times I was told "it'll never pass; if it does Bush will veto it; and if he doesn't the Supreme Court will strike it down." Well they were wrong and we lost the battle. Of course, we also became the "media" and our message went out anyway. That’s why McCaine wants to amend BCRA to “close some loop holes.� Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

30Carb wrote:Even now, I consider the 2A (and the COTUS) to be in deep trouble, highly compromised.

We agree again! The entire COTUS has been under almost constant attack since the Roosevelt court packing plan in the 1930's and the expansion of the Commerce Clause is in my opinion the greatest threat. Justice O'Connor's statement that the Supreme Court must look to opinions from courts of other countries to render opinions more in line with world opinion and values is terrifying. Even more terrifying is the fact that the U.S. House didn't immediately start impeachment proceedings and that my colleagues in the Bar didn’t raise our voices in unison against this absurd notion. There is but one standard for U.S. Supreme Court justices - the United States Constitution. (Sorry, this is a real hot button for me.)

30Carb wrote:I kept my PDO name for use on this board because it simplifies bookkeeping and I'm not trying to hide anything.

I do the same thing and didn't mean to imply you were trying to hide anything.

30Carb wrote:However, we can argue amongst ourselves about the route and the strategy all we want or need to, so long as we have the same goals: "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I respect that and fully agree.

Regards,
Chas.

Gun Owners of America.

one eyed fatman wrote:

We kept staunch anti-gun Gore and Kerry out of the White House.

One Eye picks fire ant out of his eye. The NRA did that all by themselves? I thought the voters of America might have had something to do with it....

Yep, only NRA members voted.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but the NRA is not just the stone, steel and glass that makes up the headquarters building, or the 76 dedicated men and women on the Board of Directors. The NRA is all of that, plus 4 million men, women and even children who are members and donate their money, time and efforts to the cause of freedom, especially the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It’s also the impact and influence we have on tens of millions of gun owners who are not NRA members. Through our collective efforts, we sway far more voters than are represented by the membership alone. Recent Zogby polls shocked both the NRA leadership and anti-gunners alike. I forget the exact percentages, but a huge majority of Americans agree with the NRA’s position “all of the time� or “most of the time.� (The percentage was in the high 60's or 70's.) Other questions showed strong support for the NRA’s position on gun control, concealed handgun law, etc. Even we on the BOD had no idea the NRA’s message was being so widely accepted, not among gun owners, but by the general public! I bet Sara Brady was about to fall on her sword.

How many times have you heard Schumer, Feinstein, McCarthy, Boxer or Sara Brady blame the GOA for their inability to pass “sensible gun safety laws?� NEVER! But they decry the NRA’s influence on a regular basis. When the so-called campaign finance reform act (McCain/Feingold) was being debated on the Senate floor, McCain blatantly called it the “get the NRA bill.� (He’s still furious that the NRA lead the charge against him in the Republican primary in 2000, because of his support for closing the gun show "loop-hole.") He sure didn’t call it the “get the GOA� bill. GOA is never mentioned in Washington.

Most folks have no idea how often even the hint of NRA opposition to a bill or even a provision in a bill kills it before it even gets off the ground. If the subject matter of proposed legislation involves guns, ammunition, hunting, CHL, or any number of issues that impact gun owners, elected officials know the NRA is watching and Chris Cox’s phone will be ringing. GOA only dreams of having such influence.

The NRA's power is in its ability to get it members and gun-owning non-members to the polls. Did the NRA alone defeat Gore or Kerry? Not at all, but without the NRA's influence Gore absolutely would have been elected and Kerry most likely would have been elected. Even Clinton admits the NRA cost Gore the White House. Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas, solely because of NRA's efforts. Kerry almost pulled off his charade of "I'm a hunter and a supporter of the Second Amendment." When NRA representatives learned that this ploy was working with many hunters, especially those who are union members, the NRA poured money and personnel into those areas to turn the tide against Kerry.

NRA didn't do it by itself, but without the NRA, Gore and/or Kerry would have been elected and we would not have increased the pro-gun majority in both the House and Senate. Without the NRA, the "assault weapon" ban would have been re-authorized, this time without a sunset provision; the gun show "loophole" would have been closed; a .50 cal. ban would be in place; one-gun-a-month limits would exist at the federal level; the U.S. would have signed on to the U.N. small arms ban; and either Gore or Kerry would be appointing two U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

Where was GOA in all of this? Bashing the NRA and calling all of its Board members traitors and its members blind fools. I would note that, of all the Second Amendment organizations, only the GOA seems bent on attacking the NRA through repeated false allegations against the organization, its BOD and even its members who work at the grassroots level. Its tactics are identical to those of the anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy and others; scare the pants off people with lies and half-truths. I have no respect for any organization that uses such tactics, regardless of the issue or on which side of an issue it may fall. I direct my criticism at the organization, not its members. Many NRA members are also GOA members, as was I many years ago.

As an aside, this is precisely the type of spirited discussion I think is constructive. We can debate the issues, even disagree vigorously, without attacking one another's commitment to the Second Amendment, or accusing them of a sellout. Too bad GOA leadership is more interested in increasing its membership through attacks on the NRA than simply accepting that we have chosen different routes to the same destination. Now that's as conciliatory as I can be to the GOA.

Regards,
Chas.

30Carb wrote:If the NRA is supporting HR800 over S397, why is it that all I hear about is NRA's support of S397?

Perhaps you are only listening to anti-NRA GOA? I've seen your posts on packing.org and it appears you accept as fact every opinion offered by GOA. NRA is supporting both bills, not one over the other.

30Carb wrote:If you cannot buy a gun without buying a lock, that is an infringement. Being able to buy a gun with or without a lock would not be an infringement. Its not speculation; its fact.

If that's the best argument that can be made against S397, then I think most folks will feel pretty good. I still don't see any facts as to how S397 is going to lead to an ammo ban, which is the primary complaint by anti-NRA forces.

30Carb wrote:"Even if S397 is passed in its current form, there is nothing to "shut down" in the future!" Of course there is. Like: since you have the locks, now you have to use them. Or: since you have the locks, if you are found to have the gun without the locks, you are in violation of safe storage (whether the gun is locked or not). Or: you cannot sell a gun without the lock. Anything could be added to extend the lock provision.

Surely you know this is factually untrue. Not one thing in your "parade of horribles" is in S397, not one! To do any of these requires entirely new legislation which stands absolutely no chance of passing as the Senate and House currently stand. Could it change in the future? Sure, but it will still require new legislation and S397 is not a prerequisite. As I said, the best way to lose a pro-2A majority is to undermine the NRA.

30Carb wrote:Active, like working with SAF to shutdown the arms confiscation from lawful citizens in New Orleans. Now, THAT is action! And THAT is what I like.

The NRA was in the suit against the City of New Orleans to stop the illegal confiscation of firearms and an injunction was issued to stop this travesty. This may be what you mean, but I took your statement to indicate you didn't know the NRA was in the suit; I apologize if I misunderstood. (Here's the link: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539

30Carb wrote:I'm an NRA member, have been for five years, and will continue to be a member. As a member, I feel free to criticize, if not obligated, to criticize.

I've been in the NRA for 35 years and I don't mind valid criticism and spirited debate at all; it's good for the organization and for the cause. I don't agree with everything the NRA does. Here is a quote from a post I made some time ago:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Let me also say that BOD Members do not agree on every issue and every action taken by the NRA. In my opinion, the greatest value can be derived from a committee (or organization) when its members engage in honest, spirited debate on matters before it and come to a consensus to recommend to the full BOD. As with all BOD/Committee Members, there are times when my position prevails and times when it does not. One thing is as certain as the sun rising in the east, when the debate is over and the vote is in, you will never hear me gloat when my position prevails, nor complain when my position is rejected. I have too much respect for my fellow BOD members to do so. But far more importantly, I firmly believe that the national media is itching to exploit any division within the NRA, real or imagined, and this can only work to the detriment of the NRA and ultimately all gun owners.

The only reason I posted this quote is so no one would think I developed this position in response to your post.

Healthy, constructive criticism and discussion is good for any organization; it goes on among members of the BOD all the time. However, when opposition degenerates into absurd allegations like the NRA is supporting gun control, or “NRA Board sells out gun owners,�or our friends in Washington betrayed us, then we not dealing with constructive criticism, but destructive slander that only helps our opposition. (Again, I’m not talking about you.)

30Carb wrote:We need a strong NRA and if criticism and housecleaning is what it takes, so be it.

The NRA is very strong. It has won virtually every battle we’ve fought for years! We kept staunch anti-gun Gore and Kerry out of the White House. We won the “assault weapon� ban issue that even many thought impossible. We’ve grown the membership to record levels and we’ve worked closely with states in their successful attempts to pass CHL laws. “House cleaning?� I've been hearing the "housecleaning" thing for a long time and I don’t think for a second that the majority of NRA members are going to abandon what is working so well. If the "all or nothing" crowd were running the NRA, then we'd have nothing. To paraphrase the old adage, "Rome wasn't built in a day," we didn't lose our Second Amendment rights in a day and we're not going to win them back in a single Legislative session.

Regards,
Chas.

30Carb wrote: ...then why were't they defeated in S397?

They weren't defeated because they were proposed as a procedural block. Please re-read my explanation.

30Carb wrote:If its all so easy, then pass HR800.

There's not one thing easy about passing lawsuit prohibition legislation on the national level! No other industry has this kind of protection, but then no other industry (even the tobacco industry) is the target of efforts to obtain in the courts that which cannot be obtained in the Legislature.

Of course the NRA is working to pass HR800 and we will work to pass it without amendments. It's a different world in the House than in the Senate, but nothing is guaranteed. If HR800 passes without amendments, then a conference committee will be appointed and efforts will be made to clean up the conference report and present it for an up or down vote in both the House and Senate.

30Carb wrote: Truth is, there IS danger in accepting S397.

I respectfully disagree. This is nothing more than unfounded speculation and a "parade of horribles;" a scare tactic used for years by anti-gunners. While I've seen this opinion offered in other forums, I've never seen one person explain how S397 poses a danger and precisely how its provisions could/would be used to infringe on the Second Amendment. All I've ever seen is nonspecific, general condemnation of S397 and the NRA.

What is a proven fact is that lawsuits filed to achieve a political goal will drive most firearm manufacturers out of business, unless protection is achieved at the federal level. While several states, including Texas, have passed lawsuit preemption legislation, many have not and will not. All the anti-gunners need is one or two states in which to file suits and all of the protection provided by states like Texas will mean nothing. Contrary to popular opinion, the American firearms industry is very small, roughly $2 billion annually from what I’ve seen.

30Carb wrote: And shutting it down in the future may NOT be easy: who can guarantee a pro2A majority in Congress?

Even if S397 is passed in its current form, there is nothing to "shut down" in the future! S397 doesn't ban ammo, nor does it create a basis for doing so without future legislation, as some have claimed. If we loose a pro-second amendment majority in both the House and Senate, then we're in trouble and the anti's won't need S397 to do their worst. Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and Clinton will be drafting all sorts of anti-gun legislation and they won’t need S397 to do it! One of the best ways to aid an anti-gun take-over of the House or Senate is to weaken the NRA with false attacks and claims of the NRA supporting gun control legislation.

30Carb wrote: NRA should be lobbying for HR800 and not for more gun control.

Of course the NRA is supporting HR800. If S397 is a gun control measure, why then is the Brady Campaign and every anti-gun Senator and House Member going berserk trying to kill it!?

Respectfully,
Chas.

The theme of the Oregon article is that the NRA and pro-gun Senators like Sen. Craig are intentionally and secretly conspiring to support gun-control legislation. This is absolute garbage! It's the same scare tactic used by other groups that are always attacking the NRA.

The gun lock provision requires only that all newly manufactured firearms be shipped with a lock. This is already being done by many manufactures, so it simply requires them to keep doing what many are doing already. More importantly, the argument that this will make it easy to extend the law to requiring the use of gun locks is ludicrous. That would take an entirely new bill that would be easily defeated.

Also, the "study" is only to determine whether a uniform testing procedure is feasible. We know it is as this type of AP testing has been done for years. Just as with trigger locks, the idea that this provision could/would be used to prohibit any particular type of ammo is without any merit. This too would require a completely new bill that also would be defeated, as it was years ago.

I would rather have seen the Senate bill pass without these amendments, but it was deemed necessary to avoid a Kennedy or Schumer amendment on AP rounds, 50 cal. ban, and gun show loop-hole. The amendments invoked a procedural requirement that allowed the cut-off of additional amendments. I too hope these provisions are not included in the House version and that they will be stripped off in the conference committee. I think this is likely, but even if the two provisions find their way into the final bill, we are still much better off with the law suit prohibition. Lawsuits will put many manufactures and dealers out of business, but the scare tactics of the Oregon group are merely theories and weak ones at that.

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with a legislative strategy, but as a dedicated member of the NRA Board of Directors, I find it mighty insulting when people claim a sell-out by the NRA and gun-owners’ friends in the Senate. In-fighting doesn't help our cause; we have plenty of enemies with whom we can do battle. When I disagree with someone or some organization, I make every effort to do it respectfully. I expect the same from others.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Chas.

Absolute garbage.

Regards,
Chas.