TexasCHLforum.com

Kalrog

Feel free to move my post to the new thread, if you have the admin rights to do so. I was writing as you posted, and didn't see your post until after I hit the submit button.

And for Liberty,

(Where was the NRA when they were actually grabbing them in NOLA?)

They were in repeatedly in court hounding Nagin and his police chief, and winning back the right to keep your guns, and getting, insofar as was possible, confiscated guns back, and following up and getting contempt citations against Nagin when he was dragging his feet. Short of going out and actually fighting the cops as they were confiscating the guns, I'm not sure what else you think they were supposed to be doing.

NOW I'm going to bed.

elb

Charles is on to something here. Stand back while I wind up here.

I do wish the NRA was more aggressive about some things, and I think they (or being a Life Member, I guess I should say "we") have made some missteps, but throwing brickbats at the NRA is doing Hillary's work for her.

It is one thing to offer a issue-based criticism, such as "The NRA should support laws that require schools to honor concealed carry permits." It is not OK to say (paraphrasing) "the NRA is in bed with the gun banners and betraying gun owners because they support HR 1066." (I think I got the number right - it's the one about the mental health records). I see the kind of stuff on some other gun blogs I read, and it is just nuts.

The VPC (or whatever they call themselves these days) and the Democratic Party are not afraid of GOA, SAF, or any of the other gun acronyms floating around. Only the NRA gets them frothing at the mouth, and there is good reason for that. (As an aside, the Dem Party has learned to shut up for awhile, but I think that is only temporary, until they get another majority in Congress AND the Presidency). (And yes, I realize there are many NRA members and gun supporters who are Democrats, but guess what? They weren't worth squat in their own national party until the NRA and the Republicans wiped the floor with the Democrats in a couple elections.)

The NRA is the biggest, and the most effective gun org by far, and any effort to split people off into competing organization is holing our own ship below the waterline. The NRA knows how to work both real parties and both houses in Congress, and we would not be as far as we are today with any other organization. Charles is right -- when Parker/Heller was filed, we would have gotten killed at the Supreme Court if this process had gone faster. We are dang lucky Pres Bush got in when he did, and was able to appoint a judge or two, and an Attorney General who squared away the DOJ on the Second Amendment/individual right business. I wish he were more actively pro-gun than he is, but the NRA was wise to support him -- that will have positive effects for us for years to come.

The Libertarian Party has basically served the same function for the Republicans as Ralph Nader and the Greens have served for the Democrats, and that is to split votes so the other side can win. Thank God the LP is less effective and organized than Ralph Nader, or President Al Gore would be winding up his Presidency by icing his 6 year old handgun ban with a complete, draconian gun registration and confiscation scheme in order to comply with the UN Treaty on Small Arms he just signed with Secretary General Bill Clinton, ratified by the Senate with the help of Majority Leader "White Flag" Harry Reid, and defended before Supreme Court Justices Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton (who got bought off with a judgeship so she wouldn't run against Kerry in '08) by Solicitor General Chuck Schumer (who was appointed SolGen on the recommendation of Attorney General Janet Reno, back for a reprise).

And we'd be faced with deciding for real whether we really believe the Second Amendment is a check on government tyranny, rather than just writing about it on forums and blogs.

Grrrrrr. I'm going to get a nice slug of ...err... adult beverage and go to bed.

elb

I have been anxious about this case for some time, because as others have noted, the SCOTUS is not terribly reliable about even relatively strongly adhering to the Constitution as written. Kelo and the McCain-Feingold Act come to mind.

However, I have taken some solace in the way the SCOTUS worded the question they will address. As a reminder:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?�

To me, the question is worded in a way that PRESUMES that individuals - not "States" -- have rights under the Second Amendment. So the basic focus of the court will be on whether the DC provisions violate those rights. That they could wander off and do something destructive is not out of the realm of possibility, but the fact that they spent some time arguing over the question to be addressed, and came up with the above formulation, is somewhat heartening.

I agree I would like a much broader, 2A-friendly result, that trashes the bulk of gun control laws and results other happy outcomes, such as the jailing of Mayor Bloomberg and the rest of his anti-citizen mayor buddies -- but I will be happy to get a SCOTUS declaration that 2A rights are individual rights and banning or rendering guns non-functional violates them.

elb