TexasCHLforum.com

tomneal wrote:Alan Korwin is a 2nd Amendment writer. He speculated that if Levy pushes the 2nd as a Fundamental right, we could loose even if we win. The right to vote is a Fundamental right and is very difficult to restrict because of it. If we win big and the court says that the 2nd is a fundmental right. Nearly all gun laws would quickly become null & void. When us sheep dogs start carrying openly the sheep will start bleeting. They may bleet so loud that there is a chance that a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd could pass.

We don't want the Supreme court to get out in front of local, state, and federal lawmakers. That's one of the reasons that Roe v Wade is still being argued, 30 years later. The court jumped too far ahead.

Liberty wrote:If I am correct, the argument you present is that the NRA doesn't believe that the United States isn't ready to accept the 2nd ammendment? This sounds a like a very Brady argument.

Learn the difference between a "right" and a "fundamental right" and perhaps you will understand what Mr. Korwin fears. He is correct, but the concern has nothing to do with the states "accept[ing] the Second Amendment." It has everything to do with the effect of a constitutional right being held to be a "fundamental" right.

Liberty wrote:If the NRA hasn't been able to educate the public in all these years ... I don't believe they ever will.

Castle Doctrine passed in Texas by an overwhelming majoirty, as it did in many other states. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. Emergency Powers restrictions passed at the federal level by a large majority, as it did in Texas and many other states. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. Concealed carry laws have been marching across the nation for over a decade. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. The Legal Commerce in Arms Act passed at the federal level and now stops politically motivated lawsuits whose only purpose is to drive manufacturers out of business. Similar anti-lawsuit laws have been passed in many states, including Texas. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. The overwhelming response to the Virginia Tech shootings by the general public is to support campus-carry by CHL's. This response is astounding and is the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials. The Clinton Gun Ban a/k/a assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset. This was the direct result of the NRA educating the public and elected officials.

tomneal wrote: If we win too big, it could hurt us in the long run.

Liberty wrote:It is thinking like this is why the NRA in the national arena has pretty much lost ground in the last 70 years. Winners are not afraid of winning.

Tell us specifically what the NRA has lost in the last 70 years. Not general or global statement, but specifics. Then, I'll tell you what we have accomplished and we can see whose list is longer.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:We now have a clear conservative majority in the court.

We certainly didn't when the Parker case was filed four years ago! In fact, a Second Amendment case was a clear, hands-down loser. Even now, it's not a clear winner. You seem to forget that "conservative" justices typically vote to in support of governmental authroity, not against it.

Liberty wrote:Yet the NRA is wary because we might actually win on this one.

This is garbage and you know it.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:

tomneal wrote:Either a big loss or a big win could affect 2nd Amendment rights for our children and grand children. The leadership at the NRA is going to be very careful in any case apealed to the the supreme court becuase they are in it for the long run.

The NRA isn't going to have anything to do with this case. They are irrelevent from the sounds of it they are very much afraid to push on. Battles aren't won by the timid.

The NRA is heavily involved in the case. I know, I'm involved. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is also involved. I know, I'm on the Board of Trustees as well. I have no earthly idea what makes you believe the NRA is not a major player. Read the Parker decision, the NRA brief in Parker, the Seegars decision, and the NRA brief in Seegars, then tell me the NRA wasn't involved.

It's obvious from other posts that you were a Libertarian candidate for some office in Galveston County. It's equally obvious that you are mad at both the TSRA and the NRA for not supporting you and/or listing you in the candidate guides. That's fine. It's also fine if someone doesn't agree with an NRA or TSRA position on an issue, or the tactics we use. Reasonable minds can differ even when they are on the same side of an issue.

However, you are not stating an opinion, you purport to be giving facts that are utterly wrong. If you want to keep telling us how much you don't like or agree with the NRA or TSRA then fine, keep doing it. But I'm not about to let you keep posting blatantly false allegations of alleged "facts" without a response. I will not, however, violate my promise to keep critical information quiet unil after this case is over.

Chas.

In case some people are wondering why I am silent on this, it's because I have to be for the good of the case. Believe me, I'm having to bite my tongue to keep quiet when I see these articles.

Chas.