TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote: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.

I don't believe that they are in bed with the gun banners. I also believe that they are the best chance we have. Its just that they seemed to be taking things casual, I don't see them out there fighting. The Bradys are a tiny organanisation. Those clowns are in front of the media all the time. Am I upset at the NRA? yeah I am. After a lifetime of watching our right get flushed down the crapper in the courts One man a single man decides to take this to court, and it looks like we finally have a chance to get at least a small victory, and what do I see. The NRA throwing roadblocks, and bad mouthing those who had the guts to take it on.

ELB wrote:
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.)

This is my biggest beef. for 10 years we had Republicans running both houses. What do we gun owners have to show for it? we let sunset the Assault Weapons bill which should have never have passed. Why didn't we earn some things like letting state laws determine carry in Federal parks, or tossing out gun free school zones all together. while they claim they wouldn't have one anyway, they could have made some noise and rased public awareness and tried. The timid never win battles. The Bradys didn't win the Assault weapons ban buy being timid and polite.

What do we get? We get Jackson in an interview telling the Public that Guns with more than 5 rounds area a bad idea? This isn't just a member he is a director for crying out loud. Yet this organization is our best hope? Yeah, I'm disheartened by them.

ELB wrote: 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.

So am I but when Bush claimed he would support the AWB even though there was stomach for it in the capitol. Where were the Radio and tv ads? The Brady bunch sure knows how to make a stink when things turn bad for them. Its a tiny organization compared to the NRA. The whole stance of the the NRA of its better to not try than possibly lose is not the stance of leadership it is the reason why until Levy- Parker the people controlling the national debate was the Brady Bunch.

ELB wrote: 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

My beef with how the NRA mistreated the Liberarian party, is more about the TSRA refused to rate Libertarians in the 2006 races. Even when the Libertarians were in a 2 candidate race. In my case my opponant was given a generous 'B' rating they refused to rate me or my other fellow Libertarians. I was / am disapointed in the TSRA, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them. The TSRA actually does something. If the NRA accomplished half what TSRA does we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm sorry that Charles brought up the Libertarian issue, it has little to do with this discussion other than Levy is likely to be a Libertarian and that I was Libertarian candidate.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Photoman wrote:If the SC ever rules directly on the SA, upholding it as an individual right, based on a case presented by someone other than the NRA, I think there would be a significant decrease in NRA membership.

The NRA, like the Republican party, is losing credibility. Supporters are losing patience with both.

As I said, read the briefs and the Parker opinion, then tell me if you think the case was "presented by someone other than the NRA." And be sure to read the NRA's brief in Heller, as well as the numerous amicus briefs. Do you really think the NRA wasn't heavily involved in Parker? Do you think the NRA isn't heavily involved now?

How is the NRA losing credibility and with whom? Who or what organization has protected gun rights for the last 30 years and who will do so, if the NRA's membership shrinks? About what are you losing patience?

Chas.

Robert Levy is spearheading this and it is his case. I am not a lawyer and I don't confess to understand amicus or any other briefings. I have waded through some and get lost after about 3 paragraphs, thats my shortcomming. It seems to me that while the NRA was waiting for a few justices drop off, Levy decided to strike while the iron is hot. Its just like the federal Legislature. We had a majority of Republicans in both houses and the accomplishments were pitiful for that time even some of the directors don't seem very enthused about the RKBA, and have balked at support scary black ones with mags bigger than 5 rounds.

Yeah, I'm still miffed at the way the NRA treats the real RKBA party, but thats not why I'm disappointed in them Its the lack of fight that I see in the NRA, at least in Robert Levy I see tough individualism and someone at last finally able to do something about the long backward slide that we have undergone for generations.

Some of us complain about the NRA, but there never seems to be answers, never seems to be a forward plan. I can't find any bills they plan on authoring on a national scale. I haven't seen any effort to address allowing carry into Federal parks or other property. There is so much to fix yet the NRA hasn't even been able to get much brought up for public discussion. The democrats gained back the senate they gained back the House. Our 10 year window is gone and we have so little to show for it. And the only time we here about the NRA making the news is when of the directors is off shooting his mouth of about scary guns.

If the NRA pushed half of What the TSRA did for Texas we could all be happy. In business and our personal lives we are all judged not only by our successes but how we fight our battles. I will concede maybe I don't get it, and don't see all the political fighting and battles they fight for us, but if they were doing what tit seems they should be doing we would something. There are other political lobbiest out there, many of them we might not not agree with but we see results from them. The Bradys have a tiny membership, and very small budget, yet they seem to be able to stir things up and are prepared to go to the mat. In comparison the NRA seems subdued even content to this outsider.

Charles I'm sorry if you feel I don't like the NRA, or that I attack them out of vindictiveness. I criticize them because I'm disappointed and know they could do more. I do believe they are capable of doing so much, I'm just disappointed that they've done so little. I want to hear about the wonderful things that the NRA does for us on the legal political front. But all I here is about the assault weapon ban sunsetting, and the law which shouldn't be neccessary at all about confiscating guns in a disaster. (Where was the NRA when they were actually grabbing them in NOLA?)

You ask who has been fight for our rights for the last 30 years? Thats the problem. looking at the win loss columns it doesn't look like much of anyone, while its pretty obvious what the Brady Bunch have been up to.
While the message from the Bradys is clear we get,

"I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five rounds."

From an NRA Director.

Maybe your right, maybe we should keep flooding the NRA with money and things will get better. More money fixes a lot of things.I don't confess to know how to get anyone in Washington to listen to us. I do know no one seems to be listening.. Maybe its time we started yelling a little louder. I do know you personally work hard and put your heart and soul into it. I appreciate that. I know others do also. I know there must be others that work as hard also, but as a collective work from what most of us understand to be a huge well funded organization. I have a hard time seeing progress on a national level.

Kalrog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:They would not be my choice.

Chas.

Is this a con-law thing where you don't want the same legal team doing all of the 2A arguments or is this more specific in that you don't think this has been handled as well as it could have?

I do have to give them props that they are funding the entire process from the Heller side, but I will claim ignorance on the "right" way to do things in front of SCOTUS. Although they have gotten farther than a lot of people have in the past so they must be doing something right.

Feel free to do as my mother taught me though: If you don't have anything nice to say...

Heller is not funding it, Robert Levy is funding it. I think there is resentment by NRA and the Levy/Heller team towards each other. The NRA is getting some heat because one hot shot lawyer is going farther than the NRA has in a long time. The Parker camp have accused the NRA of actually attempting to block progress in the beginning. The NRA has since filed some friend of the court briefs in support though.

Got to wonder why a little one man show like Levy has gone so far while the multi million dollar organization When the NRA's successes are mostly limited to stalling or limiting forward progression of the Brady's rather than instituting a forward agenda. Especially when we had a Republican House, Senate and President. There is a growing number of people who are believing that the NRA is too heavily invested in the status quo. Just recently there was a director that attacked owning evil black guns. There was also their blatant lack of recognition of the pro-gun Libertarian party in 2006.


There is a story on the conflict between Levy and the NRA here it touches on the hard feelings between both partys.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article302.html

Kalrog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:ANd, if they rule that way, I am going to try to buy a brand new M4 from Colt in full auto. When I get turned down, I will try to sue to get that clause of the FOPA overturned. Leave all of the other rules on background checks and tax stamps in for now, just allow new class III weapons to be made. Well, if I have the money and can find a lawyer, I will.

Now that's a very interesting idea.

Chas.

After they win, you could probably contact http://www.gurapossessky.com/ with your case. They are the same ones that are representing Hellar http://dcguncase.com/blog/ Let me know how it works out and if they need someone else to attempt to make a purchase.

I don't know much about the stamps, FOPA and legal stuff, but I would be willing to beg Steve to let me try out that M4. That thing is incredible!!!