TexasCHLforum.com

What a great day to be an NRA member!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washi ... React.html

Gun-Control Supporters Show Outrage
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
DiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR
Published: June 27, 2008
Gun-control advocates across the country reacted with shock and outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns today, saying the ruling would threaten gun-control measures in other states.

If there was any doubt that other bans would be in peril, the National Rifle Association quickly put those questions to rest when it announced shortly after the ruling that it would file a flurry of lawsuits challenging restrictions in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs. The law in Washington, which spelled out rules for the storage of weapons and made it extremely difficult for most people in the district to legally possess a handgun, was among the strictest in the nation.

“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of freedom,� Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., said in a statement.

In its 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns, not just the right of the states to maintain regulated militias. It also said that the District of Columbia’s requirement that lawful weapons be disassembled or limited by trigger locks was unconstitutional because it made them virtually useless.

In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a staunch supporter of gun control, called the decision “frightening� and said he was bracing for a fight with the gun lobby, which has long criticized the city’s ban on the sale and registration of handguns for everyone but police officers and a handful of others. Enacted in 1982, the law was created in response to the murders of two police officers and the assassination attempt on former president Ronald Reagan.

“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?� he said at a news conference. “If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets.

“They’re changing the rules,� Mr. Daley said of the Supreme Court. “Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?�

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, which also restricts the owning of guns, reacted strongly to the ruling, saying she was “viscerally affected� by it and worried for the nation’s safety.

“I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate,� she said. “And I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks, and all the rest of it.�

The ruling was quickly seized upon by John McCain, who in recent months has tried to repair a fractured relationship with the gun lobby stemming from his support of regulations on gun sales at firearm shows and other restrictions. Mr. McCain praised the decision today, and used it to renew criticisms of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,� Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Obama, however, was more careful and moderate in his statements about the ruling, saying it would provide “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions� across the country.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,� he said. “The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.�

Would you believe the negative spin in this moronic peice of drivel?

bdickens wrote:Would you believe the negative spin in this moronic peice of drivel?

Well, I rarely find Yank writers very supportive of the RKBA. I must admit finding great pleasure in seeing them squirm though.

Ever notice the difference in what the reporters call us compared to the anti-gun nuts? We are the "Gun Lobby" and they are "Gun Control Advocates". The truth is that they are the "lobby" since we have so many more people that support gun rights than they do that don't. They are nothing more than rich and powerful people that have formed organizations with few if any members. So, who is a lobbying organization and who is a peoples or civil rights advocate group?

The NRA is one of the oldest civil rights organizations in America.

The ruling was quickly seized upon by John McCain, who in recent months has tried to repair a fractured relationship with the gun lobby stemming from his support of regulations on gun sales at firearm shows and other restrictions. Mr. McCain praised the decision today, and used it to renew criticisms of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,� Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Obama, however, was more careful and moderate in his statements about the ruling, saying it would provide “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions� across the country.

Well gee whiz... Let me guess if the NYT is in the tank for Obama....

Man, annoyed, are you a psychic or something? Who would have ever guessed?

lawrnk wrote:...What a great day to be an NRA member!!...

Maybe -- remember that the NRA tried every way they could to SCUTTLE the Heller case, and while they immediately announced further lawsuits, it was the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) and the Illinois State Rifle Association along with Alan Gura (the lawyer who WON the Heller case and who the NRA tried to replace) who immediately filed suit in Chicago.

It's also the NRA (Wayne La Pierre) who will not say that the 1938 NFA (National Firearms Act) is unconstitution. The NFA was largely negotiated by the NRA and uses a tax to effectively ban automatic weapons and short barrel shotguns in contravention of the Constitution.

The NRA does a lot of good but it is very important that we all hold them accountable, as they are neither the demon (we wish) the Brady Bunch and the press try to claim, nor always automatically on the side of righteous either.

Now they claim that "ordinary firearms" don't include automatic rifles -- of course they don't since the government has effectively banned them.

How many of you would have a short barrel shotgun for home, office, or vehicle defense if they were legal?

I would.

HerbM wrote:Now they claim that "ordinary firearms" don't include automatic rifles -- of course they don't since the government has effectively banned them.

That was true when the NFA was passed, but not really anymore. If you compare the cost of the stamp to the overall cost of even lower-end full-auto firearms the stamp doesn't really constitute much of a barrier in and of itself. There are, after all, nearly a quarter million full-auto weapons registered in the U.S.

DParker wrote:

HerbM wrote:Now they claim that "ordinary firearms" don't include automatic rifles -- of course they don't since the government has effectively banned them.

That was true when the NFA was passed, but not really anymore. If you compare the cost of the stamp to the overall cost of even lower-end full-auto firearms the stamp doesn't really constitute much of a barrier in and of itself. There are, after all, nearly a quarter million full-auto weapons registered in the U.S.

Actually it is still true, not just for the cost, but for the excessive licensing rules, and the bans on the sale of new arms which make such firearms artificially expensive or unavailable -- effectively banning them. (You also must effectively give up your 4th Amendment rights to possess one legally.)

These firearms would be entirely normal and common if they were legal -- it is impermissible to use the fact that they have been made effectively illegal to argue that doing so is permissible.

Again: How many would own a short shotgun for home, vehicle, or business defense if the cost of the $200 tax was not equal to or greater than a $200 shotgun?

HerbM wrote:Again: How many would own a short shotgun for home, vehicle, or business defense if the cost of the $200 tax was not equal to or greater than a $200 shotgun?

I would, but only if I could get it without telling the feds that I got it (i.e., from a private party transaction). I don't trust the government to know that I'm buying such a firearm.

Barak says:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,�

It's for the children!!!

drw wrote:

HerbM wrote:Again: How many would own a short shotgun for home, vehicle, or business defense if the cost of the $200 tax was not equal to or greater than a $200 shotgun?

I would, but only if I could get it without telling the feds that I got it (i.e., from a private party transaction). I don't trust the government to know that I'm buying such a firearm.

Yes, that was the context when I used the word "legal" above, meaning "How many of you would have such a firearm if you could legally just buy it in a gun shop, from a friend, or modify it yourself."

The only reason many of us don't have a "coach gun" is due to it being illegal. My Chinese clone of a Remington 870 is far too long and heavy to be perfect for interior home defense -- I have no need for the increased accuracy at distances less than 15 yards. (maximum possible range within my home -- 25 yards if you count from my house to the property line in any direction.)

An MP5 would make another superior home and vehicle defense firearm, if we could legally purchase one, and do so without ceding our 4th Amendment protections again search and seizure.

Rokyudai wrote:Barak says:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,�

It's for the children!!!

Children are better protected with a parent that knows how to properly use a weapon than they are with a wishy-washy parent who's going to lay down to a robber or other criminal.

Just don't tell them that

HerbM wrote:An MP5 would make another superior home and vehicle defense firearm, if we could legally purchase one, and do so without ceding our 4th Amendment protections again search and seizure.

I would love an MP5 as a primary for my truck. Currently I carry an AK47 and an MP5 would be a much desired upgrade. I'd buy an MP5 from the first person to post one for sale in this forum.