DC vs Heller

[Photoman]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[rockhill]

I for one do not give credit to any law firm, nor blame any organization, for results or the lack thereof. I suspect that there are a lot of forces, people and organizations involved to a greater extent then we will ever know. Paranoia? Probably. Distrust of, or lack of blind faith in our goverment? You bet. All I can do is vote my views, hope those people I entrust with some power stay true to the perceived beliefs I think they have. All too often people seem to change once they have tasted power.

This version of SCOTUS would seem to be on "our" side. But seeing is believing. All we can do is wait for spring when the arguments are scheduled, hope a good case is presented and then wait for a favorable outcome. The alternative is not fun to think about

[Liberty]

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]

I'm going to start an NRA thread to stop this hijacking.

[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

[ELB]

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

[Kalrog]

Kalrog

Feel free to move my post to the new thread, if you have the admin rights to do so.

I don't have the admin rights. I was just trying to help

[stevie_d_64]

Ohhh, to be a fly on the wall when they start working this for real!!!

ELB's got a very good memory, and the summarized details of some of those attacks on our 2A rights is dead on...

I too get discouraged, but I temper that with the knowledge that we got people on this that are putting up a really good defense for us...

Some would like to throw rocks at an effort they may or may not see on our behalf...But I believe when its time for the rubber to hit the road we all come together and are very effective in our efforts...

This is going to be big...No doubt about it...And like it has been said before, this is not totally locked up in our favor...And I hope I am wrong about that...But I'm going to be steady, and trust that good judgement prevails...

Besides...When it comes down to it...Guess what I'll still have either way???

I'm just not believing that its a fight they really want...And the other side is going to blink...

[jimlongley]

I am not a lawyer and I don't confess to understand amicus or any other briefings.

They are "briefs" not briefings, and you really should put a little more effort into understanding them, there is a wealth of interesting information in them.

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.

Levy was in the right place at the right time, the iron has been hot for a long time, and Levy hardly had any choice in when to strike. The NRA's legal team, and it's a pretty extensive one, also didn't get much of a choice as far as timing was concerned, if a case did not present the correct set of circumstances then the case was a waste of money to pursue - it would hardly be beneficial to our 2nd A efforts to win a SCOTUS ruling that homeowners had a right to own single shot shotuns.

The Bradys seem to succeed, but only seem to, because they are very shrill, very aggressive, and get a lot of support from rich benefactors and the liberal media, but they are not really all that successful, and they lie to the world about their failures, even portraying them as sucesses.

Do you recall the Bradys admitting they were wrong about "blood running in the streets" since CHL laws got passed?

Do you remember the Brady bunch reaction to Emerson?

How about their failure to get the "assault weapons ban" extended?

The Brady bunch gets its media strategy directly from history, observing the same ground rules as dictators throughout history. The NRA could use the same strategies, and would be portrayed as an evil influence on society.

[Liberty]

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.

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.

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.

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]

I just did a quick test to see if I could split some of the posts and move them to the new thread "NRA thoughts." It can't be done. I can split them, but they would have to go into yet another new thread.

So, let's get this thread back on topic; i.e. the Heller case. I take full blame for getting it off-topic. Please post all comments on the NRA in the thread "NRA thoughts."

Thanks,
Chas.