What are we going to do about the NRA's choices?


PDA






ZeSpectre
June 19, 2007, 12:11 PM
Folks the NRA has been such a powerhouse and has carried the battle for so long, but this whole bit with H.R. 2640, The "NICS Improvement Act", simply cannot go unchallenged.

When the NRA agreed to climb into bed with the likes of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer I really have to start believing that we're being sold out.

So what do we do? Obviously (or at least it seems obvious to me) we need to hammer on Congress and get this bill STOPPED. But isn't it also equally important that the NRA be brought to task?

Of course by the same token we also need to avoid total political infighting or we risk bleeding ourselves out and doing our opponent's job for them.

What to do, what balance to strike? Man this sucks!


http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3112

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283386

If you enjoyed reading about "What are we going to do about the NRA's choices?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lagomorph
June 19, 2007, 12:29 PM
Yeah, this is a tricky situation to dance around.

I can understand the NRA's assertion that they'd rather be at the bargaining table to "compromise" if HR2460 legislation is going to happen anyways, but there is no guarantee (it's questionable at best) it would get any attention without NRA support.

To acquiesce like that and run the risk of being "unpopular" or "unreasonable" does feel like a sellout.

Send letters to your Senators. I have a feeling they would be more likely to listen to constituent concerns than the NRA would. Let's get the bill shot down and then we can write grumpy letters to whoever we want.

RealGun
June 19, 2007, 12:58 PM
It will be difficult to say whether NRA's decision was a wise strategy until the bill goes through the Senate. A slam dunk has less of a chance of garnering amendments. All Congress really wants is points for addressing the VT shooting, even if superficially, (and even if not their jurisdiction). However, lending credibility to something that is an unconstitutional claim of jurisdiction is worse than distasteful on its face alone. It also reinforces whether GCA 1986 was ever valid on constitutional grounds. The house of cards gets higher and higher.

oldfart
June 19, 2007, 01:34 PM
While it's pretty much out of our hands now, I believe our best shot at controlling all this anti-gun nonsense lies with the Parker case which D.C. is (hopefully) appealing to the SCOTUS. There is always the possibility that a decision from 'On High' could go against us and actually make things worse but even with no such decision things are gradually getting worse and worse.
I know, now is the time for someone to trot out the "CCW Arguement" to show how much better things are than they were ten years ago but that story doesn't wash with me. As far as I'm concerned, CCW is just another form of registration and will eventually come back to bite us in the posterior.
Ever since the delegates went home form the original Constitutional Convention our government has been sliding (slowly at first) toward some form of tyranny. The slide has steepened now and become more slippery but as long as we rely on our legislators to pass laws to uphold our side of the 2A question we will be doomed to disappointment. Judges may be no better in the final cut but at least they're slightly different and tend to look at the subject from a different point of view, so if we can get a favorable ruling in the Parker case we stand a chance - a small one, but a chance to overturn some of the more egregious laws.
I think it's worth noting that the NRA tried to torpedo that case before and is now pushing another bill that, if passed, would render the Parker decision moot.

Lone_Gunman
June 19, 2007, 01:37 PM
I don't understand why everyone is so worked up over this bill.

No one new is barred from gun ownership. There are no new requirements for gun purchasers.

In fact, this law has some good provisions. It lets people who have been barred from gun ownership because of mental problems to appeal through a state, not federal, route to have their rights restored.

Sometimes people just like to bitch at the NRA for no reason.

Beatnik
June 19, 2007, 01:58 PM
Personally, I've never seen much evidence that they were a pro-gun powerhouse. If one could direct me to reading about what they did in 1934 or 1968, that would be nice. I wasn't too gun-rights aware in 1994, but I did notice that since AWBII has been on the table, they don't seem too worked up about it.

But it doesn't matter whether they were the powerhouse in the past. They are certainly capitulating now. Taco Bell only gets one poison scandal before I'll never eat there again. Likewise, the NRA only gets one capitulation before I'll never support them again.

Too many other groups exist that are wholeheartedly devoted to the idea that we need to preserve this freedom. They let their members know in big, bold type what the issues are and what to do to get around them. The NRA has never done this in my estimation, and now they're involved in back-room deals.

My suggestion is simple: cancel your memberships. If you care about this, let them know. They have been letting us know for a while now that money is the most important thing to them, so take it away.

RealGun
June 19, 2007, 02:04 PM
As far as I'm concerned, CCW is just another form of registration and will eventually come back to bite us in the posterior. - oldfart

Carrying concealed and under State licensing was NRA's compromise idea...1929 I believe. Are we slow learners? Everything is a Trojan Horse. Remember that. How many laws have been used in ways unforeseen or unintended by the drafters? The list is endless.

Daniel T
June 19, 2007, 02:08 PM
Sometimes people just like to bitch at the NRA for no reason.

You got that right.

camacho
June 19, 2007, 02:12 PM
What are we going to do about the NRA's choices?
Personally, I will do nothing. I believe the NRA played a smart game by agreeing to enforce a law that is already in the books (and a law I agree with). Doing the exact opposite as some of you and the GOA suggest, would be a suicidal to the RKBA cause.

Art Eatman
June 19, 2007, 02:16 PM
Apparently nobody's changing their mind about the new funding law. So this thread can get nowhere except as a back and forth between two fixed positions. That's a waste of psychic energy and bandwidth.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "What are we going to do about the NRA's choices?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!