[Monkeyleg]

I just received a fund-raising call from the NRA. In the wake of the "collective rights" decision by the 9th Circuit court, they're going to run TV ads nationwide attacking the ruling. They're also going to work on an appeal of the 9th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court.

There's nothing on the NRA's website now, but the guy on the phone said there will be soon.

[PATH]

Here we go!

[4v50 Gary]

It's about time. Guess I'll give them some $ this year - after I give to our next to be elected mayor.

[G-Raptor]

When they file, I'll send a check. Otherwise, my dues should cover it.

[madkiwi]

THIS IS SO BIZZARE AND OPPURTUNISTIC.

They wouldn't help Gary Gorski with his case at all, now they are using it as an excuse to do some fund-raising? Where were they when he was taking on the California Dept. of Justice single-handedly?

Between compromising our rights away and self-centered actions like this I sometimes think the gun-rights lobbyists are no better than who they say they are fighting against.

If you trust the NRA you are a fool.

Madkiwi
My credentials (as a bona-fide license to criticize the NRA):
NRA Member, Certified Pistol and Personal Protection Instructor

[Monkeyleg]

I'm so incensed by the lack of responses and the tone of the responses that, after checking out the replies here, I'm going to download a curse-word filter for my 'puter.

On second thought, no.

Are you people nuts?!!! For as long as I was on TFL, and since I've been on THR, there's been nothing but bitching about how the NRA doesn't take on "the big issues."

Well, now they are. National TV ads. Supreme Court. Goin' after the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit. Everything that everybody has said the NRA should do...they're going to do!

Maybe I had too many mushrooms in my spaghetti tonight, but it sounds like the NRA is going balls-to-the-wall on the 2nd.

Unless I heard wrong---and I didn't (repeatedly asked the phone guy to clarifly that the NRA was going to the SC)---they're going to the Supremes!

Somebody call Larry Pratt. Betcha he's just sitting home and relaxin'. I can understand: Tough Guys need some relaxin' time. Especially when they don't take much fire.

[sixgun_symphony]

To the critics of the NRA.

You should know that these fights cost money. Your annual dues only cover the magazine subscription and registration costs. It takes more to pay for the day to day costs of operation. Thus the annoying mail solicitations for donations.


These television ads are expensive but necessary to fight the gun grabbers. This is something that will require something from all of us so that we can be heard by the mass of civil liberties minded voters out there who are not aware that the 9th circuit has "interpreted" our constitutional rights out of existance.

Maybe its worth giving up cigarettes, espresso, or beer to put that little bit of money where it will do some good.

Otherwise just continue on as you are doing and the gun grabber's will make it so that the NRA won't exist anymore and you won't be bothered ever again.

[dirtbos]

I am not sure that a decision made by the current Supreme Court Justices would come down on our side. If President Bush is able to send up a new appointment of two before the SC reviews this issue; we probably would be in a much better position.

The cynic in me brings out the following scenario. The 9th is very anti-gun as a whole. They (or at least those on this three Justice panel) probably see the strong possibility of a change in balance in the Supreme Court in the near future, now that Bush is president. All of the additional language which appears to be somewhat unrelated, or in addition too, the decision at hand (collective right, etc.) may have been added to force an early “fight” over the 2nd Amendment. If too much time passes, the decision is more apt to be positive for us and negative for the left. Let’s hope the time is right if it happens.

[Jim March]

I don't know anything about this ad campaign. And any push to the Supremes in the Silveira case will have to wait until the 9th Circuit figures out if they want to hear it En Banc (which won't take too long).

I do know that the widely reported Cato Institute (Libertarian think-tank) suit against the city of WashDC over their gun bans is being financially and legally supported by the NRA. This is VERY welcome news, and I got it straight by EMail from Chuck Michel, lead NRA attorney in California. Chuck feels that this is both a great gun-ban to challenge and it's slick because it bypasses "state issues" completely and goes straight for the Fed jugular. It also has a cleaner, straighter and SHORTER path to the USSC. It's possible this case is what Monkeyleg was being told about.

This lawsuit was widely reported by GOA and others as being an all-Cato thing, when in fact it's an NRA/Cato partnership.

[madkiwi]

Monkeyleg,

If you would step down from your high horse for just a moment, I have something for you to read:

Just before it became illegal to own military-style assault weapons in California about three years ago, Gary Gorski went shopping. The suburban Sacramento lawyer already had one high-powered rifle sitting in his home safe, but he rushed out to buy seven more. Just on principle.

He consulted gun advocates -- what were they going to do about this ban, what advice did they have? -- but no one pledged support. So, by himself, he hunkered down in his small office and cranked out a lawsuit to overturn the assault weapons ban.

"No one is backing me on this," Gorski said the other day, about a week after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against him. Not even the state gun lobby, gun owners' associations or the NRA are stepping in to help him fight what many feel is a futile attempt to challenge the ban on Second Amendment grounds before the federal court in San Francisco. One gun lobbyist calls some of the vehement language in Gorski's appeals court brief "inflammatory and unwise."

Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA lawyer, said he sympathized with Gorski's impatience, but said his approach was "not the way to go about correcting the problem." Michel has filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the weapons ban on the basis of its ambiguity. Gorski, he said, is a "well-intentioned loose cannon."

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL

The NRA is capitalizing on the publicity that was generated by the 9th Circuit's decision. I am not surprised, but that doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about it. The NRA files a lawsuit over "ambiguity", while overlooking the real problem- that a ban on a gun because of how it looks has no rational basis. Gary Gorski decides to do something about it, the NRA disavowed him, but now all of a sudden they want to be involved????

I am not saying they shouldn't be involved. I'm saying their timing stinks, where were they when this case started? Too busy compromising, probably.

madkiwi

[madkiwi]

Oh yeah, and another thing. I am sending a $50 donation to Gary Gorski, not the NRA. He's the one who deserves it.

Gary W. Gorski
Suite 100
4825 J St
Sacramento, CA 95819-3747

Phone: (916) 920-4140



madkiwi

[Blackcloud6]

Well, I bet the NRA was right on this one. people who try to play lawyer themselves usually screw up because of inexperience or ingnorance.

You hire a docotor for medical iisues.

A plumber for plumbing.

A lawyer for legal work.

[Shooter 2.5]

Really really bright. / sarcasm

One or two U.S. Supreme Court justices are slated to retire and we have the chance to confim conservative Justices that know how to read a simple sentence. What happens? We have someone in California who's trying to rush into a judgement right now.

Does anyone want to guess why this lawyer wants a judgement on the bill before those justices are confirmed? We waited forty years for an opportunty such as this and the lawyer can't wait a year or so?

If anyone wants to guess whether or not the lawyer is doing a good job or not, why isn't any of the other gun groups involved.
HMMM?

[Hutch]

I'm very pleased, no.. ECSTATIC, that the NRA is taking up the cudgel against the 9th Circuit, and pushing for a decision by the Supremes. But....

What. In. The. WOOOOORLD. are TV ads good for, in lobbying the Court? Only thing I can see is, it's another fundraiser. Again. Employing Wayne's cronies. Again.

[Viking6]

"What. In. The. WOOOOORLD. are TV ads good for, in lobbying the Court? " maybe, sorta. Somebody help me but just recently a case before the Supreme Court was decided with one of the factors being "changing public opinion" or something like. I can't remember (I'm right behind you, Chuck Heston) the case but the thing that does stick out was reference to public opinion as opposed to the US Constitution. Little help here.

[madkiwi]

Blackcloud

Your post is cute, but pointless.

Gary Gorski IS A LAWYER!!!

Shooter

Nice ad hominem attack on a 2nd Amendment hero. Sweet. I suppose this ingrate should just sit back and wait for actual confiscation before taking action. You are right, 40 years isn't long enough to fight back against a bill that the NRA helped to write (although the Gun Control Act was enacted 34 years ago). Oh, but wait a second- the issue here is that the NRA is soliciting money for the purpose of appealing this decision! Therefore, they must be thinking the time IS right!

I stand by what I said- the NRA is taking advantage of a situation they had nothing to do with, in a crass attempt to profit from the work of others. That useful idiots happily defend that tactic does not make it right.

madkiwi

[Monkeyleg]

Madkiwi, I wasn't on a "high horse." I was in a foul mood, aggravated by back pain and plain old irascibleness.

I don't claim to know why the NRA didn't intervene in the Gorski case. I do know that they pick the battles they reasonably believe they have a possibility of winning. We had a couple of challenges to the concealed carry law here that they passed on a couple of years ago, but then they brought in their attorneys this year for two different cases.

Viking, I don't think the TV ads are necessarily for the court challenge. We'll find out when they air what they're all about.

It's not my intent to defend the NRA 100% of the time. They tick me off sometimes, too. But the NRA-bashing on the gun forums gets to me. I get mailings from GOA, SAF, JFPO and other groups, but I never hear of them doing anything with the money they collect. I've at least seen firsthand my NRA/ILA dues in action in our state capitol.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

:neener:

[madkiwi]

Hi Monkeyleg,

I hear ya.

I was getting somewhat "irascible" on this topic myself. I figured that not too many people know the true story of Gary Gorski's "Don Quixote" challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban here in California, and it smacked of pure oppurtunism for the NRA to use it as a fund-raiser.

It is like when you have a supervisor who claims credit for your work- if I was Gary Gorski I would be pretty annoyed at the NRA. Do you think that they would give any of what they raise to Mr Gorski for his 2 years of work on this?

Better late than never, I suppose, but I am holding back any praise for the NRA until they publicly start working on this. Chuck Michel (the NRA spokesman in California for legal matters) was dissing Gary Gorski AFTER the 9th Circuit's ridiculous ruling. Obviously someone at the national level cottoned on to the idea of using this ruling to portray the 9th Circuit as "lefty loonies" who want to take away your guns, just like they want to ban the "Pledge of Allegiance". It plays to the Heartland, and to the core donor base.

madkiwi

[jimpeel]

I sent Gorski a few bucks last week along with some suggestions for citations and arguments.

[Don Gwinn]

So much for the high road, eh?

Maybe the NRA was wrong to hold back this long, but if they want to get into the fight now, it would be insane not to welcome them. Do you think the British in 1941 said "No, thanks, Yanks--you waited too long!"?

[Dennis Olson]

About bloody time...

[Al in Md]

I am not an NRA cheerleader but they are the big dog in D.C when it comes to lobbying power. I believe that the T.V. coverage of the Australian gun grab was worth its weight in gold for public opinion. Remember those piles of guns being destroyed on camera? At the time our rights were being eaten away by the Clinton Administration. The JFPO is working on a film to try to explain gun rights verses freedom now. In my limited legal understanding the Emerson case was positive for the second amend. but the state was able to restrict Emersons rights. This is the outcome I am fearfull of, The feds cannot infringe on your rights but the states can do anything they want. I am also glad to see the NRA file suit against the the Campain Finance Reform legislation. Yes the time may never be right for a second amend. case but would appear somewhat more favorable if a couple of the SCOTUS Justices would retire and be replaced by conservatives. Al in Md.

[KarlG]

Perhaps Gorski is better off NOT being backed by and "big guns". NRA could bring dollars to the table, but they also bring political opposition and bad press just by being the NRA. The Gorski case could be a sleeper that surprises us all. (I am an optomist)

At the same time, I am glad to see the NRA take on a high profile RKBA case. Some endevers just take dollar...

[TexasVet]

I no longer think it matters when or if a case gets to the SCOTUS on the 2nd. They will rule that, yes, it's an individual right but the feds and the states can place reasonable restrictions on it, and ANYTHING they put in place will be found "reasonable". Just ask Dr. Emerson.

[Jackanape]

KarlG might be onto something here. Any association with the NRA in this state would be more of a hinderence than a help. Gorski actuall got a write up in the San Francisco Chronicle that wasn't a hit piece. Bear in mind, this is a paper that never saw a gun law it din't like. The fact that they didn't paint Gorski as a klansman is amazing...

I'll believe the NRA is going to try to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling when I see it. This is an organization that has practically written of California, despite the money sent to them by their Californian members. I don't recall the NRA doing much of anything when SB23 was passed, but I still sent in my membership money plus extra. What tore it for me was when the members' council of Westside Los Angeles endorsed Councilman Zine for L.A. city council. As soon as zine was elected, he penned legislation to ban .50BMG rifles in the city of Los Angeles. When I wrote Zine regarding this issue, he defended his ban. If the NRA (local chapters or otherwise) were going to give endorsements to folks like this, I can't give them any more money. If the NRA steps up to the plate on the Ninth circuit's ruling, I'll likely change my tune and pony up the dough. Until then, actions speak louder than words, and so far all I've seen are words.

[Jim Diver]

You should know that these fights cost money. Your annual dues only cover the magazine subscription and registration costs. It takes more to pay for the day to day costs of operation. Thus the annoying mail solicitations for donations.


I have to disagree. If NRA can afford to dick around with opening resturants, play infomercials ONLY durring presidential election periods, and file suits on first ammendment issues then it can afford to do this.

When PRK residents banded together and worked grassroots to get a RKBA ammendment to the PRK const, NRA was no where to be found. They refused to help.

NRA has neglected PRK for too long. :fire: When they actualy file a suit and move to support us, then I MIGHT send some money. The last few years, the only thing NRA has done in PRK is play Republican Propoganda Wing.

NRA, show me some action then I might show you the money. I am not holding my breath though.

[andy28277]

First - the NRA is not stupid. To throw all of their support behind Gorski in a fight against the liberal 9th - and to lose, would look very bad. I read the opinion, and Gorski could of had the NRA, the GOA and every CA gun group backing him with millions of dollars and the best lawyers and he would have lost. Smart move not to back him in his fight against the 9th and their biased court.

Now, Gorski is going to appeal to the Supreme Court on his own and the NRA has to back him. Lose at the Supreme Court and it would be a huge setback. I believe the NRA wanted to wait until Bush is re-elected and their are a few more conservative Justices to take this fight to the top. However, with the economy as weak as it is Bush may not be re-elected and you will then have liberal Justices appointed.

Like it or not, now is the time to fight this in the Supreme Court. This is huge. If the Supreme Court hears this, it will be the most significant thing to affect - for or against - our 2nd Ammendment rights in our lifetime. Nothing could be bigger than this.

While I don't agree with everything the NRA says or does - I believe we should all offer our financial support - after we are sure this case will be heard by the Supreme Court. Sure, the NRA could be taking advantage of the fact that the Supreme Court may hear this case to raise money. IF the Supreme Court hears this case, though, the NRA, the GOA, every gun group and all of us should be righting huge checks as this will define the future of the 2nd.

As for TV ads, I don't think the NRA should do them until after the case is won. I think this should be kept quiet so the Supreme Court makes a decision based on the facts - which are on our side, and not based on a million (or 50 thousand) soccer moms marching on DC telling the court they are against it.

[ojibweindian]

I will send a check.

[Lone_Gunman]

A vicious cycle of failure is created when people say:

"show me some action, then I will send you money"

With no money, there will be no action. Money has to come first.

No money = No Action = No money = No action... it will go on and on.

This is rationalization not to donate to the NRA, nothing more.

Put your money where you mouth is.