[Sparker]

NRA Attorney, S. P. Halbrook's answer to NRA Sellout

Handguns are absolutely banned in the District of Columbia. Before 1976, citizens could possess registered handguns. D.C. law required all firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting the registration of handguns, thereby completely banning them. Our lawsuit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, seeks to allow D.C. residents once again lawfully to possess handguns.

Our clients actually live in the District of Columbia and are confronted by criminals of all kinds in their neighborhoods. For them, it would be major progress to be able to keep a handgun in the home, even if it must be registered. Arm-chair critics may wish to litigate every gun control law on the books in one case, but it's not realistic litigation strategy.

Our strategy is a narrowly-focused effort to encourage the court to recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right and to declare the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional, so that residents who are daily threatened by criminal violence may keep handguns in their homes to defend themselves. To a defenseless people, the ability merely to possess a handgun would be a giant step forward. But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment.

This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments.

NRA supports this litigation as part of a broader strategy to restore Second Amendment rights to D.C. citizens. Bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House to repeal not just the handgun ban, but also the requirement that all firearms be registered. The goal is the complete restoration of Second Amendment rights, and NRA will continue vigorously to pursue this objective in the courts and in the Congress.

This morning I received a request to add to the above article from Mr. Halbrook.

Mr. XXXXX:

I would appreciate if you would also post the following:

Further response by Halbrook about DC Second Amendment Challenge

In oral argument in the D.C. challenge, we made clear that the only "reasonable" regulations were the prohibitions on violent criminals and the like, and that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of law-abiding citizens to keep handguns. We did NOT state that registration was reasonable. Since we are attacking the ban on handguns, and since the law otherwise requires all firearms to be registered, we are seeking to register handguns. For residents in immediate danger, a registered handgun is better than no handgun.

Knowing full well that our litigation strategy threatens the gun ban and may result in pro-Second Amendment precedent, the Brady Center and Violence Policy Center are vehemently opposing us in this case. Anyone misled into thinking that I support registration should read my article http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html Registration: The Nazi Paradigm

Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law
10560 Main St., Suite 404
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel. (703) 352-7276
Fax (703) 359-0938
Email: shalbrook@stephenhalbrook.com
Website: www.stephenhalbrook.com

[El Tejon]

Gentlemen, our rights were lost a slice at a time. We will recover them a slice at a time.

Narrow the issue, one at a time. This is exactly what the NAACP and ACLU did. We must do the same.

[oldfart]

"Gentlemen, our rights were lost a slice at a time. We will recover them a slice at a time."

I'd go along with that strategy if the anti-gunners weren't still slicing us while we're busily sharpening our knives.

The NRA may have a reasonable strategy in this particular case, but their overall strategy has been a losing one. I have no confidence in the "Wayne and Kayne" show, anymore than I did when "Moses" was the Prez. When they stop supporting the re-election of gun-grabbing politicians and adopt a 'zero-tolerance' attitude toward RINOs like Bush and Ashcroft I will be more than happy to eat my words. The NRA may very well be the '800 pound gorilla' of special interest lobbies, but I have to ask whose special interest are they lobbying for.

I send them my membership fee every year-- not because I support them, because I don't think they support me-- but because my membership in the local gun club requires NRA membership.

[Waitone]

Too many RKBA'ers walk to the plate wanting to hit a grand slam. Constantly swinging for the fences results in an unusually high strikeout rate.

Any team that can send a batter to the place with an 80% chance of hitting a single will beat any team out there. I for one would love to see a string of small victories rather than one great big showdown suit.

[KMKeller]

As would we all Waitone... Unfortunately we've seen too many trade-offs and sidesteps with zero forward momentum to call anything a net gain. Too much collaborating with the enemy at this juncture for me to have any faith in their motives or actions. They have "little slices" us to death and there is precious little left to sacrifice or trade.

[Thumper]

Narrow the issue, one at a time. This is exactly what the NAACP and ACLU did. We must do the same.

Astute man, that El T.

[Jeeper]

As would we all Waitone... Unfortunately we've seen too many trade-offs and sidesteps with zero forward momentum to call anything a net gain. Too much collaborating with the enemy at this juncture for me to have any faith in their motives or actions. They have "little slices" us to death and there is precious little left to sacrifice or trade.

I have to agree. All the gains in RKBA have come at state levels and not at the national level. States are wising up to CCW laws and such. There has been no progress at the national level. They have stalled a few bills but no ground regained. If the AW ban ends that would be the first step in a long time. The supposed lifting of the DC gun ban is just to squash the CATO suit so that really isnt a gain anyway.

[Tempest]

I'm going to pose a question to y'all incrementalist-types that my friend JT - a JAG attorney posed to me today after reading everything relating to this:

When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?

This is not a fight we're going to win with compromise. What may be a marginal improvement for DC residents' situation will be a major screwing for the RKBA movement.

[KMKeller]

Another point to make regarding Jeeper's point on CCW and other gains. In another thread, someone made reference to the bountiful CCW gains as being an example of NRA's headway. CCW gains have been by and large a result of grass roots efforts in individual states and have had little NRA involvement.

Like Nicki, I'm an NRA member and have yet to burn my card. But I can't help but feel that the NRA is swinging to a view that certain segments of the shooting sports are expendable or to put a finer point to it, negotiable chaff that they can barter as chips for more political power. Sacrifice the dedicated handgunners or the self-defense crowd to strike a political deal to protect the others. It concerns me. I can't help but feel that our voices count less and less while more weight is given to those non-member voices that would take our rights away.

Most of the NRA's moves of late seem to be designed to bolster their political capitol rather than fight the good fight. The NRA model is to give a slice to get a slice. Where do we compromise next?

[Tempest]

This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments. I want to point out that the comparison of strategies in this case is completely inappropriate.

No, the NAACP didn't go in trying to overturn all the Jim Crow laws at once. And while they took on one offensive portion at a time, in no way shape or form did they EVER concede that the other offensive portions were acceptable. They didn't say, "Your honor, we're here to argue that black people need to use white bathrooms - just the bathrooms, your honor. It's OK for us to ride in the back of the bus and not be able to eat in white-only restaurants."

[madmike]

Asking for information, please don't flame me, because I wouldn't ask if I knew.

Can anyone give me a list of cases the NRA has filed against gun control at the national level in the last 20 years? If that's too long, how many have they won?

How many have they filed at the state level? How many have they won?

Amicus briefs don't count. I'm looking for a list of "NRA vs XXXX"

I do want to be fair and informed, after all.

[Baba Louie]

filed against gun control ???
How about helped carefully craft them (legislation) in a manner of compromise such that they are then palatable as the lesser of two evils and "this version we can sell to our members"?
I know that doesn't answer your question madmike and I'll do a little research to see where they might have actually come out aginst gun-control in reality vs rhetorically...
Shouldn't take long.
Be right back when I find them...
Don't hold your breath waiting tho...

[MicroBalrog]

I remember reading about the NRA supporting the NFA back in the 30's...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Can anyone give me a list of cases the NRA has filed against gun control at the national level in the last 20 years? If that's too long, how many have they won?

madmike, FindLaw shows six pages of entries featuring the National Rifle Association, some are related to the same cases though and not all of them are directly related to the Second Amendment.

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=National+Rifle+Association&sites=findlaw.com

I do want to be fair and informed, after all.

In the interests of fairness then, it is worth pointing out that not all NRA sponsored cases refer to the NRA. For example, the very case that this thread is about mentions the NRA only once in its complaint (http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/dc_case.pdf) - and that is when it mentions that one of the plaintiffs is an "NRA-Certified Firearms Instructor". That is the only mention of the NRA. There is no NRA vs. or any other clues that would suggest they sponsored the lawsuit.

[madmike]

Valid point, Mr Roberts. So let's amend it to include cases where the NRA is taking an active part in the proceedings.

They claim credit for a lot of cases where "NRA activists in (yourstatehere) accomplished..." but the sum total of their involvement is that the parties belong to the NRA. There was no actual money or support offered by NRA HQ.

I'm looking for signs of real judicial activism. I know what they do as lobbyists, that's legislative. I'm looking for what they've fought in court.

[Standing Wolf]

When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?
This is not a fight we're going to win with compromise.

Amen!

[Cosmoline]

Gentlemen, our rights were lost a slice at a time. We will recover them a slice at a time.

As the youngsters say, "WORD"

[Wiley]

Since the NRA was against Silveria and the US Supreme Court denied Silveria and;

Since the NRA felt that an 'incrimental' method was far better and the DC Circuit Court ruled against the NRA;

Can anyone who knows or has some idea what the NRA is doing tell me/us what the next 'incriment' is?

I might be induced to re-join and make some special contributions if I thought there was hope that the NRA doing something to advance the cause. I would think that there must be some sort of 'incirmental' case out there, maybe?

Or has the NRA given up?

[LawDog]

When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?

:scrutiny: You're kidding, right?

I hope that everyone knows that the ultimate aim of the gun grabbers is the complete banning of firearm ownership by private citizens. If not, now you do.

Okay.

They want a complete ban. They take tax on full-auto weapons. A compromise.

Then, a little later, they still want a complete ban on guns, but they take a ban on short-barrelled rifles and shotguns.

And, in a bit, they still want a complete ban on guns, but they take a ban on 11+ round magazines.

Little bit later, trust me they still want a complete ban, but they take a ban on scary guns.

See? Little steps - increments.

Am I the only one that this is glaringly obvious to? If y'all really don't see the NFA of '34; the GCA of '68, the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban as increments along the road to a total gun ban, then I'm going to have to seriously re-think my assessment of KABA.

LawDog

[madmike]

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=National+Rifle+Association&sites=findlaw.com

the first page is almost entirely NRA vs FEC

National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Cuomo is on page 2...

page 3, same as page 1, barring some article references...

page 4 we start to fall off and get unrelated responses, plus the previous...

page 5...

page 6...

hmmm...that appears to be it.

Their response to legislation is to push for more legislation, which, ultimately, confuses the issue.

Kinda like tax accountants and tax attorneys love "revisions" to the tax code, but never seek to find a tax law unconstitutional.

So, the more laws, the more complex, the more problems, the more the NRA can beg money to pay LaPierre something like $450,000 a year, as well as BoD members, execs, advertising companies....

and if the laws go away, what then?

I think we're done here. I'm writing GOA another check, and Angel can expect one, too.

[Michigander]

No, the NAACP didn't go in trying to overturn all the Jim Crow laws at once. And while they took on one offensive portion at a time, in no way shape or form did they EVER concede that the other offensive portions were acceptable. They didn't say, "Your honor, we're here to argue that black people need to use white bathrooms - just the bathrooms, your honor. It's OK for us to ride in the back of the bus and not be able to eat in white-only restaurants."


EXACTLY!

Side note:

Even my gun-grabbing congresscritter replies to my letters and emails.

I have yet to hear back from my beloved NRA!

[Waitone]

I just love pitching against batters who swing for the fences with every pitch. I'll win every stinkin' time.

A few random thoughts in no particular order:
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes that a litigation strategy of advancing RKBA is fiendishly expensive.
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes the entire monstrosity called gun control law can be disassembled with a handful of strategically chosen cases.
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes it is not good mojo to be the dominant legislative influence group and the dominant litigation advocate.
--Perhaps the NRA uses litigators who know what they are doing in arguing cases before the appeals courts and supreme court as opposed to gun rights keyboard commandos.
--Perhaps the NRA is sufficiently plugged in to legislative and judicial sources to know that a showdown court case will blow up in the face of RKBA.


Some think LaPierre is over paid for what he does. I don't. I remember quite distinctly in the mid 90's he appeared on Russert's show and with one statement shut down the Clinton anti-gun movement when he said it is obvious the president is willing to accept a level of killing because he does not enforce the laws already in effect. That one comment changed the nature of the debate. Show me any other RKBA leader who has redirected the attacks of the opposition.

[MicroBalrog]

"is obvious the president is willing to accept a level of killing because he does not enforce the laws already in effect"

Anybody except me sees anything BADLY wrong with this?

[Michigander]

A random thought:
----Perhaps the NRA recognizes that eliminating 2nd Amendment infringements would reduce their membership dramatically.

[Michigander]

Anybody except me sees anything BADLY wrong with this?


You're not alone Micro.

[madmike]

I just love pitching against batters who swing for the fences with every pitch. I'll win every stinkin' time.

really...let's see:

A few random thoughts in no particular order:
--Perhaps the NRA recognizes that a litigation strategy of advancing RKBA is fiendishly expensive.

compared to losing our rights? Yes, must not waste $$$. And considering how many millions they spend lobbying, that's a really stupid assertion. SWING..STEEEEEEERRRRIIIKKE ONE!

--Perhaps the NRA recognizes the entire monstrosity called gun control law can be disassembled with a handful of strategically chosen cases.

They haven't filed any cases except the two or three they've lost. Can't win if you don't file. STEEEERRRIIIIKE TWO!

--Perhaps the NRA recognizes it is not good mojo to be the dominant legislative influence group and the dominant litigation advocate.

It would be bad to really be as powerful as everyone says they are????? WHaaaaaaA?

STEEEEEEERIIIIIIKE THREE!

--Perhaps the NRA uses litigators who know what they are doing in arguing cases before the appeals courts and supreme court as opposed to gun rights keyboard commandos.

"yes, we lost this one, but we're REALLY going to take them next time!"

That was the Japanese strategy in 1945. Oh, and if Halbrook can't quote Title 10 USC as it relates to the militia, he DOESN'T know what he's doing. This is like a physicist who doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or an author who doesn't understand third person omniscient POV.

STEEEEEEEEERRRRRIIIIIIKKE FOUR! (and you ALSO are a keyboard commando, me bucko!)

--Perhaps the NRA is sufficiently plugged in to legislative and judicial sources to know that a showdown court case will blow up in the face of RKBA.

This translates as "we can't win honestly!" It may be true, but in that case, Sarah Grabby is right. I'd hate to live in that world.

"We can't fight a war! What if we LOOOOOSE?" That was the Saxon strategy against the Normans and Danes, the French strategy against the Germans, the Romanian strategy against the Turks, should I continue?

If I'm going to lose, it's going to be like the Alamo, the Mujahideen, Metzada and Thermopylae combined...they're going to KNOW they had a fight.

STEEEEEEEEEERIKE FIVE!

Batter up?

Oh, and I'm still waiting to see one of the many court cases the NRA has filed and won. Or at least filed. I do recall them supporting NFA 34 and GCA 68 and helping write the Brady Act. Nice allies.

"Our archers are so numerous," said the envoy, "that the flight of their arrows darkens the sun."

"So much the better," replied Leonidas, "for we shall fight them in the shade."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

madmike, what happened to your "fair assessment"?

I've shown you findlaw where you can research cases and pointed out that not all of the cases the NRA sponsors mention the NRA (for example, the very case in this thread didn't show up, did it?)

I bet the case challenging the Clinton Administration's policy of keeping NICS records didn't show up either...

If you are asking me to do your research for you, you're out of luck. If you are really interested in looking, FindLaw is a good tool.

To me it looks as though you have come into your "research" with some preconceived notions and are more interested in supporting those notions than realistically assessing what the NRA has done judicially.

Another thing to consider, NRA lost the Clinton case I mentioned above; but thanks to Ashcroft and Rep. Tiahrt (Kansas-R), they ultimately got what they were after.

Or at least filed. I do recall them supporting NFA 34 and GCA 68 and helping write the Brady Act. Nice allies.

One other thing, the NRA of today is just a little bit different than the NRA of 1934 or 1968. NRA didn't even have a lobbying arm to fight gun control until 1979; before that the only thing they were interested in was rifle competitions and teaching safety classes.

As for writing the Brady Act, the only portions I am aware the NRA contributed were the portions implementing the NICS background check. Without those, you would have the Brady Check which required a 5-day waiting period.

For someone who purported to be interested in fairness, let me say that I don't see you being very objective on the subject.

[madmike]

Yes, Bartholomew, and I've done other searches. They write a lot of Amicus briefs. They are directly involved almost never. I'm well aware they didn't start getting politically active until the late 1970s, which I consider shortsighted.

It just amazes me that they go into court unprepared, lay observers say, "They're going to lose," a bunch of cheerleaders say, "They have a Secret Plan(tm)," they lose, and then the cheerleaders say, "But it's a Double Secret Probationary Plan(tm)! You'll see! Wink."

I'm looking at what it took to buy a gun last month, compared to when I was 18, which was only 1985, and it doesn't look to me as if we'll have guns at ALL in another 20 years. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this.

How many nuisance suits has Brady instigated against us? How many marches? Campaigns? Press releases?

We are forever playing catch up, trying to be "Reasonable," unavailable for comment, or asked to "justify" ourselves for the actions of others. This is a losing strategy.

If one NRA member in a hundred filed a suit against Brady for defamation of character, libel or slander, or being ugly without a license, every case would lose, and it would cost them more budget than they have and they'd go away. That's how the Scientologists shut down the Cult Awareness Network. That's how Brady is going after manufacturers.

TWo final comments on this thread: I'm not asking you to "do my research for me." I'm asking you to give me a reason to believe these people are competent at anything except whining for $$$. Because they are not "Defending my rights." They aren't even in the building. That you imply that such data is readily available and cannot rattle it off from memory or have a database handy implies that either you really aren't interested in 2A, or you are, but don't want to face the fact that there's really nothing we can rely on from the NRA. Yes, they're legislating, and that CAN help, but getting rid of existing laws almost always takes the courts, not more legislation.

Point two: The Nazi Party went into court and demanded the right to march and protest. They won. I can't believe that the majority of judges involved were "biased" in favor of the Nazis. So when some whiner (and there's a lot of them) says that any judge who rules against us (and there's a lot of them) is "biased," it makes me laugh so hard I cry.

We lose the cases because our presentation is incompetent. See Miller. See that almost everything since then with the exception of Emerson has been a failure. Try to FIND an attorney to take a 2A case who doesn't demand $$ up front from the plaintiff, while Brady's cronies file under grants.

We better start mounting a competent offensive Real Soon Now. Because Defense dropped the ball.

But my kids are really looking forward to the pre-ban 5-shot .22s they'll be able to boast about owning in ten years, while the NRA "defends their rights."

Think I'm joking?

$500 M-16...$7500 or more, no more available.
$300 folding stock AK...$1000, no more available.
Browning HP with tangential sights and stock slot: HA!
Bullpups: "not sporting arms."
Carry a pistol: "If you're over 23 and take this test and pay this fee and don't carry more than 10 rounds of only standard ball."(some places. Not here, yet.)
$500 AR with bayonet lug: $1100.
Remington 1100: sure, with no more than five rounds and no folding stock.
$10 hi-cap magazines: up to $200 each, depending.
Bush says he'll sign a PERMANENT AW ban...
The Dems want to push it as an election year issue...
Bush is likely to have low polls...
his advisors will tell him to appeal to the "middle ground"...
We won't be able to run ads about it because of McPain's Incumbent Protection Law...

No, it's time for outrageous legal offensives and harsh language, or armed revolution. And I'm too old and cowardly to be shot for taking part in a revolution.

[jfh]

is spot on. The antigunners have been incrementalists from day one.

It's my observation from my limited public service work that ALL legislation is nearly always "incrementalism" if viewed from a perspective of stated goals--and particularly if viewed from an ideological perspective.

For a few years I was a member of the Orono, MN planning commission. We were often called upon to present "expert" advice to help craft a change in City ordinances--and like all results of "decisions" by committees, those recommendations for changes in the ordinance were a compromise position--which was also likely to be further 'tweaked' by the Council before they voted on it.

Others will recall the exact details, but anyone who closely followed the '94 Federal antigun law negotiations will recall that, when it became apparent that sickWilly and the Travelling Cripple Show had the votes to "guarantee" passage, the NRA was actively involved in the last-minute horse-trading that preserved some "rights" while losing on others.

The one example that I remember is that the whole bill contained onerous new regulations for handloaders, and that those were kept out.

The legislation that resulted was an incremental loss of our rights again--but it allowed these damn politicians on both sides to both claim victory--which they seem to think they need to do to keep getting re-elected. But it was far less a loss than it could have been had not the NRA been there juggling the changes.

Similarly, the "ground up" approach in our incrementalist gains in the States' record--i.e., expansion of RTC over the last seventeen years--is another example of incrementalism, and a very important one. By successful expansion here, we are successfully building a track record for expansion on the federal level.

Here in MN, the antigunners have successfully shot themselves in the foot with their dire predictions last year--i.e., 90,000 more guns on the streets, and the obligatory bloodbath if that happens, etc., etc.--has shown to be about 14,000 more (legal) guns on the streets, one or two incidents regarding handguns and permits (but not directly related to RTC)--and, of course, a continued decline in crime / homicide.

That successful "advance" in gun rights (in MN, of all places, the state that elected Paul Wellstone!) is one more stepping stone in building a national "experience" in firearms that makes Federal advances all the more likely. IMHO.

[hardhead]

Waitone wrote, (and others agree) that swinging for the fences results in a lot of strikeouts. I would add that it also results in homeruns.

I see the NRA still 'waiting' for the perfect 2nd amendment case to bring before the USSC. They have indicated this by their comments on the Silviera case, among others. If the NRA were truly concerned about our gun rights, they would be filing Constitutionally related cases against Miller, the 68GCA, the AWB, etc, etc.

They continually compromise our rights, and we die the death of a thousand cuts. If the NRA is going to tell us that they are the saviour of the gun rights community, they should at least act like it. Actually, ACTING like it is all they seem to do. Back up and take a broad, objective look at the overall record of success of the NRA on restoration of gun rights, and it's style of negotiated compromise. This short history should demonstrate that what the NRA is doing, ain't workin'. More and more gun laws are being passed every day. It's way past time for another strategy.

I know others are afraid of the result of an adverse ruling that would destroy a "legal" individual right to keep and bear arms, but we all know what the Constitution says in very plain language. I don't think anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language really has any trouble with it, and I don't think we need lawyers and judges to "interpret" our right. If such a ruling, and the resulting enforcement action that would be sure to follow, is the direction this is all headed, then let the fight begin now.

The legacy of un-Constitutional gun control/confiscation is not something I'm willing to leave for our children and grandchildren to suffer over. History has shown, without exception, what gun restrictions lead to.

IMHO, it's time that our so-called representatives be warned, in a very direct and clear manner just where all of this nonsense is eventually headed, and why the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

If the NRA wants to take a much milder approach, then they can count me out. My rights, and the legacy left to our progeny are way to important.

[oldfart]

Every time someone suggests we swing for the homerun and let the courts decide whether or not we actually have any rights, someone else jumps up and warns us about the dire result we could face. We could lose all our right to keep guns. We could see door-to-door confiscation. We could see (gasp) WAR!

Folks, we're already at war. War has been defined as killing people and breaking things. If you read anything in the local fishwrap besides the comics, you'll notice an almost daily body count. Usually it's off in that part of town where you never go and it's between a bunch of druggies or gang members, but sometimes it leaks out to even the best neighborhoods.

Let's look at the present war-- or wars.

We have an old 'war on poverty' that apparently 'poverty' is winning.

We have the 'war on drugs' that has degenerated into several other 'wars' such as the 'war on private property', the 'war on privacy', the 'war on morality'... etc.

Now we have a 'war on terror' which has brought us the Patriot Act, Patriot II, the Homeland Security Department, CFR and God only knows what next.

Please notice that with each of these 'wars' there is a certain amount of collateral damage-- innocent lives lost, property forfeited, God-given rights trampled. Those are OUR lives, OUR property and OUR rights! We're already at war! We're just not acting like it.

Sarah Brady knows she's at war. So does Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. So does Sandra Day O'Connor. And you know what else? They all know who's winning. We know it too, but we don't want to make waves or hurt anyone's feelings, so we confine our efforts to sending money to the NRA or GOA and engaging in group therapy via the internet.

I read something by Liz Michael the other day. She's a bit of a rabble-rouser but she does make a few good points from time to time. She said something about how difficult it has been to vote an incumbent out of office and that now, with Campaign Finance Reform the law of the land, it has finally become easier to shoot the bastards than to organize and vote 'em out. I wonder if the legislators who voted for that bill considered that. I'd hate to see things degenerate to that level, but JFK once said something about 'if you take away the means of peaceful revolution, you pave the way for a violent one.'

[Jeeper]

First,

Saying that Halboork is anything short of one of the best and most respected lawyers in this country is ridiculous. This is like people saying how Montana really shouldnt have passed when he did. Armchair quarterbacking by people who really dont know what they are talking about. How many people here that bitch about him have won cases in the USSC that appear in EVERY and I mean EVERY consitutional law book out there?

Second
I strongly believe that the NRA doesnt want a case to go up now. Is that a good idea? Possibly. What happens if a good case goes up now and loses? It would be a LONG time until it would go up again. Waiting a few years might be the best idea. If Bush can get rid of Kennedy and Oconnor then we might have 5 that would go our way.

Third.
Has the NRA really ever tried to get the gun ban in DC lifted till now? NOPE. They are only doing it now because CATO is doing theirs now which is a better case. It is really interesting how CATO case was filed earlier but the NRA's went to trial first. They got it fast tracked.

I dont think that a NRA case will ever be the one that wins us back recognition of anything. it willbe from some other group. I think the NRA has its place in DC but they really just slow down the gun grabbers more than push back against them.

[MicroBalrog]

They all know who's winning.

Yeah, and it's not the Brady Bunch.

[Jeff Thomas]

1. Halbrook is a fine man, an excellent attorney, and a mind that has done wonders for the RKBA. Read "That Every Man be Armed" ... great historical base ... excellent perspective on the philosophy.

2. LawDog was right on. When I read "When have you known the anti's to search for incrementalist ways to relieve us of our rights? When have you known them to compromise? When have you known them not to go full-force to implement every bill meant to strip us of our rights?" I really had to chuckle. And, shed a tear. The anti-self defense bigots have stripped us of our rights one slice at a time. Guns are too big, they're too small, they hold too much ammunition, you can't carry it here or there, you can't carry it on your body, you can't take it into this one town ... ad nauseum. It is their strategy, for heavens sake ... this point is so fundamental, friends. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

3. For all of you boys who say no compromise ... thanks for contributing to zero progress, by definition. Before you go ballistic (so to speak), think about it. If you truly accept no compromise, and won't acknowledge anything but full restoration of the RKBA, I've got a news flash for you ... you've failed in your mission for over 200 years. But, hey ... keep pushing for that grand slam. In the meantime, a lot of good people have helped many Americans gain an interest in shooting, begin carrying firearms to defend innocent life (CCW/CHL), train in the use of firearms, keep firearms at home to defend their families, etc.

Our rights to self defense have always been stripped incrementally. And incremental steps to take them back, carefully bolstered by logical discussion with friends and neighbors, will continue to solve this political challenge.

My family and I are very thankful to people like Halbrook. They've helped make our country a better place in which to live. If you disagree with them, at least give them the respect they deserve.

Regards from TX

[jfh]

And, using the MN current situation--i.e., the first year after the RTC law was passed--we (progunners) have gained an important, incremental edge in the current tactics--here's why:

For nominally the last twenty years--ever since the national Democratic organizations--linked their political success to victimology and vote buying with government handouts, the MN DFL has become dominated by the more extreme version of 'progressive' interests in the name of legislation. They now have, in the last ten years, particularly signed on to the national agenda re gun control.

Since the statistics now demonstrate overwhelming success at an "expansion" of gun rights in the State RTC laws, the collective identity of all of us as Americans is changing.

For example: the MN Citizens Concerned group had NO presence at the first day of the legislature, other than turning in their "petition" for repeal of last year's RTC law--for which they had managed to get only 27,000 signatures! That is a miserable failure; MN has a population of over four million. They still get disproportionate coverage for their effort--but when only six people show up for the anti-rally on opening day (the local Million Moron crowd), it was noted. While the press provided their excuses (we had a bad snowstorm--but funny, the legislators made it there, and the press--but instead of the petition receiving extended and expanding press coverage, it was dropped.

In short, it appears that the general population--who, BTW, still doesn't want more guns on the street--also now knows that blood doesn't run in the streets, etc., and we have hard numbers to further discredit these antigun minions in the Legislature.

(OTOH, the lawsuits against the law MAY have some credible basis in law, and some support from other groups besides the far left--but who knows until the courts start ruling. There's a property rights issue presented, and there's a narrowly-defined attempt based on issues in legislative tactics that may be a problem.)

These changes in attitudes are real small examples of "incrementalism"--and that is the nature of changes that will form the basis for legislative change.

I hope JoelR posts in this thread; he's been a VERY visible mainstay in the RTC fight here in MN and will have more political insight than I do.

[hardhead]

quoting Jeff Thomas "For all of you guys who say no compromise...thanks for contributing to zero progress..."

Well, let's see. 34' NFA (granted the NRA wasn't a lobbying group then), the 68' gun control act, the 86' machine gun ban, the AWB, the Brady Act, and now we have a "conservative" president who ran and was elected on a platform that, in part, promised a renewal and enactment of a permanent AW ban.

Not one, I repeat, not one single gun control law of any real consequence has been repealed or sunsetted since 34'.

And you call this progress? I call it insanity, as in doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

It should be obvious that the current consequences for violating the Constitutionally guranteed rights of citizens are not severe enough to create pause among our "representatives".

I don't know Mr. Halbrook, or his motives, but the NRA needs a heapin' helpin' of reality.

[Publicola]

First of all, the comparisons to the NAACP strategy are inappropriate.

Black people didn't have any constitution protectign their ability to congregate on any end of the bus they wanted, or to drink from water fountians marked "white only" or in short to be treated with the same respect as a white person.

The NAACP filed lawsuits in order to carve out segregation. Thye did it incrementally. But they didn't do it alone. By the late 50's & early 60's they weren't filing abstract cases; they were fighting in court to aquit those accused of breaking the law. They had a bunch of people who believed enough in the idea that black people should be treated equally that they engaged in civil disobedience.

Also, in conjunction with the court cases & civil disobedeience they had protests & riots.

Now when's the last time you heard an NRA rep tell you that such & such a law was unconstitutional & we should all disobey en masse? When's the last time you heard the NRA organize a protest in a no-gun zone (such as DC) with protestors who were carrying arms?

Now the main thing (aside from the level of member support) that is different is that gun owners have it very clearly spelled out that gun control laws are a no-no. That whole second amendment thing.

One does not gain back a Right that is constitutionally enumerated incrementally. That's like rescue your wife from a kidnapper one limb at a time. You defend what you have left AS your taking back all the ground you bloody well can.

Incrementalism is fine if you're trying to gain something form nothing, but it's foolish when you're trying to keep something you already have or regain something that's een partially taken away.

What the NRA apologists would like you to believe is that the NRA has a plan & that they're the only way to win. well here's the deal: I doubt they have a plan to take back any lost ground. If they do then the planner should be fired as it sucks. I'm guessing, as I have no proff other than observation, but it seems the only plan the NRA has is to prolong the fight w/o winning too much or losing completely.

As for the "experts" the NRA has - I'll admit that Halbrook & a few others have written some good pieces, but I could argue the cases better &/or come up with a more competent strategy than they have. "Experts" are fine when you don't know what's going on, but very few of us on here can claim ignorance.

To sum up I disagree with the idea that the NRA has a pro-gun strategy that will work, or that they're even actually implementing one & I was very disappointed in Halbrook arguing for registration in a trial.

[Jeff Thomas]

hardhead, you missed my point completely. My point is that those who insist on no compromise, no incremental take back of RKBA have reaped ... nothing. Nothing. You made my argument. How can anyone ... ANYONE who argues no compromise, no incremental recovery of the RKBA delude themselves into thinking they've made progress? When, by definition, their only progress is recovery of full RKBA? It ain't here, friends.

Those who have worked hard to begin taking back territory one beach at a time ... can count state after state which has re-recognized the right of self defense. I'll take small, consistent wins any day, over year after year of losses.

And, Publicola, you certainly have the freedom to begin representing pro-RKBA cases in court, assuming you are a member of the bar. The more the merrier.

I can respect those who insist upon no compromise, and only full restoration of the RKBA. Glad to see them demonstrate, speak, write and argue their case. But in those thankfully rare cases when they actually work to damage efforts to incrementally win RKBA battles / territory ... then those same people might as well work with the Brady bunch, IMHO. Harsh, but honest.

Mr. Halbrook deserves our respect, and our support.

Regards from TX

[jfh]

Amen.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It just amazes me that they go into court unprepared, lay observers say, "They're going to lose," a bunch of cheerleaders say, "They have a Secret Plan(tm)," they lose, and then the cheerleaders say, "But it's a Double Secret Probationary Plan(tm)! You'll see! Wink."

madmike, if you are referring to the DC lawsuit, then I am surprised that even you would expect the NRA to win at that level - especially given the judge they drew for the case. This same judge has made several favorable anti-gun rulings in the past.

The whole point behind a DC venue is that it gives you a shorter path to the Supreme Court. I think that it is premature to declare this a loss on the basis of a single lower court decision.

To put it another way, Silveria wasn't looked at as a loss by anybody in the RKBA community after it was denied several times prior to its appeal to the Supreme Court, which was also ultimately denied. If we are going to have a set of criteria to judge an organization's usefulness to the RKBA, don't you think that those should be applied evenly to all groups?

I'm looking at what it took to buy a gun last month, compared to when I was 18, which was only 1985, and it doesn't look to me as if we'll have guns at ALL in another 20 years.

And this is the NRAs fault how? As I recall, the NRA defeated the bill every session until 1994 when they were faced with a Democratic House, Senate and Executive. An executive who made gun control a priority along with a Democratic party that enforced party discipline on the vote. Blaming the NRA for the Brady Bill is like giving a gladiator a willow switch and then complaining when the guy with the shield and sword cuts him down.

Given the scenario they faced, where do you feel they failed? People commonly accuse the NRA of compromising our rights away without ever acknowledging the fact that the only time you can refuse compromise is when you are in a position of strength.

If one NRA member in a hundred filed a suit against Brady for defamation of character, libel or slander, or being ugly without a license, every case would lose, and it would cost them more budget than they have and they'd go away.

madmike, if such a strategy is a viable way to attack gun control, why do you think nobody has ever done it? It just never occured to them? Or maybe it isn't as viable a strategy as you think it is? I mean look how well it is working for the Brady Campaign... they've poured millions of donor dollars into unsuccessful lawsuits with no result other than to successfully pass laws making their efforts illegal.

I'm not asking you to "do my research for me." I'm asking you to give me a reason to believe these people are competent at anything except whining for $$$. Because they are not "Defending my rights." They aren't even in the building.

I can cite case after case and example after example of where the NRA defended your rights. Even on the narrow subject of JUST judicial activism (and not legislative, public awareness, etc.) I can think of four lawsuits of the top of my head that the NRA has sponsored - the FEC lawsuit (which does affect your gun rights), the DC lawsuit, the lawsuit repealing portions of the Brady Bill and the Halbrook lawsuit that killed the first Gun-Free School Zones bill.

Now I can accept that you don't feel they are doing ENOUGH to satisfy your apparently demanding standards. However when you claim that they are not doing anything, you have crossed the line from statement of opinion to a statement that is provably wrong.

However, rather than bash on you for the way you feel about the NRA, why don't we try this - you give me the OBJECTIVE criteria that you want from the RKBA group that deserves your money and we will sit down and research ALL the groups together to see which group best meets that criteria?

Point two: The Nazi Party went into court and demanded the right to march and protest. They won. I can't believe that the majority of judges involved were "biased" in favor of the Nazis. So when some whiner (and there's a lot of them) says that any judge who rules against us (and there's a lot of them) is "biased," it makes me laugh so hard I cry.

How many cases did they lose before they won? Also, what is the difference in extending to Nazis the right to march and air their minority views and invalidating most of the current laws controlling the sale and manufacture of firearms? Do you really feel this is an apt comparison to make?

We lose the cases because our presentation is incompetent. See Miller.

Who is the "we" in that sentence? Fellow bootleggers? The NRA was not involved in the Miller case at all, neither was any other RKBA group. Miller didn't even have counsel representing him at the appeal of that case and was personally on the lam in Arkansas when it was heard. So who is the "we" you refer to?

[Jeeper]

madmike, if you are referring to the DC lawsuit, then I am surprised that even you would expect the NRA to win at that level - especially given the judge they drew for the case. This same judge has made several favorable anti-gun rulings in the past.

The whole point behind a DC venue is that it gives you a shorter path to the Supreme Court. I think that it is premature to declare this a loss on the basis of a single lower court decision.


This isnt a critique of your post but more of an addition to clarify some information about the DC venue. The CATO suit was brought in DC because of a few reasons. One of the biggest is that DC is federally controlled by congress. It is thusly not a state and the whole "incorporation issue" would not be brought up. That is possibly one of the biggest losers in any other location. SCOTUS or any other high court could find that an individual right exists against federal action but the states could still regulate. DC doesnt have this problem. The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason that the NRA filed suit in DC was to try and join with the CATO suit and quash it on non-2nd ammendment grounds. The NRA suit gave an out that wasnt in the CATO suit. If you dont believe how bad the NRA doesnt want the CATO suit to succeed; then I suppose it is also a big coincidence that days(literally) after the NRA was shot down in there attempt to join the two suits, Orin Hatch (ie NRA lapdog) came out in favor of repealing parts of the DC gun ban which would end the CATO suit. That is just too big of a coincidence for me.

[Publicola]

Bartholomew Roberts,

Actually the cases that partially repealed the Brady law were not brought by the NRA. Printz is the one I recall most clearly & that was initiated by its namesake who was a sheriff.

The Halbrook case concerning school zones was not an NRA sponsored thing if I recall. Halbrook was working for someone else on that one IIRC.

Regardless the NRA has not filed a simple 2nd amendment case. They always seem to go after peripheral issues. Even if we attribute the two partial repeals of Brady to the NRA, they were still one on grounds other than the 2nd amendment.

& Silveira was looked at as a loss by many. This stems from the rather lengthy & factually devoid opinion by Reinhardt when the 8th circuit court of appeals rejected the case. I'm not one of those who thinks we'd have been better off not giving Silveira a try, but there are many who feel that way.

& The NRA could have fought Brady. Instead they sought to alter it a little & supported it. They're justification was that it would have passed anyway, but I find that a weak excuse to explain why they again supported a gun control law.


Look, the whole point is that because of the way they approach things, it seems like the NRA is not trying to win any ground but rather to just lose ground at a slower pace. It's simply less of a mental exercise to prove they support gun control rather than fight it.

[Baba Louie]

I've read that Napolean once said "The logical conclusion to a defensive war is surrender" or words to that effect. And its a might uncomfortable and embarrassing to hold someone's hand in compromise while they whiz on your boots daily.

Maybe the American Ideal we all know and dream of is long gone and dead and we should all go cheerfully to the showers as living, happy, productive, little proles, being grateful to our elected betters for giving us our daily bread while we take our state-sponsored pharmeceutical supplements, reading the revisionist history textbooks they provide our children who are learning how to feel good instead of how to think responsibly...

Naaaaaaaaahhhhh

The NRA is great for teaching and training, a pretty good lobby group slowing the tide of the inevitable onslaught at the Federal level.

While there are some pretty sensible judges at the District and Circuit court level there aren't enough to suit me and I don't want to think about the requests for additional money I'd be getting from the NRA if they decided to get into the Law Suit Industry, tho I would kick in if they'd take the offense.

Their power is in their membership network of voters at the grassroot level. They've got to fight "The Boy Scout" method as guerilla warfare ain't their style... even if that means having people whizzing on their/our boots as they smile and claim victory. If each NRA member would give $25 for an offensive initiative, that ought to buy a legal team and a judge or two. Did I say that? I meant a judgeMENT or two, yeah, that's how its done.

If only we had a few more Dingell's and Miller's.

[Michigander]

If our human rights have been incrimentally sliced away (effectually making them no rights at all), and now we are attempting (or going to start attempting) to regain them incrementally, then all I forsee is an infinite see-saw battle of increments. And the way things have been going for many years now, that see-saw battle is eventually going to stop on the "other side."

Incrementalism will NEVER allow us to exercise our human rights freely. The incremental approach is only going to prolong the inevitable. Honestly, does anyone see the political situation in this country getting better? Ever?

[Ryder]

the only "reasonable" regulations were the prohibitions on violent criminals and the like

What is "the like"? That would be pseudo violence? Nice box of infringement there. The antis would use that kind of terminology to exclude everybody :barf: