[Glock-A-Roo]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5720042

Guns Lobby Racks Up Legislative Gains Across U.S.
Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:25 PM ET

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The powerful U.S. gun lobby seems poised for victory in a high profile battle to end a ban on some assault weapons and experts say it has also been piling up numerous quiet victories at the state level.

A federal ban on certain military-style semi-automatic weapons enacted in 1994 is due to expire on Sept. 13. The Republican congressional leadership, backed by the National Rifle Organization and other gun groups, seems determined to allow the law to lapse.

Gun control groups say only vigorous intervention by President Bush could change congressional minds. They concede that the chances of that happening weeks before the Nov. 2 presidential election are zero. Bush has said he would sign the extension of the law if it passed but has not intervened in the debate.

"The assault weapons ban has no chance of being extended unless President Bush gets forcefully behind it but Bush has apparently made a naked political calculation," said Jim Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety.

Gun owners make up an important part of Bush's political base. The NRA is enthusiastically backing him against Democrat John Kerry.

Earlier this month, Congress passed legislation which will allow retired and off-duty law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons even in states that do not permit them. Bush will sign the bill into law Thursday.

Gun proponents have worked hard for 15 years and with considerable success to win the right for Americans to carry concealed weapons.

In 1986, only eight states were obliged by law to issue citizens who requested them licenses to carry such weapons. That number has grown to 38, according to the NRA.

Ohio's law took effect in January. Last year alone, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, where legislators overrode a veto by Gov. Bob Holden, passed "right to carry" laws for applicants who pass a gun training course and a background check.

"QUIET REVOLUTION"

"We have seen the normalization of the idea that Americans may carry concealed weapons. It is a quiet revolution and it will bring about a certain culture change as we become accustomed to the idea of people in urban as well as rural areas carrying weapons around with them," said Robert Cottrol of the George Washington University law school.

Statistics suggest that the number of U.S. households owning firearms has stayed stable or may even have declined slightly in recent years. The data is somewhat uncertain since surveys have produced figures as high as 49 percent and as low as 36 percent.

The number of weapons in circulation continues to rise, reflecting the fact that guns are extremely durable and can be maintained in working order virtually indefinitely.

Some believe the spread of concealed weapons laws will have little practical effect.

"These 'right to carry' laws have swept much of the country and do have great symbolic significance for proponents and opponents but they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," said William Vizzard, a criminal justice professor at Cal State Sacramento, quoting Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Vizzard said the number of people applying for permits was relatively low and the number of people actually carrying weapons on a daily basis even lower.

In Arizona, which recently marked 10 years since passing its "right to carry" law, around 68,000 residents have active permits. The state population last year was 5.6 million. Some proponents now want to make it easier for applicants to get the permits by reducing the mandatory training hours.

The data suggests that neither the promises of gun groups that such laws would deter crime, nor the warnings of opponents that they would cause more gun accidents, have come to pass.

Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety said his group did not even bother fighting such laws.

"They are ineffective in stopping crime but they also seem to be unharmful and have not led to mass shootings the way some on the left feared," he said.

© Copyright Reuters 2004.

[halvey]

Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety said his group did not even bother fighting such laws. "They are ineffective in stopping crime but they also seem to be unharmful and have not led to mass shootings the way some on the left feared," he said. This is a huge statement.

[Sam Adams]

Gun control groups say only vigorous intervention by President Bush could change congressional minds. They concede that the chances of that happening weeks before the Nov. 2 presidential election are zero.

Buh-bye!

[USAFNoDAk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety said his group did not even bother fighting such laws. "They are ineffective in stopping crime but they also seem to be unharmful and have not led to mass shootings the way some on the left feared," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a huge statement.



No doubt about that. Even the Brady Bunch has seemed to abandon its very vocal past opposition to "permit to carry" laws. They seem to have thrown in the towel in this area, but continue to work hard on the AWB and its continuation.

[sar]

gotta love the picture with the story - young boy with an AR type rifle at a gunshow....

[Molon Labe]

The data suggests that neither the promises of gun groups that such laws would deter crime, nor the warnings of opponents that they would cause more gun accidents, have come to pass.The results shouldn’t matter. Even if crime increased after CCW laws were passed, we would still have a right to carry.

Our argument for carrying a concealed weapon should not be, “CCW will help deter crime, will help citizens defend themselves, will lower crime, blaa blaa blaa.” Our argument should be, “I have a natural right to carry a concealed weapon. The existence of this right is not contingent on crime statistics. Even if crime increased after CCW laws were passed, I would still have a right to carry a concealed weapon.”

[srschick]

Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety said his group did not even bother fighting such laws. "They are ineffective in stopping crime but they also seem to be unharmful and have not led to mass shootings the way some on the left feared," he said.

This is a huge statement.

No doubt about that. Even the Brady Bunch has seemed to abandon its very vocal past opposition to "permit to carry" laws. They seem to have thrown in the towel in this area, but continue to work hard on the AWB and its continuation.

Just because Brady Bunch and anti's seem to have thrown the towel, doesn't mean we need to either.
Just remember, there are still a few states that DO NOT allow any carry whatsoever. (Like Illinois).

We are NOT FINISHED until ALL STATES allow uninhibited, lawful, carry... concealed or otherwise.

[VaniB.]

Just because Brady Bunch and anti's seem to have thrown the towel, doesn't mean we need to either.

Don't let your guard down It's a long way to September 14th for crap to happen. Like Yogi Bera said: It ain't over til it's over!

[GSB]

"These 'right to carry' laws have swept much of the country and do have great symbolic significance for proponents and opponents but they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," said William Vizzard, a criminal justice professor at Cal State Sacramento, quoting Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Oh no, my friend. They signify a great deal, and you know it. You just can't admit it to yourself.

[deanf]

Gun owners make up an important part of Bush's political base. The NRA is enthusiastically backing him against Democrat John Kerry.

Are they really? I was under the impression that NRA was withholding their endorsement until the AWB is dead and buried.

[dave3006]

Molon Labe gets it. Even if every criminal in town likes to use my favorite gun for their crimes, the government does not have the right to ban a gun because they are commonly used for illegal purposes.

[USAFNoDAk]

Molon Labe gets it. Even if every criminal in town likes to use my favorite gun for their crimes, the government does not have the right to ban a gun because they are commonly used for illegal purposes.

Good point. The government, especially the Feds, are not supposed to limit the freedoms of the law abiding in response to actions by criminals, especially when the govt. is failing to keep criminals behind bars and away from the law abiding, when those criminals have shown themselves to be a danger to society.

I was not insinuating in an earlier post that we should quit fighting because the anti's seem to have thrown in the towel to some extent with regards to shall issue carry. I was feeling good, if momentarily, to have pushed them back a little bit. I would still like to get to a Vermont or Alaska style system, where you just carry, with no permit slip from big brother.

I also want to see the AWB die a glorious and uneventful death. Then we can start working on making additions to the FOPA. You see, I think it is harder to try and attack anti gun laws, than to strengthen pro gun laws. By strengthening pro gun laws, we can start to nullify anti gun laws to some extent, then show how those anti gun laws have been weakened without the sky falling, and propose to do away with them all together.

I realize that it would be better from a civil rights perspective if we could get most if not all of these anti gun or gun restriction laws declared unconstitutional, but I don't see that happening realistically in the very near future. So we must continue to lobby, write letters, educate the non believers, and most importantly, get our big butts off of our couches and vote for candidates that can best help us move forward, even if it's not all the way in giant step.

[Harry Tuttle]

Andrew McKelvey and Americans for Gun Safety will get around to banning AWs when the tide has turned.

They want to be seen as a moderate, common sense, safety organization right now.

Andrew was the major $ force behind the bank rolling of MMM 2000

[BB62]

Don't forget WASHINGTON, D.C. in our attempts to get CCW for the 50 states.

[jefnvk]

gotta love the picture with the story - young boy with an AR type rifle at a gunshow.... We can only hope his father (or mother) bought him it, or at least a gun, and taught him to properly use it.

[Battler]

Remember, that in the "gun rights" fight, we never win, we can only lose.

The AWB going away won't affect the lives of any antis or non-gunowners.

If you're into the affected guns/magazines, you know da** well how much it's affected YOUR life - extra money, hassle, stuffing around to get the equipment you want, or doing without.

If we "win" on Sep 13, we wake up happy and go buy some cool stuff. If we lose, many of us probably have wasted a lot of money on conversion parts.

If they "win" on September 13, they get the satisfaction of curbing liberty in the US and fu**ing over some Republicans. If they lose, the only impact is in their twisted little minds.

[jdege]

Our argument for carrying a concealed weapon should not be, “CCW will help deter crime, will help citizens defend themselves, will lower crime, blaa blaa blaa.” Our argument should be, “I have a natural right to carry a concealed weapon. The existence of this right is not contingent on crime statistics. Even if crime increased after CCW laws were passed, I would still have a right to carry a concealed weapon.”

I don't entirely agree. Even if we didn't have a right to keep and bear arms, we have a right to run our own lives, to make our own decisions, and to be held responsible only for our own actions.

Punishing one person because of fears of what some other person might do is never OK.

[Boats]

It ain't even over when it is over. September 13 is the setting of the antis time in the sun. Problem is that they are really the forces of darkness and seem to do their best work when we aren't as mindful of the shadows.

Don't get complacent just cause we scorched the vampires a little bit, we still have to drive a stake through their hearts. Metaphorically speaking of course.:D

[hillbilly]

It never ever ceases to amaze me.

Even in the moment of our impending victories, I see fellow gun owners spewing pessimistic poison.

We can only LOSE on the issue of gun rights?

Good Lord.......might as well turn them all in right now.

I cannot count how many times I have heard the following at a range or at a gun show or at a gun store.

"Yep, it's only a matter of time before they ban them all. They're gonna take away all our guns and there's nothing we can do about it."

Folks, we've been WINNING for the past 10 years.

That's the poing of the Reuters news service article that started this thread.

The passage of the AWB in 1994 marked the death knell for Democratic, anti-gun control of congress.

Now is the time to redouble our efforts and drive the stake through the heart of the vampires.

In ancient times, all good strategists knew that the time to unleash your most ferocious cavalry charge was right when the enemy showed signs of breaking.

Vote against all anti-gun candidates with a veangance!

Take anti-gunners shooting!

Keep spreading the word!

And please stop spreading poisonous pessimism and defeatism amongst fellow gun owners.

hillbilly

[jeff-10]

Even in the moment of our impending victories, I see fellow gun owners spewing pessimistic poison.

Agree 100% hillbilly. Seems like a lot of gun owners see victories as losing and battles as won as worthless battles that shouldnt have to be fought. Just because we are born in the greatest nation the world has ever known doesn't mean we don't have to fight day in and day out for our liberties. As long as there are goverments there will be people attempting to take away the liberties we enjoy it is our job to fight to keep them the best way we can. For gunowners that means supporting the NRA who helped defeat the Democrats in the '94 Congress and who have made damn sure the AWB dies its much deserved death. It also means keeping the faith.

[VaniB.]

Sorry about being pessimistic, but I call it as I see it. Our country is being overun by minorities and tree hugging anglos. "Overun" in the sense that they vote Democrat.
We will have the opportunity to buy our long awaited toys in September. But don't wait too long.... it'll be one of your last opportunities with a window open for just so long. Conservatism is on a decline, taking the Republicans with it, and our gun rights. The Sunsetting of this ban squeeked by because of 250 votes in Florida. If Gore would of got in, this sunset would have been dead already. The next ban will be worse then the 1994 ban. What do you mean it can't happen? Look what the states individually are doing to you! The Congress will eventually do the same to be politically correct. It doesn't matter if 20%, 30%, or 40% of the population would believe in the 2nd Amendment. It takes a majority to save your hide. In 1994 we lost our gun rights for a full 10 years because we lost by 1% of the vote in the house. (2 congressmen voting for the AWB) Think we can keep holding a majority in the future? Think again.

[Treylis]

In Arizona, which recently marked 10 years since passing its "right to carry" law, around 68,000 residents have active permits. The state population last year was 5.6 million. Some proponents now want to make it easier for applicants to get the permits by reducing the mandatory training hours.

Hell yes, I hope we reduce the ridiculous Arizona training requirements. We compromised far too much when it came to carry laws here.

[Justin]

Now is not the time for pessimism. For the first time in 10 years we have a real chance of making a difference in a matter of Federal gun control. Now is not the time to dally around with idle worries. Now is the time to get active.

If we lose this battle, fine, you can say "I told you so" all you like on Sept. 14, but until then I don't want to hear it or see it. It's much better to send a fax, email, snail mail, or make a phone call.


Ok, I'll get off of my soapbox now.

[madcowburger]

I admit I'm pretty pessimistic, especially about the long term.

I haven't got enough money to go on any sort of gun/magazine buying spree on September 14. Indeed, I am more likely to go on some kind of *selling* spree. Right now I need some ready cash more than some of these guns.

But if a renewed/expanded AWB is still lurking around, just beyond the circle of firelight, an undead thing ceaselessly seeking a way back in, it may give me pause about trying to raise enough money to take care of a few things that have been too-long neglected.

Bush *sure* won't get reelected if the AWB is renewed. But he *might* lose even if he does let it go down. He's not much of a campaigner. Few Republicans are. Not a single real conservative is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention. They're to be kept out of sight lest they scare the "moderates" and "undecideds."

Kerry's got some big advantages going for him: literally all that 99 percent of the public knows about Kerry is that "he was a hero in Vietnam" and "He's a hunter and gun owner." They know *nothing* of his actual voting record. And the media, which is solidly in Kerry's corner, makes darned sure that's all the public knows.

And with an *ultra*, fanatically anti-gun Kerry in the White House, and for all I know Chuck Schumer as Attorney General and Hillary on the Supreme Court, things could get real bad real fast.

*I* don't see why these battles should even have to be fought myself. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ought to be ironclad, unassailable *guarantees* of the full, free exercise of *all* our rights, *all* the time, in practice, not in theory, in deed, not in word. We shouldn't ever even have to give one minute's thought to preserving our rights from our own government's attacks. The only reason we do have to is because constitutional government was overthrown in this country long ago. Voting will never restore it. No mere election victory for whichever party will ever restore it.

So, yeah, I get pessimistic about it. Sometimes I get mad about it. But I don't have the means to do much of anything about it.

I vote. Whoopee! [Twirls finger in the air.] Look where that's gotten us.

I write letters and send e-mails and make phone calls to my elected misrepresentatives, to little or no effect.

I waste time posting on Internet message boards. *That* accomplishes a lot. :rolleyes:

Maybe, if I could afford it I'd buy some remote, semi-inaccessible piece of land where I could take walks, exercise, and practice with my guns without some representative of the government confronting me or sneaking up behind me, and build a house there that was relatively hard to spy into or intrude into, and just hunker down there and wait and see, and hope they don't come after me even there. But I can't afford anything like that.

MCB

[S_O_Laban]

madcowburger, the glass isn't empty, it's half full:D

[PATH]

Never give up! Never surrender! We shall hang togehter or we most assuredly will hang seperately!

[Diggler]

gotta love the picture with the story - young boy with an AR type rifle at a gunshow....When I saw that quote, I just had to check out the story to see if it was a picture of us from last Saturday! :D

[JPM63US]

The anti's got NPR to do a nifty piece this morning - basically how all the Congress is kissing the NRA's bottom and not bringing up this common sense legislation.

Once and a while NPR is balanced, not this morning.

The ban may expire, but after someone commits a high profile crime following the bans lifting, it may resurface.

We cannot let our gaurd down even after the ban expires.

JPM

[Sunspot]

I heard that piece this morning also. They almost concede defeat on the AWB. They also stated that most of the politico's want the AWB but were "afraid" of the NRA. What crap!!!:fire:

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think that's "crap"; I think the truth is that an awful lot of our supposed allies in Congress ARE closet gun controllers, who refrain from acting on their preferences because they want to keep their jobs. Because they're afraid of the NRA, or anyway, the NRA's influence over voters.

Add up the people who are openly anti-gun, and the closet gun controllers we've got cowed, and it does constitute "most" in the Senate, and maybe a majority in the House.

[JonnyB]

I've forgotten who first said that we can only lose, when it comes to our rights, but he was correct. Not pessimistic, simply correct.

Here's why:

If the antis lose, their lives are unchanged. If they win, their lives are unchanged. Oh, sure, they may *feel* somethings has changed, one way or another, but realistically, their lives are exactly the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.

For us, though, the difference is *huge*. When we lose, we lose the opportunity to exercise our personal, civil rights. Even when we win, we barely gain anything; we simply get back what was ours in the first place. When we lose, we lose; when we win, we barely break even. And, even if we won the ultimate lottery, it's doubtful that we'd ever get back to where the Second Amendment is observed exactly as it's written all across these United States. I can still hope, though.

JB

[Boats]

You don't hope for restoration of the Second Amendment, you have to work for it.

[Rebeldon]

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/mdf634258.jpg

That is one healthy young man! :D

[Boats]

He'd be healthier with a flattop and a telestock. Just wait two months for that latter detail.

[DevilDog]

Agreed, a young man that size needs a flattop, tele-stock, and 16" lightweight barrel, preferably with a midlength gas system. Regular handguards as extra weight for a railed forearm is probably too much. A fixed front sight, folding rear sight, and a fixed power scope, acog or something else real tough cuz he'll probably drop it on occassion. But an aimpoint could work too.

Kudos to the kid for aiming it up, vs horizontally where someone could easily walk in front of the muzzle.

I don't think we have many closet anti-RKBA types in congress. I think most (70-90%?) of congress vote on RKBA issues based on what we'll get them re-elected. I'd guess maybe the rest would vote pro or anti all the time, regardless of reelection possiblities.

Congress is still stinging from the fallout of the anti-rkba legislation in the 90's. Hopefully the are fearful enough that it becomes a topic of rehetoric and posturing and not real legistlation.

[Molon Labe]

The antis will take another approach. And it will be more effective.

After the AWB sunsets, they will lay awake at night praying for a nutcase to open fire on a school ground full of children. After it happens (and it will eventually happen) they’ll say, “See! See! This is what happens when assault weapons are allowed back on the street!”

Do you see how such an event after the AWB makes their argument more powerful?

So here’s the plan for each of us: buy as many “assault weapons” as you can after the AWB expires. Because this window of opportunity won’t last long.

[madmike]

A lot of the problems are our own doing.

These freaks are suing every manufacturer on the planet, attempting to intimidate them into submission. They are attacking, and spending money to do so.

However, when I asked about a pro-2A attorney to help file a suit for defamation of character against Sarah Grabby (hey, people HAVE treated me like a criminal, because I "own weapons of mass destruction and am obviously unstable"), I got ONE response, and he quoted a price around $2000 for his time.

I said I was broke and was hoping to get such things started as a political statement, and lawyers to help push the issue out of solidarity.

"Oh, yes. Well, money would be a problem," he replied.

So let me get this straight: If I don't pay him more than I make in a month, he won't help push against the people he claims to hate.

No, the suit wouldn't win. That's not the point. The suits they're filing against small gun makers aren't winning. Except that some of those mfrs are now out of business.

THAT is the point.

83 milion gun owners X $2000 in discovery for a nuisance suit = $166 BILLION Sarah and her cohorts have to pay for. In order to "Win" and get the cases thrown out.

There's legal, there's moral and there's stupid.

Not lying about them is moral. Not resorting to special ops is "moral", and also STUPID. Because it IS legal to do so.

If there WERE any pro-2A attorneys, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION would have a constitutional challenge a week until it died. Every lie by Brady would be challenged as slander, libel and defamation of character. Every push by them would encounter a thousand nuisance suits that no one really intends to win, just intends to screw with them.

It's legal. It's effective. We aren't doing it.

Unless I pay a mercenary who's "on my side" $2000 for a couple of hours work.

With the exception of a few guys on staff with GOA, NRA and a couple of others, there ARE no pro-2A attorneys. Prove it to me. File some suits.

Find someone in a wheelchair in Shicago who has been assaulted, sue Mayor the Dick for violations of ADA for not letting a person who can't run, shoot back.

Sue any state or the feds for bullpup bans on the grounds that one-armed people need access to weapons they can grasp more easily (as some states allow switchblades. Incremental win, but a win nonetheless).

Sue the Million Morons for the illegal use of taxpayer $$$ it had. Find a shill to join, then sue them for violations of their charter when they refuse to let said member speak in opposition.

Sue, sue sue.

It's the American way.

There are MILLIONS of us, there are THOUSANDS of them. A THOUSAND pro-2A attorneys, if such existed, and a THOUSAND complainants could cost them MILLIONS of dollars. Dollars they couldn't milk from their soccer mommy members, and couldn't spend on other things meantime.

So...where are our pro-2A attorneys?

[Justin]

That's why, if we are smart, we'd continue to push for the repeal of more gun laws after the AWB sunset. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of changes that could be pushed for without throwing the soccer moms into a panic:

-Pushing the FFL requirements back to the way they were before Clinton
-Getting rid of the 1989 import ban.
-Striking down the 'sporting purposes' clause in GCA '68.

Though I think that the one we should really push for is open acceptance of sound suppressors. In other words, getting rid of the tax stamp and making suppressors as mainstream as aftermarket grips. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single crime committed with a suppressed firearm. On top of that, the benefits far outweigh any possible negative costs. There are several ways this could be argued without looking like a nut:

Point out that firearms use without proper hearing protection is damaging to one's health. As such, how many millions of dollars are spent every year on people who's hearing would otherwise be undamaged if only suppressors were legal?

Point out that it makes it easier to teach other people how to safely handle a firearm because you don't have to shout in order to be heard over ear plugs/muffs.

But the best part of the debate would come when illustrating that in Europe suppressors are not only easy to get and completely legal, but ownership of them is encouraged. For all of the so-called Progressives who are in love with everything European, they'd be a hypocrite not to embrace this!
:D

Pushing for stuff like this gives us a two-fold advantage:
We might just get it passed.

But more importantly, it puts the anti's on the defensive. Suddenly they're faced with a war on two fronts, trying to get a new AWB passed, as well as trying to prevent the liberalization of other gun laws.

[Tamara]

Maybe lawyers would take us more seriously if we learned how to spell "Sarah Grabby," "Shicago," "Mayor the Dick," "Million Morons," "Klintoon," "Repugnicans," "DemoncRATs," and (my personal favorite) "Ahnban" (or is it "Ahnkennedy" this week? Get it? "Ahn-" the way he mispronounces his name, and "Kennedy" or "Ban", which is what we don't like about him.)

Perhaps if attorneys weren't so busy trying to figure out how to get our spittle off the inside of the monitor screen from our terms-o'-the-month, they might be willing to be seen standing next to us inside a courtroom.

Just a thought, folks. ;)

[Boats]

Let's see, "I wanted to hire an attorney, but I didn't have any money." I suppose even committed attorneys could thrive on not eating or being able to pay for an office in the name of solidarity.:rolleyes:

Every court in the nation allows pro se filing. Do it yourself, show some conviction! We're behind you in spirit, but we're broke and we're hoping you'll do it out of a sense of solidarity.:scrutiny:

[madmike]

Let's see, "I wanted to hire an attorney, but I didn't have any money." I suppose even committed attorneys could thrive on not eating or being able to pay for an office in the name of solidarity.

Every court in the nation allows pro se filing. Do it yourself, show some conviction! We're behind you in spirit, but we're broke and we're hoping you'll do it out of a sense of solidarity.


Please read my post entirely before commenting. That will make things go a lot more smoothly.

Name any case won pro se.

All attorneys are required to perform pro bono work. Where are ours? THEY have THEIRS. This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Oh, you can't expect them to donate their work for FREE!"

Got any idea how many hours of writing, how many words at 10-20c per word professional rate I donate to this cause? Yes, I @#$#&^^ DO expect them to put in a few hours a year for free. If they won't, they are NOT pro-2A, they're wannabes.

The antis get free legal help from "progressive" lawyers. Where are ours?

"Sure, I'm pro 2A. Now, for $200 an hour, I'll prove it."

Yeah, bloody lot of help that is. There is NO practicing attorney in this country making less money than I am. I don't want to hear any whining about the poor lawyers who can't feed their families.

I'm not asking them to not get paid ever, I'm asking them to donate a few hours of professional time to a cause they believe in.

If everyone who has my "Amazing Beliefs" article on their site (more than 600 of you, plus a few cads who took off my (c) notice and tried to claim it was their work) sent me a check at professional rates for the article I DONATED, I'd have $30K or so. Tell you what: If it's on your site, email me. I'll GIVE you the address of an attorney to send the check to. That way, I'll pay for the suit, and you'll pay me for MY work. Sound fair? Or else take it off your site. You don't expect me to work for FREE, do you?

Or do you?

The ONE attorney who responded to my request, which contained no epithets (You might imagine that, as a professional author dealing with SIX publishers at this point (HarperCollins, Baen/Simon and Schuster, DAW/ Penguin Putnam, KABA, the NRA and OP) I do have SOME idea how to express myself as needed for the occasion, and reserve the epithets for social occasions, like webboards) sounded very interested in a pro-2A case, right up to the point where I said I couldn't (not wouldn't--buy a million of my books and I'll finance a $50K lawsuit) afford it. All of a sudden it was, "Oh, well. it was a nice idea, gbye!"

Not even a "Well, we need to find a 2A group who will help fund and advise it."

No, his interest was the potential cash. That's all.

THAT, boys and girls, is why we are losing.

They have millionaire backers. They caucus as a team. They have lawyers throwing themselves on grenades.

We have people stabbing each other in the back and looking for a buck.

[burbanite]

Mike,

glad to have you firmly (mass understatement...) on our side and in my State, thanks for what you do for us now and for your past service to the country.

[Boats]

Well then, I'll take a moment or two from paid shystering and offer you some pro bono assistance.

Generally speaking, unless you have been slandered (spoken) or libeled (printed) by name, e.g. "Michael Z. Williamson is a psychopathic man who shouldn't be allowed to own a bullet let alone a gun." said Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign on CNN, you don't have a case.

There must be specific damage to your reputation and standing in the community, as condemnation of a class of unspecified "gun nuts" is nonspecific enough as to not create any class of plaintiffs as none would likely be capable of showing the requisite harm.

There are other, more interesting avenues of attack, such as one I have contemplated from time to time, which would be to launch a civil rights complaint under federal law to the effect that by trying to disarm me the Bradys and others are conspiring to violate my civil rights. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment is a right of the individual and from the look of their recent rejection of Silviera is not going to anytime soon.

In any event, I would either have to file that one here in the Ninth Circuit where I reside, and where gun cases are all eventually well documented suicide missions to San Francisco, or in Washington DC, where many of the potential defendants are headquartered, which again would be akin to a kamikaze flight. Any such case would probably be subjected to a motion to strike, never even making it to discovery, and even if by some miracle at the complaint stage allowed it to proceed to discovery, would not make it past a summary judgement motion. Additionally, if some judge got his or her robe in a twist about how baseless the case seemed, you'd be paying the costs of the defense. That'd be showing them.

The advantage the antis have in court is the ability to judge shop looking for a liberal weenie who shares an expansive view of court power, or at the minimum, has a sensitive ear for their brand of elitism. Why do they file continually in front of one judge in Brooklyn do you suppose? The problem for conservatives is that the judges of that philosophy who do exist are usually at the first level, and even then, are not predisposed to take an expansive view of the law. Even if one could be found to get a friendly hearing in front of, he or she is definitely outnumbered the higher up one gets in the appellate process and any judgement would likely be remanded if not entirely thrown out by other liberals in black robes.

The third avenue of attack is against the laws themselves. Those are defended entirely by the government, so you aren't acheiving any collateral damage on the antis by going that route. Even Emerson which arose in Texas, our supposed victory for its affirmation of the Second, was really a loss, because they still found that Emerson could be deprived of his Beretta as he was subject to a restraining order and that was a reasonable restriction of his right. BIG DEAL. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

The antis use product liability and public nuisance theories to go after guns. We have no such available strategy to go after them. The only two promising ones are for civil rights violations, as I mentioned, like ones used by the Southern Poverty Law Center to bankrupt those Aryan Nations goofs in Idaho, and RICO suits, which would probably go nowhere and would be thrown out as I have never seen a RICO statute employed against a political organization that was not criminally (i.e. MOB) influenced.

There is a very valid reason that the NRA seeks to be the 800 pound gorilla of gun politics in Congress. We can't get a fair shake in front of almost any bench in federal court and in most states.

Save your time, money, and anger and put them all to more productive uses for the cause.

[madmike]

Thanks. That is informative and helps form strategies.

Several years ago, a group called (IIRC) the Cult Awareness Network, took it upon itself to accuse pretty much every religious group they didn't like of being a "Cult."

Now, that's an opinion, and therefore cannot be found against under libel or slander laws.

However...

Assorted individual members of the Church of Scientology started filing suits.

Every single suit, of course, failed.

In the end, CAN went bankrupt from discovery and legal costs.

At the bankruptcy, the CoS bought them out for a pittance and acquired their mailing list.

You can imagine how that went over.

Now, does anyone mind of we "lose" in such a fashion?

Wars don't go to the side with the best soldiers or best equipment. Wars go to the side with the best LOGISTICS.

I can spend a million dollars on engineering equipment in a matter of minutes. No counterpart in a foreign military can do that. So I will win, no matter how many casualties they inflict. I will literally bury them in very pricey equipment they are welcome to blow up as often as they wish. I've got more. And more. And still more.

In '91, Brokaw claimed the air war over Iraq was a failure because 50% of their flightlines were restored to operation after a month. I fell out of my chair laughing. The US requirement is 100%, 24 hours. And I've done it.

It's not that the case loses. (The charged for expenses bit is an issue to resolve, yes). It's that WE can spend more money than THEY.

Every case they "win" at a cost of $2000 or so in discovery hurts them. We have a multibillion dollar, multimillion member, dispersed operation. They'fe got 6 freaks in an office in DC for HCI/Brady, VPC and MMM.

Any time one of them makes a statement that is provably false in a friendly state, we should sue. Get them defensive. Get them cautious. Get them as polite as the NRA always is, and we have facts and they don't. They're winning because they hold up bloody shirts, claim an AR15 is an M16 and designed to be "Spray fired from the hip."

Sue. Sue the individual. Make them go away. It worked on the MMM. Where are they now? Merely another Brady press release. We KILLED them with pressure, mostly bookkeeping. (Was that Jim March? Whoever it was in CA was awesome.)

Attack their bookkeeping, attack their charters, attack their bylaws, attack, attack, attack. Make them be not. If we were REALLY as organized and powerful as they claim, we'd crush them like bugs.

I'm willing to forego buying a gun a year. That's all it takes. Everyone buy one less gun and throw money and lawyers at them. Bury them in lawyers.

Now, how do we go about it?

[VaniB.]

Madmike,

You're right. But your "How do we go about it" is the crux of the problem. It seems nobody on our side goes after the enemy through litigation as you suggest. The NRA is a powerrfull lobby group we're told, yet they don't resort to these tactics. They could and they should! With all the cash flow the NRA has, they could be as dangerous and powerfull using the same tactics that the UCLA uses. People and towns cave into the demands of the UCLA because folks know they can't afford to fight them! It's ashame that I have to preach using sleazy lawyer tactics and the courts to attack and just plain harass to get things accomplished. But welcome to America 2004! But, conservatives by nature don't survive as well and as long. When you're of the grain that has a natural tendency to act sane, and try to play fair and clean you get slaughtered by those who stop at nothing to win and use any means at their disposal!


Brett B.,

I absolutely agree with you that there are few in congress who really believe in the RKBA. I believe at $146, 000 a year they make, that they believe more in the RSGC (Right to swing golf clubs).
We didn't lose our rights in 1994 because they stood by us!