Evil NRA?!

[Blackfork]

Reading the Constitution AND the framers thoughts.

IF the Bill of Rights merely LISTS rights that every human being has upon being created- rights that exist BEFORE the formation of any government, then HOW can those rights be regulated by writing law aimed at limiting this amendment or that amendment?- The amendments are just a list- (and it's a list that restricts government from doing just THAT. Congress shall make NO law, et, et.)

It's obvious that the courts and congress and the executives think that the Bill of Rights is NOT merely a list of inalieanble rights, but the granting of the rights themselves, subject to being whittled away or adjusted, since they didn't exist in the first place until Congress granted them.

Government made them, government can take them away, or adjust them, or limit, regulate, abolish, et, et. They have it exactly backwards.

I'd like to point out that the Bill of Rights was the dealmaker- without it, the people would NOT have adopted the Constitution at all- but gone ahead as separate powers with states as the largest government.

The deal has been broken every way it can be broken. Very disgusting situation.

Reminds me of talking to a city streets supervisor about a crew he sent to cut a tree limb that overhung the street on my block. He insisted to me that the city had the RIGHT to cut the limb. After about the third time I corrected him and said- The city had the POWER- granted by the citizens who were the only folks who had RIGHTS, unless he cared to show me a Bill of Rights that cities had before there WERE any cities- a right endowed to cities by the creator- he ought to consider the way he talked and thought about his relationship to his job and fellow citizens.

Human beings have RIGHTS. Government has transitory POWER granted to it by those human beings.

I'm probably lucky he didn't call the police. They cut the limb- not a big deal though I am glad I got them to look twice at it, but the larger issue is that there are whole governments full of people running things who think that the police, the city, the states, the fire dept, the inspectors...have RIGHTS to do whatever their job is, not merely transitory power GRANTED by the people. And they act on that belief.

 

[Master Blaster]

People have rights, Government has powers. Government powers if misused can conflict with peoples rights.

What exactly is a collective right? Where does that concept appear in the Constitution?

Is there a a Court ruling that defines collective rights??

Just curious because, it seems collective right as it is used, means government power to limit individual rights, and that would make collective rights and oxymoron.

What exactly is a collective right, and how does it differ from a Government power in our system.

I submit that there is no such thing as a collective right, and I am tired of hearing people use that non existant concept to justify a clearly non existant government power that denys us our individual rights.

 

[mack]

TexasRifleman wrote:

"Well I think some more reading might be in order.

Everything I can find seems to point to a SCOTUS ruling that would not have the sweeping impact some think it will.

The question of Parker is pretty narrow. If they let stand the appeals ruling without hearing the case (which is my bet) then what?

If they DO hear it and rule that yes indeed you can have a firearm in your house in DC, thanks for playing. Then what?"


What sweeping legislation do you think will get passed - read the bill it would do little more than the court case and in addition it would flush the best case we have ever had at establishing the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Why pursue the DC legislation now? The only purpose it serves would be to wreck the Parker case, this legislation could just as readily be pusued after the Supreme Court decides to hear or declines to hear the case.

Sorry but that is crazy - a supreme court decision affirming an individual right could open the door to subsequent lawsuits, not just in DC but across the country in cities like Chicago and states like Hawaii - places that without a supreme court decision affirming an individual right will never allow individuals to own firearms for self-defense.

No one that I know thinks that a supreme court decision in Parker that affirms an individual right is the end game - just like all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights it would have to be litigated again and again in case after case to begin to establish the scope of the right. That is to be expected. But to not even try - to just run away and hide - to flush it down the toliet with a watered down piece of legislation for DC only that could just as easily be repealed by the next administration - no - not just no but H*LL NO!

What is the point if we aren't willing to try when we have a real opportunity? If that is the case, then we might as well fold up our tents and go home right now - cause if we don't even have the stones to go to court then that says as clearly as it can be said that we aren't willing to stand behind what we say we believe.

There comes a time when you have the opportunity to stand for and to fight for what you believe - if you choose to run away - don't pretend that it is anything but what it is - fear and cowardice. Freedom isn't free you have to be willing to fight for it - it seems that some aren't even willing to go to court for it.

 

[Bubbles]

Personally, if I had to guess, the court would rule in favor of the "individual right" intellectual honesty demands no less, but they'll also rule that "reasonable restrictions" are permitted (1st Amendment, can't yell fire in a theater, etc...) which will leave both sides claiming "victory", since, Brady/VPC always issue pro-forma denials that they want all guns banned, just "reasonable restrictions", and the NRA/RKBA side can also claim victory that the individual right interpretation has been upheld.

What you're forgetting is that the "reasonable restrictions" standard when a court looks at infringements on an individual right is very different from the "reasonable restrictions" soundbite pushed by the anti's.

Looking at your example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater:
- it's legal to do if there really is a fire, and
- just because it's illegal does not mean that your tongue is cut out, and your mouth duct-taped shut upon entry into a theater.

Your behavior is regulated, not the instrumentalities that make the behavior possible.

Using another First Amendment analogy, making and distributing child pornography is illegal, but owning video cameras, editing equipment, computers, etc. is legal.

So, if the USSC upholds the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right, expect to see a lot of bans go away. The anti's will have to push to ban guns based on an individual's behavior. That's already happened wrt felonies, some misdemeanors, involuntary commitment to mental institutions, etc. The logical expansions would be all misdemeanors would become disqualifiers, diagnosis of any mental disease or even voluntary commitments (there was a bill before the VA General Assembly a few years back to do just that, so don't say it can't happen), perhaps more restrictions based on age (21 nationwide to purchase any firearm), etc.

 

[AJ Dual]

You've got me wrong, I'm only arguing what I think the worst that can happen. And why I think we should pursue the case and not let the NRA deep-six it.

If we're left battling over what "reasonable restrictions" are (and that's my worst case senario,) we've still advanced our cause a notch, and one that would be hard to lose in the future.

Even a purely perfect constructionist court would probably want to rule as narrowly as they could, no matter who is on the SCOTUS, there's a general sense of juris prudence at that level of the courts to not "upset the apple cart" no matter how powerful the Constitutional issues are.

So I say we take what we can get as we can get it. And I agree with how such a decision would play out. Lots of individual little court battles.

The perfect "slam dunk" case and court will never happen.

 

[USMC - Retired]

Y'all come join the "Evil NRA"! Click on the link in my signature line and get an annual membership for $25 instead of the normal $35!!!

 

[Igloodude]

I just got my monthly copy of the NRA's America's 1st Freedom magazine last night. The only item seemingly related to the DC gun ban was a note on Marion Barry having proposed a 3-month legal registration period. They didn't note its relation to Parker, Seegar, or anything else, and left it sort of hanging in the air that Barry might have changed his gun-banning tune.

I was disappointed, and it confirmed for me that the NRA really is trying to derail Parker.

Why not explain to the membership that Parker is actually a bad thing and why, instead of quietly trying to moot it?

 

[mack]

So, I assume you don't have a problem with the NRA's attempt to sabotage Parker and to prevent the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd amendment actually means that we the people have a right to keep and bear arms?

I paid for my life membership and I have recruited new members and worked to support and defend the NRA and our right to keep and bear arms for years.

But if the NRA derails Parker then I am through with them, and I will not be back. It is one thing to disagree with the strategy that Cato is pursuing in the Parker case, but it is another thing entirely to actively work to undermine it and flush away any chance of establishing the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA is not our friend in this case. They are blatantly selling us and our rights out, and there are many of us who do not find that the least bit amusing.

If you officially represent the NRA and think that offering NRA memberships in the midst of such a thread is funny then I am saddened by the evident arrogance and disregard that you choose to display. Your decision to mockingly use the broad smiley face icon is to put it mildy in poor taste.

If you think the NRA is right in this case then say so openly and make your case.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I was disappointed, and it confirmed for me that the NRA really is trying to derail Parker.

Igloodude, I doubt that is the case. The Parker decision was only announced on March 9th. A modern magazine has an incredibly long lead time. I've been published in a few gun rags on occasion and even the more high-speed magazines usually have a lead time of 60 days or more.

Chances are that any issue you see addressing Parker will be a month or two down the road. I like the NRA and I can understand different assessment of risk; but part of their problem is they are simply slow to respond to anything.

I do agree that if they believe Parker is risky, they need to explain why to their membership. If they don't believe it is risky, then they need to pull their support for this bill at this time.

 

[AJ Dual]

I think mack may also be reading too much into the NRA's intent here.

I think that the NRA's intentions are noble here, it's only a disagreement on tactics. If anyone thinks the NRA is trying to undermine the case's SCOTUS standing because they're all afraid of "losing their jobs", nothing could be further from the truth.

If this case got us a "slam dunk" ruling, the NRA would still be busy for decades fighting all the ancillary cases, and supporting legislation, that this precedent would arm them for. You can also bet that such a ruling would set the anti's into a frenzy, and they'll probably resort to all sorts of disgusting tactics as they try new ways to create end-runs around such a newly affirmed Second Amendment. (They already are) All this would give the NRA more work, not less.

I may disagree (barely, as they're not completely unfounded) with the NRA on their fears that this isn't the "perfect case", and I do agree that the NRA has "control issues", but it's only borne of their desire to win.

Generally, like the earlier poker analogies in this thread, the RKBA fight is not usually one in one all-or-nothing hand. And the risk you could lose is definitely there. Another apt analogy is football. Games are won by consistent first-downs, not "hail Mary" 100 yard punt returns. So I feel for those who are worried, and I won't put them down.

However, I think they're underestimating our strength. This ruling is in agreement with another circuit court, minority opinions in endless more cases, and is backed by several AG's of states with strong RKBA.

Getting this upset with the NRA and questioning their motives is overly melodramatic at best, and cutting off your nose to spite your face at worst.

 

[USMC - Retired]

Mack,
I am not privy to the reasoning in the stance the NRA is taking in this case so I can not say for certain that they are trying to "derail" it. I have been a life member quite some time and to tell the truth I have had times when I was not pleased with the direction the NRA chose on one issue or another. But as a whole I feel the NRA is the reason we still have the rights we do and though we may not always agree on how to get there, our goals are the same. Whenever I talk to a fellow firearms owner that is anti-NRA I ask why and it is usually because they feel the NRA didn't act they way they would have in a given situation. Then I ask what actions they took to try to change it. This is the point that I usually get a blank stare. My point being is change can only be effected from the inside. As a member I have the power of the vote to decide who is on the board of directors. I can contact NRA headquarters and voice my concerns as a member, not someone from outside. I guess I look at being an NRA member the same way I look at being a Republican. I may not always agree with what the GOP does or the direction it takes but it sure beats the heck out of the alternative. I don't think offering memberships is funny in any way. I take it very seriously, because without the NRA and it's strong membership numbers, we as gun owners are doomed. I'm sorry you took offense to my post and sugestion that folks may wish to help join the fight. Perhaps your correct and this was not the correct time and place.

 

[Igloodude]

Thanks, and I do understand that we certainly wouldn't see Parker results in the magazine given the lead time, but a note acknowledging Barry's 3-month registration window proposal and leaving the implication (by not mentioning what everyone here thinks is the more likely cause) that Barry has gone pro-gun, rather than that Barry is trying to undercut Parker? Either I must assume that whoever wrote that and whoever edited it didn't see the legal implications, or I must assume that they did see the legal implications and for whatever reason left a lie-via-omission-of-the-facts on the page.

The NRA magazine regularly goes on about how the UN is going to annul the Second Amendment, so I'm not exactly confident that they wouldn't be frugal with the facts sometimes in the spirit of keeping the membership motivated.

 

[mack]

USMC - Retired - I appreciate your reasonable and well thought out response. I do not want to detract from the more important issue at stake here by getting sidetracked into issues about posts on this thread and therefore in keeping with the high road - I apologize if I came across too strongly in my response to your post.

AJ Dual - I do not believe that the NRA is in the least worried about losing their jobs - I believe that any thinking person knows that there will always be plenty of work for the NRA and other gun rights organizations to do. However, I do find it hard to believe that the NRA is pushing legislation that will in effect nullify the Parker and that they are unaware of its effect. If they are still pushing it, and it appears they are, then they need to be confronted and have an open and honest discussion about it. They probably don't want to do that, because if they are afraid of an adverse ruling in Parker they don't want that fact siezed upon by their enemies in the media and by gun control proponents. Yet, that too is in some ways a bogus concern as Brady, anti-gun politicians, and anybody with half a brain cell would be aware of it anyway.

I believe that NRA does not want the Supreme Court to rule on the 2nd amendment because they believe that the court will rule that it is not an individual right - I believe this because I have had individuals involved with the NRA leadership in the past say as much - I do not say they were speaking officially for the NRA but they did/do know the leadership and they seemed aware of what was going on at the time. That also dovetails with the NRA trying to get Parker and Seegers combined because they knew that their case was not as clean as Parker and that if they lost then the court could find on grounds other than the 2nd amendment and thus avoid that issue - I suppose they hoped that if the court was favourable to the 2nd then they would find in support of the 2nd but if they were not then they could avoid the hot button issue by dismissing on other grounds; whereas with Parker it is more of a pure case and the court's finding would have to be up or down on the 2nd amendment.

I find that foolish as I think it is apparent after seventy years that the Supreme Court has been ducking the issue and that if cases are brought that allow them to avoid the issue then they will continue to duck answering it. Lastly, the issue of the 2nd amendment is going to have to be ruled on sooner or later and given the ruling in Parker it is apparent that if that ruling stands in the DC circuit, then there will be other court cases after Parker. Even if Parker doesn't stand and the NRA makes it a moot point by getting the DC law changed, there will be room for subsequent cases - is the NRA going to get the gun laws in DC modified for every subsequent court case? That being the case - when are we going to find a better case and a better court to hear a 2nd amendment case? As has been asked previously - does anyone believe the future looks better in regards to our prospects on the court and future appointments?

The timid never won anything and the Supreme Court does not in the end grant or revoke our rights, so losing is not the end of the road - it is just the end of that particuliar legal road. There are other means of resistance short of violence and it is better to know now than to avoid and avoid and avoid the truth of where it stands between the people and their government and our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[JohnBT]

"I do agree that if they believe Parker is risky, they need to explain why to their membership."

Maybe they figure it's obvious and doesn't need explaining.

John

 

[AJ Dual]

I find that foolish as I think it is apparent after seventy years that the Supreme Court has been ducking the issue and that if cases are brought that allow them to avoid the issue then they will continue to duck answering it.

I think this is key. There is only one reason for the SCOTUS to duck 2A cases, and it's not because they're afraid of the ire of gun owners should they rule against us. Ever since NFA '34, and especially GCA '68, everyone else in the fed.gov has had no reason to be afraid to infringe, or at least argue in favor of infringement, on the 2A.

With their lifetime appointments and no higher positions above them to attain, they've nothing to fear politically over ruling against us. And the bravado of keyboard commandos aside, they've nothing to fear physically either.

They know what the 2A means, and all the legitimate research and documentation is on our side. They're just afraid to open the door...

 

[Monkeyleg]

I'm told that one of the reasons that the NRA isn't going after Parker is that they want a couple of other cases to fall in line first.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm told that one of the reasons that the NRA isn't going after Parker is that they want a couple of other cases to fall in line first.

It's only smart.

The Parker case itself sat around for a long time while they waited to line up more than one good defendant.

And it was wise that they did so.

Only one was found to have standing.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm told that one of the reasons that the NRA isn't going after Parker is that they want a couple of other cases to fall in line first.

Yes. That effort is already under way. Even if the Supreme Court denies cert on Parker, there are other good cases out there. The problem is that the legislation the NRA is pushing could actually not just stop Parker from going forward, according to Eugene Volokh, it could destroy the value it has as precedent in D.C.

If the NRA is waiting for a few more cases to fall in line, then they need Parker to be denied cert, not overturned en banc or made moot by their legislation.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If the NRA is waiting for a few more cases to fall in line, then they need Parker to be denied cert, not overturned en banc or made moot by their legislation.

So other than the article, which talks about NRAs plans BEFORE Parker was decided, is there anything that shows NRA is still actively chasing legislative change?

This only happened a couple weeks ago, they may have no intention of continuing legislative stuff.

Let's not get all worked up condemning them if we don't even know what they are doing.

And no, just sending your membership fee does not in my opinion entitle us to be privy to all the closed door talking that is going on there.

Nothing is going to happen in a moments notice, plenty of time to see how this develops.

 

[Igloodude]

"I do agree that if they believe Parker is risky, they need to explain why to their membership."

Maybe they figure it's obvious and doesn't need explaining.

John

Read the blurb on Marion Barry in the March NRA magazine and tell me if it does (or doesn't) perplex you as much as it does me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So other than the article, which talks about NRAs plans BEFORE Parker was decided, is there anything that shows NRA is still actively chasing legislative change?

The bill that Sen. Hutchinson introduced happened after the Parker decision was announced. In fact, the NRA-ILA alert on the bill cited the decision approvingly, then asked NRA members to contact their Senators in support of Sen. Hutchinson's bill (The D.C. Personal Protection Act). So the NRA is apparently still pursuing legislation.

I've written them two emails. Sometimes they are very responsive to me, sometimes not so much. In this case, they haven't answered either email. I also wrote Sen. Hutchinson and Sen. Cornyn explaining my concerns and expect to hear an answer from them; but probably not anytime soon.

 

[mack]

I have also written the NRA with my concerns and if I should recieve a response I will post it.

I will also contact those sponsoring this bill and request them to withdraw it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Received a response from Sen. Cornyn; but it was just your typical form letter letting me know he supports the Second Amendment and is tough on crime. Not much about the specific issue in question.

 

[Dallas239]

I wrote the Solicitor General and asked the same question. If it does go to the Supremes he will be leading the argument there.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will be argued by the same attorneys who argued it in front of the Circuit court.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are neither maniacs nor irrational. You may not agree with their logic, but it is foolish to pretend it doesn't exist.

If Parker is mooted by legislation, the residents of DC gain nothing more than they have with Parker. But the rest of us lose a shot at having a good case with very good facts being heard by the Supreme Court. Even if the court rules the worst possible way, then nothing changes. A loss at the Supreme Court just means that the status quo is preserved. But this is highly unlikely. Even if the court takes the case and reversed the Circuit court, there are easier grounds to do so besides finding a collective right.

This is fish in a barrel. Going after the outright bans first is the only legal strategy that makes sense. And the facts of this case are as good as they are going to get.

The poker metaphor is apt. But the players are backwards. The NRA is the guy who sees the growing pot on the table and wets himself bluffing in an attempt to get it NOW. Letting Parker play out is the smart, patient move. The pot will only get bigger.