Brett Bellmore
Member
Yup, it's simple: The NRA leadership is trying to keep this case out of the Supreme court, and won't tell the members that as they tricks us into doing their dirty work.
I'm beginning to wonder about the NRA...
- Thread starter ebd10
- Start date
- Status
MilsurpShooter
Member
Didn't read the whole thing
But my opinion has been that the NRA is nervous of this case going to the Supreme Court. Why? Well we've always been in a gray area up until now. The people, the militia. They fight to take, we fight back, generally it's been a tug of war. With this case going to SCOTUS it will pretty much end that. The judges will sit down and say something regarding this, now what they say will either:
A) Be a hug winfall for the gun rights and gun owners, there will be yelling in the streets and grown men will cry at gun shows
B) A death blow. It's far fetched but if this goes against us they could pretty much say all guns not owned by those in a militia are illegal. This is where you have the Brady Bunch holding a Ticker Tape parade and the people with illegal activites wringing their hands.
If I was in the NRA I'd be just as nervous as an anti-gunner right now for the simple fact that this could either make us or break us.
But my opinion has been that the NRA is nervous of this case going to the Supreme Court. Why? Well we've always been in a gray area up until now. The people, the militia. They fight to take, we fight back, generally it's been a tug of war. With this case going to SCOTUS it will pretty much end that. The judges will sit down and say something regarding this, now what they say will either:
A) Be a hug winfall for the gun rights and gun owners, there will be yelling in the streets and grown men will cry at gun shows
B) A death blow. It's far fetched but if this goes against us they could pretty much say all guns not owned by those in a militia are illegal. This is where you have the Brady Bunch holding a Ticker Tape parade and the people with illegal activites wringing their hands.
If I was in the NRA I'd be just as nervous as an anti-gunner right now for the simple fact that this could either make us or break us.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Mr. Anderson, I would have to disagree.
1) A victory will be on very narrow grounds and apply only to a specific set of facts most likely. What other gun control laws might be unconstitutional is something we will have to find out through years fo litigation and it will likely take decades before the boundaries are set.
It is also possible that very few gun laws will be invalidated by such a ruling (look at the 5th Circuit which has said the Second protects an individual right; but has not overturned a single firearms law, including the 1994 AWB).
2) A collective rights ruling just means that we can finally give up on hoping the Court will rescue us from the increasingly insane proposals in Congress. If we want to protect our rights, we will have to rely on our political strength at the polls - just as we have been doing since 1977.
Antis will celebrate; but they still can't pass any laws without the votes.
1) A victory will be on very narrow grounds and apply only to a specific set of facts most likely. What other gun control laws might be unconstitutional is something we will have to find out through years fo litigation and it will likely take decades before the boundaries are set.
It is also possible that very few gun laws will be invalidated by such a ruling (look at the 5th Circuit which has said the Second protects an individual right; but has not overturned a single firearms law, including the 1994 AWB).
2) A collective rights ruling just means that we can finally give up on hoping the Court will rescue us from the increasingly insane proposals in Congress. If we want to protect our rights, we will have to rely on our political strength at the polls - just as we have been doing since 1977.
Antis will celebrate; but they still can't pass any laws without the votes.
Exactly my earlier point. If a loss energizes the 66,000,000 Non-NRA gun owners (or a big part of them), in three election cycles (to clean out the US Senate) we could repeal all the gun laws we wanted. Just ask the gay community (who have NO constitutional right to homosexual sex) if POLITICAL power is stronger than a parchment barrier to oppression. The last prosecution for sodomy in Minnesota was sometime in the '60's; there will never be another one.
Last edited:
Leatherneck
Member
I don't believe a USSC defeat in Parker would be a total disaster; most state constitutions also have an "RKBA" right enumerated in them. Virginia's Article 13 says:
Or would it?
TC
So a collectivist ruling in Parker would certainly be unwelcome, but it wouldn't be the end of the road.
Or would it?
TC
Last edited:
MilsurpShooter
Member
See, this is why I come here, I never said my view was right, just how I always thought of it. Your position is noted Mr. Roberts and I'll be thinking your statements through, possibly do some more research tonight while I sit at work. (So very tired of the 7:00am to 10:00pm shift)
As an NRA life member, I believe it is my right and therefore my responsibility to comment and if necessary, be critical of the NRA. In this case, it seems they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They need to make and follow through on a course of action and not say one thing, but then do another.
For those that preach caution - I can only say that if 70 years or more than three generations and thousands of subsequent restrictions and bans aren't enough - then what is enough?
If the NRA strategy were followed by the founding fathers we would still be British Colonies. It is time for truth from the NRA and more importantly from our government - are we considered citizens or servants?
Right now the 2nd amendment is a dead letter - we would lose very little and stand to gain significantly from a decision in the Parker case.
For those that preach caution - I can only say that if 70 years or more than three generations and thousands of subsequent restrictions and bans aren't enough - then what is enough?
If the NRA strategy were followed by the founding fathers we would still be British Colonies. It is time for truth from the NRA and more importantly from our government - are we considered citizens or servants?
Right now the 2nd amendment is a dead letter - we would lose very little and stand to gain significantly from a decision in the Parker case.
TimW
Member
Halbrook tried to combine the Seegars and Parker cases so the NRA could control it. The judge tossed that idea out the window.
Seegars went up the chain and was tossed out because the defendants had no standing...they faced no "immediate credible threat of prosecution". In Parker, all the defendants were D.C. residents, at least one of which attemtped to obtain a handgun permit and was denied.
Seegars also sought to sue John Ashcroft as an individual and the DOJ for something that the D.C. politicicos did. How does that make sense?
After Seegars went down the tubes, Orrin Hatch introduced the same legislation that Bailey-Hutchison is now promoting. Again, the passage of which would moot Parker.
It's all about control. At some point, an organization's reason for being becomes the continued existence of that organization. While a Parker win in SCOTUS might not be the uber-windfall some predict, a Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment is an indvidual right reduces the need/power of the NRA...at least that's one theory.
In my opinion, I think that's wrong. While I am no fan of the NRA, a Parker win would give the NRA powerful ammunition to continue to attack and attempt to repeal federal gun laws.
If that's what they really wanted to do. Their apparent reticence about Parker's success appears to dispel that.
IMO, there will be no better time to get to SCOTUS than now...Bush won't get any more appointments passed, and if Hillary or Barack win, we won't get favorable justices during their terms. If a Republican wins...what are the chances of a pro-gun justices under Romney? Giuliani? McCain? Slim, I'd say. Perhaps if Fred Thompson or Ron Paul were elected....
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Now is as good a time as any, and better than we've had in a long, long time.
Seegars went up the chain and was tossed out because the defendants had no standing...they faced no "immediate credible threat of prosecution". In Parker, all the defendants were D.C. residents, at least one of which attemtped to obtain a handgun permit and was denied.
Seegars also sought to sue John Ashcroft as an individual and the DOJ for something that the D.C. politicicos did. How does that make sense?
After Seegars went down the tubes, Orrin Hatch introduced the same legislation that Bailey-Hutchison is now promoting. Again, the passage of which would moot Parker.
It's all about control. At some point, an organization's reason for being becomes the continued existence of that organization. While a Parker win in SCOTUS might not be the uber-windfall some predict, a Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment is an indvidual right reduces the need/power of the NRA...at least that's one theory.
In my opinion, I think that's wrong. While I am no fan of the NRA, a Parker win would give the NRA powerful ammunition to continue to attack and attempt to repeal federal gun laws.
If that's what they really wanted to do. Their apparent reticence about Parker's success appears to dispel that.
IMO, there will be no better time to get to SCOTUS than now...Bush won't get any more appointments passed, and if Hillary or Barack win, we won't get favorable justices during their terms. If a Republican wins...what are the chances of a pro-gun justices under Romney? Giuliani? McCain? Slim, I'd say. Perhaps if Fred Thompson or Ron Paul were elected....
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Now is as good a time as any, and better than we've had in a long, long time.
TimW
Member
As if Mr. Levy was reading my mind....
http://www.examiner.com/a-653443~Ro...r_the_courts_decide_D_C__gun_ban_s_fate_.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/3bx2kg
note: emphasis added
http://www.examiner.com/a-653443~Ro...r_the_courts_decide_D_C__gun_ban_s_fate_.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/3bx2kg
note: emphasis added
JohnBT
Member
"Right now the 2nd amendment is a dead letter"
It is?
I own guns, don't you?
John
It is?
I own guns, don't you?
John
Brett Bellmore
Member
Yeah, but the 2nd amendment isn't doing squat to protect that right in court, we still own guns only because we're winning politically for the moment, and only where we win politically.
While I've got complaints about the NRA on this score, I do NOT think they're doing this to harm our rights, or out of some kind of organizational self-preservation. They've got a well founded, rational fear that a Supreme court ruling would go against us, and so want to prevent any case from coming before the Supreme court at this time. That's not the problem.
The problem is that they're not open about this, they're trying to trick us members into helping spike the Parker case. And I really hate it when the NRA decides it has to deceive us stupid members into doing the 'right' thing, because we'd do the 'wrong' thing if they were honest with us.
JohnBT
Member
I suppose I'm confused by the language being used here. For instance, phrases such as "trick us members into helping spike."
They haven't contacted me or asked me to do anything or spike anything. They might be doing something, but they haven't tried to trick me into doing anything.
I'm on the side of the fence that doesn't trust the Supreme Court to make a plain language, straightforward, logical decision based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
John
NRA Patron Member
They haven't contacted me or asked me to do anything or spike anything. They might be doing something, but they haven't tried to trick me into doing anything.
I'm on the side of the fence that doesn't trust the Supreme Court to make a plain language, straightforward, logical decision based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
John
NRA Patron Member
I am on that side too, and furthermore I am concerned that if a ruling is heavy handed against us, it might make things worse. However, I hear what Bartholomew Roberts and other folks are saying and there is merit in that strategy too. I guess we need some legal firepower here that might shed more light into the potential cons and pros of both "sides of the fence". As a matter of fact I will shoot an email to Tom Gresham at Guntalk radio show and suggest he touches on this topic and invite some Constitutional law scholars in the studio. He is pretty good with that.
Kelo five
Remember that all five justices that decided that there are essentially no property rights, are still on the supreme court. How would those five react to the right to keep and bear arms? They fundimentally disregarded the fifth amendment, the second is in far worse shape legally.
Remember that all five justices that decided that there are essentially no property rights, are still on the supreme court. How would those five react to the right to keep and bear arms? They fundimentally disregarded the fifth amendment, the second is in far worse shape legally.
Just keep in mind how much state's rights are eroding with the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and it could well be the end of the road. Those state RKBA provisions would be meaningless if there are no "A" to "K and B" if a collectivist ruling leads to legislation that outlaws movement of "A" in commerce unless it is related to a militia purpose.Leatherneck said:
- Status
