alsaqr
Member
Its the legal principle of stare decisis and its the reason Roe v. Wade has not been overturned.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm
Any real legitimate threat put out by the NRA?
- Thread starter slik pak
- Start date
- Status
Its the legal principle of stare decisis and its the reason Roe v. Wade has not been overturned.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm
The NRA was not a large and powerful or sophisticated lobbying and political organization until after the 1968 gun control act.
Prior to that they were primarily a hunting and marksmanship organization.
In 1968, after the hysteria of the assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King and then Bobby Kennedy the country and the congress and president were united in desiring gun control. Gallup polls in that decade showed that the majority of people favored a handgun ban. The NRA membership itself was divided between hunters and target shooters who also supported gun control and those that did not.
Many states already had long standing gun control in the form of bans on concealed carry and open carry - many a legacy of Jim Crow.
Since that time after many internal battles at the NRA that supported a harder core stand against gun control and years of developing support through education, scholarship on the second amendment, and developing a larger and more powerful lobbying and political presence the NRA has played a major role in turning around the direction of state and federal governments, the courts and public opinion at large.
The NRA supported the gun control act of 1984 which repealed many of the worst provisions of the 1968 gun control act. However the poison pill amendment that banned all new machine guns was put in at the last minute and the NRA had to choose between having Reagan sign it or having him veto it. They chose to ask him to sign it in the stated belief that they could get the ban repealed. Which has not been the case.
The NRA did not support the Heller case initially as they were afraid that a loss would be catastrophic, a ruling that the 2nd amendment did not protect an individual right. So they did work to derail it. They have since been aggressive in pursuing cases in court.
The NRA has been instrumental in helping to foster many state level gun rights organizations that together have helped to establish the right to carry in state after state - today 38 states have a shall issue right to carry and 3 or is it four have constitutional carry and there will be more. Current court cases are moving forward from the SAF and the NRA to codify the right to carry as part of the 2nd amendment constitutional right.
In Maryland a republican appointed district judge ruled that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry outside the home - in Illinois a democratic appointed judge ruled there was no right.
Hopefully the USSC will decide that there is a right to carry outside the home found in the 2nd amendment. But that depends on the court being willing to do so, and on there being five justices who in Heller and McDonald supported a real 2nd amendment. None of those five were appointed by a Democrat - the oldest of the five is Kennedy at 77 yrs old. Younger justices who will serve for life are democratic appointees who do not support a real or meaningful interpretation of the 2nd amendment. A conservative republican president after 2012 could help to cement a pro-2nd majority whereas a liberal democratic president could very well appoint justices that overturn Heller and or more likely water it down to meaninglessness by subsequent decisions that effectively gut it.
There are other routes to marginalize the RKBA - agencies like the EPA and such have the power - given presidential directive and a lack of strong congressional support of severely damaging the practical RKBA.
Perhaps the NRA is sometimes a little over the top on their rhetoric about the threats to the RKBA - but not by much in my opinion. Our RKBA will only exist and continue if we fight to support it. The minute we stop, we will start to lose it. Maybe not all at once, but certainly a piece at a time, and those pieces will add up. The NRA is far from perfect - but the members do get a say and a vote. And the NRA is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the only one, when it comes to national gun control.
Due in large part to the NRA we would not have the freedoms we have today. Without the NRA it would be bleak and today we would be much more like England or Australia.
Prior to that they were primarily a hunting and marksmanship organization.
In 1968, after the hysteria of the assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King and then Bobby Kennedy the country and the congress and president were united in desiring gun control. Gallup polls in that decade showed that the majority of people favored a handgun ban. The NRA membership itself was divided between hunters and target shooters who also supported gun control and those that did not.
Many states already had long standing gun control in the form of bans on concealed carry and open carry - many a legacy of Jim Crow.
Since that time after many internal battles at the NRA that supported a harder core stand against gun control and years of developing support through education, scholarship on the second amendment, and developing a larger and more powerful lobbying and political presence the NRA has played a major role in turning around the direction of state and federal governments, the courts and public opinion at large.
The NRA supported the gun control act of 1984 which repealed many of the worst provisions of the 1968 gun control act. However the poison pill amendment that banned all new machine guns was put in at the last minute and the NRA had to choose between having Reagan sign it or having him veto it. They chose to ask him to sign it in the stated belief that they could get the ban repealed. Which has not been the case.
The NRA did not support the Heller case initially as they were afraid that a loss would be catastrophic, a ruling that the 2nd amendment did not protect an individual right. So they did work to derail it. They have since been aggressive in pursuing cases in court.
The NRA has been instrumental in helping to foster many state level gun rights organizations that together have helped to establish the right to carry in state after state - today 38 states have a shall issue right to carry and 3 or is it four have constitutional carry and there will be more. Current court cases are moving forward from the SAF and the NRA to codify the right to carry as part of the 2nd amendment constitutional right.
In Maryland a republican appointed district judge ruled that there is a constitutionally protected right to carry outside the home - in Illinois a democratic appointed judge ruled there was no right.
Hopefully the USSC will decide that there is a right to carry outside the home found in the 2nd amendment. But that depends on the court being willing to do so, and on there being five justices who in Heller and McDonald supported a real 2nd amendment. None of those five were appointed by a Democrat - the oldest of the five is Kennedy at 77 yrs old. Younger justices who will serve for life are democratic appointees who do not support a real or meaningful interpretation of the 2nd amendment. A conservative republican president after 2012 could help to cement a pro-2nd majority whereas a liberal democratic president could very well appoint justices that overturn Heller and or more likely water it down to meaninglessness by subsequent decisions that effectively gut it.
There are other routes to marginalize the RKBA - agencies like the EPA and such have the power - given presidential directive and a lack of strong congressional support of severely damaging the practical RKBA.
Perhaps the NRA is sometimes a little over the top on their rhetoric about the threats to the RKBA - but not by much in my opinion. Our RKBA will only exist and continue if we fight to support it. The minute we stop, we will start to lose it. Maybe not all at once, but certainly a piece at a time, and those pieces will add up. The NRA is far from perfect - but the members do get a say and a vote. And the NRA is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the only one, when it comes to national gun control.
Due in large part to the NRA we would not have the freedoms we have today. Without the NRA it would be bleak and today we would be much more like England or Australia.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
By any chance, would you happen to have a verifiable source for said plans?
Mack, very informative and very well said. and a nice quote from scripture as well. What would be the justification of a constitutional right to carry? I'm with you, just curious as to the basis. Perhaps that's any militia would be essentially powerless without that the right?
Well, Heller and McDonald would be the legal basis of a constitutional right to carry - and if decisions such as that rendered in Maryland prevail in a USSC case.
However, constitutional carry is also a phrase used by advocates of open carry and often used to describe those states laws where anyone who can lawfully own a firearm can lawfully carry one without a permit - Alaska, Arizona, etc.... Will there be a USSC decision that supports such a requirement nationally and finds licensing and permits unconstitutional - that I doubt - I don't think the USSC will go that far. Alan Gura has a very good explication of how far he believes the court will go.
As to Obama's plans in a another post - he has stated on record that he would support a national ban on CCW and wants a new and even more restrictive assault weapons ban. This is consistent with his record as a politician in the state of Illinois. And his two appointments to the USSC are not supportive of gun rights as protected by the 2nd amendment.
However, constitutional carry is also a phrase used by advocates of open carry and often used to describe those states laws where anyone who can lawfully own a firearm can lawfully carry one without a permit - Alaska, Arizona, etc.... Will there be a USSC decision that supports such a requirement nationally and finds licensing and permits unconstitutional - that I doubt - I don't think the USSC will go that far. Alan Gura has a very good explication of how far he believes the court will go.
As to Obama's plans in a another post - he has stated on record that he would support a national ban on CCW and wants a new and even more restrictive assault weapons ban. This is consistent with his record as a politician in the state of Illinois. And his two appointments to the USSC are not supportive of gun rights as protected by the 2nd amendment.
JRH6856
Member
Jeff22
Member
We have to remain vigilant but we should not submit to panic.
Tracking the activities of our government has never been easier.
Check out:
www.govtrack.us
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php (Library of Congress website that tracks legislation)
Remember, just because some clown has proposed legislation, and some other clown may speak publically in favor of it, it doesn't necessarily mean that the legislation is going anywhere. A lot of that extreme gun control legislation never even makes it to a committee hearing, because nobody really wants it.
Proposing that stuff is just a way to get the foolish to send them more money . . . And both sides are guilty
So we have to pay attention and remain vigilant but keep our perspective
Tracking the activities of our government has never been easier.
Check out:
www.govtrack.us
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php (Library of Congress website that tracks legislation)
Remember, just because some clown has proposed legislation, and some other clown may speak publically in favor of it, it doesn't necessarily mean that the legislation is going anywhere. A lot of that extreme gun control legislation never even makes it to a committee hearing, because nobody really wants it.
Proposing that stuff is just a way to get the foolish to send them more money . . . And both sides are guilty
So we have to pay attention and remain vigilant but keep our perspective
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
It is interesting that the AWB is being cited, because the last president said that he would also support a renewal of the AWB. Yet there was no furor about it as with Obama. It's rather amusing.
The record of supporting a national CCW ban was from before his presidential term, much like his statement regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Both of those have not come to pass, and no noticeable steps toward fruition have been made. It looks like the mantle of the office has changed him, and this fear is unwarranted.
His past appointments to the USSC are A) not future plans, B) not significant in regards to the makeup of the Court. The people who think that the two Justices that were replaced would have voted favorably for McDonald and Heller are deluded. Have any of the 5 supporting Justices indicated health issues which would cause them to retire?
The most recently closed threadhttp://www.thehighroad.org//showthread.php?t=644876 gives some insight into the real, non-RKBA related explanation behind this opposition.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
It depends.
Do you consider a false flag operation to intentionally allow illegal trafficking of guns to Mexican drug cartels in order to "justify" additional repressive gun controls a "threat"?
Do you consider a false flag operation to intentionally allow illegal trafficking of guns to Mexican drug cartels in order to "justify" additional repressive gun controls a "threat"?
Tommygunn
Member
Neverwinter said:
Funny, I recall a kurfuffle over that.
It seems to me Obama has expressed pro-guncontrol opinions when he was ensconced in whatever political position he had at the time, yet when he sought higher office (namely the presidency) he made progun statements.
I have never trusted politicians who "spin" their response to gain the approval of whatever masses they seek to impress at the time.
With Shrubbie's backhanded stab at gunowners in the 2000 debate however, came an unfulfilled promise four years later when the AWB expired. Shrubbie didn't lift a finger to help its renewal and it died of old age.
With Obama having shoved a healthcare law down our throats despite a majority of people expressing opposing opinions I have to wonder what Obama will do with regards to gun control should he get another term.
Like others I have no information about any specific attempts being made right now but I do know pols like Diane Feinstein want it back.
So, we'll just have to see what Obama will do if he's (ick) re-elected.
Or, what Romney will do if he's elected. He is also no real friend to the second amendment.
Bush got in trouble on the statement that he would support a renewal of the AW ban - it first caused a furor in the gun rights community. Later, via the backdoor channel of Karl Rove - the word was put out that Bush had no interest in supporting a renewal of the ban and that it would never be renewed, which in turn caused a furor with supporters of the ban. When the issue came up - Bush was happy to let it die and was criticized by the supporters of the AW ban for doing so. Prior to being president Bush signed the CCW law in Texas. As president he appointed an atty general in Ashcroft who was supportive of the 2nd amendment. And appointed justices to the supreme court who were supportive of the second amendment - Roberts and Alito.
Obama appointed justices who do not support the 2nd amendment RKBA, has appointed an anti-gun Atty general, generated fast and furious in an attempt to gain support for a new AW ban, and has been consistent in his statements and actions in being for more gun control. So far he has not had the votes to pass what he wants due to republicans and pro-gun Democrats in the senate and house.
Obama has done nothing to disavow his long standing support for gun control.
As to his two USSC appointments not changing the make up of the court in regards to the current 5 to 4 majority view on the second amendment - I haven't and I didn't see anyone else say it has changed the balance yet. But let one of the five in the current majority in the next four and a half years retire, become incapacitated, or die - Kennedy is 77 now - and the balance will change if Obama is still president. That is a real threat. If the president's party gains control of the house back and maintains and/or makes gains in the senate - then renewal of an AW ban becomes potentially viable in a second term. Particularly in light of the president's administrations statements and actions to gin up support for an AW ban - via fast and furious.
However the primary threat that the current President poses is his judicial appointments. The district federal judge in Illinois that found no right to bear arms outside of the home despite Heller and McDonald was an Obama appointee. Conversely the judge in Maryland that found a right to bear arms outside the home is a Bush appointee.
But perhaps that is all wrong and Obama has had a secret epiphany on the gun rights issue and is now pro-gun rights. I'm waiting to hear him say it and I'm waiting to see his appointments reflect it. Cause I have seen no evidence to suggest such an epiphany occurred.
If you want to support Obama for other reasons then be free to do so - but don't try and shine people that he poses no serious threat to the RKBA.
Obama appointed justices who do not support the 2nd amendment RKBA, has appointed an anti-gun Atty general, generated fast and furious in an attempt to gain support for a new AW ban, and has been consistent in his statements and actions in being for more gun control. So far he has not had the votes to pass what he wants due to republicans and pro-gun Democrats in the senate and house.
Obama has done nothing to disavow his long standing support for gun control.
As to his two USSC appointments not changing the make up of the court in regards to the current 5 to 4 majority view on the second amendment - I haven't and I didn't see anyone else say it has changed the balance yet. But let one of the five in the current majority in the next four and a half years retire, become incapacitated, or die - Kennedy is 77 now - and the balance will change if Obama is still president. That is a real threat. If the president's party gains control of the house back and maintains and/or makes gains in the senate - then renewal of an AW ban becomes potentially viable in a second term. Particularly in light of the president's administrations statements and actions to gin up support for an AW ban - via fast and furious.
However the primary threat that the current President poses is his judicial appointments. The district federal judge in Illinois that found no right to bear arms outside of the home despite Heller and McDonald was an Obama appointee. Conversely the judge in Maryland that found a right to bear arms outside the home is a Bush appointee.
But perhaps that is all wrong and Obama has had a secret epiphany on the gun rights issue and is now pro-gun rights. I'm waiting to hear him say it and I'm waiting to see his appointments reflect it. Cause I have seen no evidence to suggest such an epiphany occurred.
If you want to support Obama for other reasons then be free to do so - but don't try and shine people that he poses no serious threat to the RKBA.
For all of you who mistakenly think that Obama is no threat to the Second Amendment, you'd best do your homework. The information is out there. Obama is without a doubt the most dangerous presidential opponent of the Second Amendment that this country has ever had. A second term, as a lame duck president, will be a disaster for freedom in this country.
JohnBT
Member
Will be? You have proof of the future before it has happened? No, you don't know what will happen should he be elected again. You suspect much will occur, but you cannot know for certain. Do you have a license for fortune telling?
Tommygunn
Member
JohnBT said:
Do you know Obama will do nothing about guns? It seems to me that also would require a "license for fortune telling."
And if we're only "suspecting" something, why the snark about "fortune telling?"
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
More about politics than legal...
- Status
Similar threads
