NRA doesn't want Supreme Court to hear 2nd Amend Case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heller will be like Brown v. Board of Ed.

The USSC hands down the law of the land, but localities pledge "massive resistance" and refuse to abide. The result was years of litigation to get courts to force compliance. For example, every single county in Virginia was eventually sued to desegregate their public school systems.

There is no way that legislators in Chicago, NYC, Mass., NJ and Cali would shrug and turn those places into Tex/FL/VA just because of a Heller win for us.
 
I Was A N R A Member For Many Years

deavis.... i quit sending them money when my gun rights just kept going away........................................................
 
I did not post the history about the case and the NRA for purposes of bashing the NRA. Obviously they disagreed with the strategy of putting a pure second amendment case before the supreme court because they thought it was too much of a gamble at this time. So they worked to stop it, even before it started.

I am a life member of the NRA and I remain a life member and supporter - I don't agree with the NRA leadership all the time, but at least I get to vote on the leadership, and they are the 800 lb. gorilla of the pro-gun movement - they get people safely involved in the shooting sports and work to inform and motivate them to get politically active. Saying this I am not dismissive of the other more hardline pro-gun groups like GOA, SAF, JPFO, ect......Each organization plays an important and different role in the fight to regain and retain the free exercise of our second amendment rights. I belong to more than one pro-gun group and I hope most gun owners do.

The only real problem I had with the NRA was that after Levy had won a landmark decision in Parker/Heller - they wanted to still throw it away out of fear of an adverse decision from the supreme court should they grant cert. Remember the Brady campaign didn't want DC to appeal either because they too were/are afraid of an adverse decision from the supreme court. Who knows what will happen - if the supreme court takes the case and rules that there is no individual right to own a firearm - then the NRA may in many individuals opinion have been wise to try to prevent it.

I believe/hope the court will grant cert and rule that the second amendment protects an individual right. Perhaps I am naive, but the court does take into account the ramifications of their decisions - imagine the reaction of gun owners in this country if the court takes this case and the headlines read: "Court rules no right to own a gun!" That would politically energize millions of gun owners like never before - including many hunters who have sat on the sidelines up to this point.

Imagine the other headline: "Court rules the second amendment protects the right to own a gun." I can almost hear the gun controllers now - since they have been politically setting up their fall back position for years - "While the second amendment, as the court ruled, protects a right to own a firearm, it is not an unlimited right and it can be subject to reasonable restrictions. Also this decision only applies to the federal government, the second amendment has not been incorporated under the 14th amendment to apply to the states, so state and local governments may still pass and maintain sensible gun control laws," said Brady spokesman john doe.

A win in the supreme court would just be a first step - many more cases would have to be brought and many more legal battles fought. The scope of the right including the issue of incorporation under the 14th amendment would have to be established, the whole issue of bearing arms not just the right to keep them would have to be fought, and the whole issue of what contistutes arms - rifles, pistols, machine guns, supressors, ect.... on and on. We would/will have to fight each of these battles.

Also as some have pointed out the expansion of what constitutes a felony, mental health prohibitions against gun ownership, restraining orders and domestic violence bans on gun possession, and methods for restoring the the right to own a gun, not to mention issues on mandating smart guns, micro-stamping, issues dealing with commerce and the manufacture and selling of firearms, and of course the UN and international treaties. Also don't forget environmental issues that close shooting ranges and others that close federal, state, or local land to hunting or shooting. The fight will never be over, but that is the work of life and of liberty.
 
It's always entertaining to see people assert that the NRA does not want a favorable ruling in Heller v. DC because the win would make the NRA unnecessary or reduce its ability to raise funds.

Those people must imagine that immediately after the Supreme Court issues such a ruling Ted Kennedy will show up at their doorsteps to apologize personally for being mean to them while Sarah Brady serves them refreshments and both Michael Bloomberg and Richard Daley invite them to pretty please carry openly in New York and Chicago.

It's unworldy nonsense, a childish fantasy. There is little likelihood that the walls will tumble in my lifetime or in Wayne LaPierre's. If Americans are fortunate enough to get even a narrow ruling in favor of an individual right to keep and bear arms from Heller v. DC it will take at least a generation to define and test the applications of that ruling. All the ruling will do, I think, is to open possibilities for all sides on this issue to explore.

Those people who boast about not supporting the NRA or quitting it for one highly principled reason or another? If Heller v. DC does open those possibilities, we can be sure that each and every one of those people will step forward and shoulder the burden they have refused to carry. Instead of continuing to insist that the rest of us carry them while they nag, whine, and complain that we're not doing it right or well enough for them, we can expect that they will insist upon doing the grunt work and paying the bills that the rest of us have been doing and paying so that they benefit. Or maybe they'll have other principles that excuse them from doing their fair share even then. Freeloaders are always freeloaders, and always have excellent reasons for being freeloaders.

The NRA was founded in 1871, long before the current wave of gun control legislation. It has made mistakes and will make mistakes. Only gun owners are perfect and, alas, it is mostly the gun owners who do not support the NRA who are the most perfect beings on Earth. They are simply too good--too highly principled--to support an imperfect organization even if it is the major force that stands between them and the gun grabbers. I've sometimes wondered why we are denied the ability to harness the perfection of such perfect people by having them run the NRA or do other useful work.

Follow the logic of these people and you will have the answers to all questions that puzzle mankind. Among those answers and questions are these:

  • Question: Why do people become ill and die? Answer: Because doctors want it to happen, otherwise they would have no patients and go broke.
  • Question: Why do cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all other mechanical devices break down? Answer: Because mechanics want them to break, otherwise the mechanics would be out of business.
  • Question: Why are places like Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center attacked? Answer: Because the U.S. government wanted them attacked so it can control its citizens and raise taxes,

There is nothing like a good conspiracy theory to make frustrated, angry, and irrational people feel a little better about their own failure. The more they believe that they fail because there are dark forces controlling their lives, the less need they have to confront and take responsibility for their own deficiencies. It's all the NRA's fault, the mechanics' fault, the government's fault, or the fault of any other handy scapegoat.
 
Thanks, HuntAndFish. Actually, though, I understand the reasoning of people like Tasco 74 in this thread:

I Was A N R A Member For Many Years

deavis.... i quit sending them money when my gun rights just kept going away..................................
Click to expand...

I stopped eating when I realized that everything I ate just kept going out the other end, I stopped breathing when it occurred to me that I kept getting older, I stopped buying ammunition when I figured out that every time I shot one target another would take its place, and my idea of romance is the one kiss I exchanged with Alice in the sixth grade. When I noticed that she wanted something more I said, "Hey, Alice. What kind of guy do you think I am. Anyway?"

My principle: one meal, one breath, one shot, and one kiss. Anything more is a betrayal of my principles.

But I started sending the NRA more money when my gun rights just kept going away.

I'm carrying Tasco 74 and a bunch of other highly principled people on my back. You're probably carrying several other people with principles that won't allow them to carry their own weight.

I do wish, though, it would be possible to get them off my back. They're heavy, they're ungrateful and loud and complaining and whiney, and they try to talk other people into joining them on my back. Freeloaders in restaurants and other places have enough sense to keep quiet about it.
 
I should have put that the NRA "had" tried to stop it earlier, thru legal means.

Since they were worried about the result of a negative decision.


And:

imagine the reaction of gun owners in this country if the court takes this case and the headlines read: "Court rules no right to own a gun!" That would politically energize millions of gun owners like never before - including many hunters who have sat on the sidelines up to this point.
Click to expand...

If the court declares the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right", then, won't it be too late?
 
If the court declares the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right", then, won't it be too late?
Click to expand...

Of course. But if you want to be a real gun owner you must learn to disconnect your brain. :)
 
robert hairless said:
I'm carrying Tasco 74 and a bunch of other highly principled people on my back. You're probably carrying several other people with principles that won't allow them to carry their own weight.
Click to expand...

because donating to the NRA is the ONLY way to stand for the RKBA. please. your sarcastic tone and inapt analogies wear thin.

the NRA has its place. imo we would be better off if the SAF was at the forefront of the legal/political RKBA scene. the NRA makes many compromises and seems afraid to actually fight for the 2nd amendment on many fronts. regardless, after im married and my financial situation calms down, i will be joining the NRA, cause, like it or not, they are currently at the forefront (for better or for worse).
 
I think the NRA doesn't want it heard since they win that way.
Click to expand...

Yep. They won't cease to exist, and they'll still have plenty to do with defending cases and trying to fight back bad laws, but they'll lose all of their political clout: the need for "gun lobbyists" (in particular) will cease to exist to a large extent.

The anti's will just start looking for loop holes if the decision comes out an individual right.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? If it's declared an individual right, that's pretty much an absolute declaration. There is no "loophole" - unless you're talking about them trying to exclude people who take meds, etc. - and they're already trying that to poor effect.
 
caimlas said:
How do you figure that? If it's declared an individual right, that's pretty much an absolute declaration. There is no "loophole" - unless you're talking about them trying to exclude people who take meds, etc. - and they're already trying that to poor effect.
Click to expand...

as long as the US and the Constitution exist, there will be a need for the NRA and other gun rights/lobbyist groups. if you wonder why, just answer this question:

what is the enforcement wing of the judicial branch?
 
M_Olsen:

because donating to the NRA is the ONLY way to stand for the RKBA. please. your sarcastic tone and inapt analogies wear thin.

the NRA has its place. imo we would be better off if the SAF was at the forefront of the legal/political RKBA scene. the NRA makes many compromises and seems afraid to actually fight for the 2nd amendment on many fronts. regardless, after im married and my financial situation calms down, i will be joining the NRA, cause, like it or not, they are currently at the forefront (for better or for worse).
Click to expand...

Nope, donating to the NRA is not the only way to stand for the right to keep and bear arms. As you seem to be saying, though, the NRA is at the forefront of the ongoing fight for that right.

Look at the filings in Heller v. DC. The NRA is there with an amicus brief in support of your gun rights. What I can't find there are briefs from Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or any other gun rights organization. Only the NRA. If your opinion is that the NRA "makes many compromises and seems afraid to actually fight for the 2nd amendment on many fronts," that might be because you do so much more that the NRA's efforts and courage pale in comparison with your own.

So let's hear what you do in that fight other than "stand" for that right as one of its shining emblems who seems to be also an example of someone who is "all hat and no cattle." (I learned that expression from some Texan friends.) There are lots of people who are nothing more than shining emblems of the right to keep and bear arms: they own guns, let other people do the heavy lifting, and criticize whoever doesn't do it the way the want. Are you a certified firearms instructor who teaches poor people to defend themselves? Have you ever been the plaintiff in a suit brought against a governmental entity or private company that violates the right to keep and bear arms? What do you do other than talk and complain and criticize other people?

As for messages in which you find that the "sarcastic tone and inapt analogies wear thin," perhaps you shouldn't read them. If someone is forcing you to read them that's just not right. If, however, you feel compelled to read such messages and comment on them there probably are clinics and self help groups to help you overcome such obsessions. A remedial English course in your high school could also help you learn how to write English sentences. One tip: Sentences in the English language typically begin with capital letters. Follow even that simple rule and you might be surprised to see how much more intelligent you appear when you write.

I appreciate this virtuous comment because it suggests that someday you might not need anyone else to carry you: "regardless, after im married and my financial situation calms down, i will be joining the NRA, cause, like it or not, they are currently at the forefront (for better or for worse)."

Marriage is not a requirement for joining the NRA. There's no need to wait until you are married before you join. You don't even have to be engaged or in a relationship. The NRA does not even check. If, however, you have some personal reason to be married before you join the NRA I would be happy to help you meet a nice girl if you're old enough to be married and aren't just toying with my emotions.

Of course you'll first need to get your financial situation calm. But it's not uncalm. It's desperate. When one of your two reasons for not joining an organization "at the forefront" of defending a right you cherish is that you can't afford to spend less than a penny a day, you are in worse financial trouble than you know.

Full NRA membership costs $35 a year, which would get you one of the magazines too so you could know what's happening and what the NRA does in response. So a year of saving your pennies would get you the one year membership and leave you with $1.65 to spare. Without a magazine the cost of membership is only $25 a year. You do the arithmetic.

The only girl I know who wants to get married even to someone who can't support himself is Phoebe, and I couldn't possibly arrange a match even with her to someone who can't even spend less than a penny a day on something important. Phoebe's standards aren't very high but I don't think she'd want to support any man for the rest of his life. She might pay for the marriage license, though, if you promise to support yourself and not expect her or anyone else to carry you.

Please don't read sarcasm into my comments about your excuses or your reasoning. If you think I'm being sarcastic perhaps what you're seeing is the vast gap between what you say and what it says about you. My comments about your uncalm finances and the actual cost of an NRA membership do not involve analogy so they should pass your quality check.

In the meantime, climb onto my back and please quit grumbling because you don't like the way I'm carrying you.
 
Last edited:
I seem to remember that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 30 some years. But that hasn't stopped the pro-life forces from introducing and passing legislation restricting abortion. And the pro abortion forces keep filing law suits to to keep those laws from being enforced.

If the USSC hears Heller, and my gut feeling is they won't, and if they return an individual rights ruling, we will be filing lawsuits to overturn gun laws already on the books, and the antis will be working to pass laws that restrict our rights that the courts will rule constitutional.

We'll need the NRA more then ever, because the battle is going to move out of the legislatures and into the courts. We're going to be fighting the war on two fronts.

Jeff
 
Caimlas said:
The anti's will just start looking for loop holes if the decision comes out an individual right.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that? If it's declared an individual right, that's pretty much an absolute declaration. There is no "loophole" - unless you're talking about them trying to exclude people who take meds, etc. - and they're already trying that to poor effect.
Click to expand...

How do you figure they won't?

"Well, sure, it's an individual right... to keep certain kinds of guns in your home. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that you get to keep one of those nasty black semiautomatic assault rifles with a 30-round magazine and a telescoping stock and a flash hider and stuff and carry it around with you. That's a military weapon, and since it's an individual right and not a military right, you don't need a military weapon. That goes for carrying handguns around in the streets and shooting schoolchildren, too. We know what you gun nuts really want to do."
 
Jimmy Newman said:
How do you figure they won't?

"Well, sure, it's an individual right... to keep certain kinds of guns in your home. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that you get to keep one of those nasty black semiautomatic assault rifles with a 30-round magazine and a telescoping stock and a flash hider and stuff and carry it around with you. That's a military weapon, and since it's an individual right and not a military right, you don't need a military weapon. That goes for carrying handguns around in the streets and shooting schoolchildren, too. We know what you gun nuts really want to do."
Click to expand...

youre forgetting that the dc case is all about not being able to ban one type of weapon. i think the strategy the antis will use will be the "reasonable restriction" angle, and the "just ignore the supreme court" angle. afterall, they ignore the constitution, why the heck should they care what the supreme court has to say?
 
As I see it, the DC case is about two things:

1. A complete ban on handguns.
2. A ban on any other firearms being kept in functional condition in one's home.

The 2A is involved because it was the basis for the case and a primary argument used in the lower court's decision.

It is certainly possible for the Supreme Court to rule that the 2A is an individual right, and that as such a complete ban on handguns is unconstitutional and that a ban on keeping any firearms in functional condition in one's home is unconstitutional.

But that just says that the 2A is an individual right, that complete bans of handguns are unconstitutional, and that bans on keeping any firearms in functional condition are unconstitutional.

That doesn't define what the 2A means, other than that it is an individual right to own some type of handgun and to keep some type of firearm in functional condition in one's home. It doesn't say you get "assault weapons," it doesn't say you get machine guns, it doesn't say you get short barreled rifles or shotguns, and it doesn't say you get to carry the handguns (or anything else) you have a constitutional right to own around on your person outside of your home.

It is certainly possible that the Supreme Court will render a decision that is more broad than that, but it is my understanding that the Supreme Court tries to keep its decisions as narrow as possible.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I may be an idiot.
 
It would seem to me (and I am not a specialist in constitutional law) that the other rights in the "Bill of Rights" (The first 10 amendments to the constitution) are about individual rights. The only exception is the tenth amendment, which gives rights not given to the federal level to the states. This could also be argued in its own way to be an individual right.

Therefore, the original intent of the second amendment should be pretty clear.

I am new here, and this has probably been discussed before. If so, I am sorry to repeat it.

It does reflect on voting next year. The original intent of the constitution must be preserved. The biggest effect any president can have on any right is in their appointments to the Supreme Court. We need to pick a president who will appoint justices who will maintain the original intentions, not legislate from the bench. That is not their job! All of a sudden, maybe I can vote for a president who is not "pro-gun," but supports the original intent.
 
If the best case senario for gun owner does come to pass... we will still need the NRA. It just means the focus will go more ehavily to more traditional serivces (training, training, training) and less to the lobbying.

we can only hope to be so lucky
 
If we get the ruling we want we will have just begun the battle. Moves to curtail 2A right will never go away. I am not at all confident that we will get a ruling that confirms the individual right.
 
If the court declares the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right", then, won't it be too late?
Click to expand...

There are no magic bullets or free lunches. Your guns will not magically disappear the following night if the court rules that the Second Amendment is a "collective right" and you will not find a new machine gun by your slippers if court rules for an "individual right." The decision in Heller will be a significant milestone, but it will only be part of a continuing struggle that none of us will live long enough to see finished.
 
JohnBT:

"Full NRA membership costs $35 a year"


https://secure.nramembership.org/mform.html

"Limited Time Only!! - 1 Year Adult Membership $25"

A full membership, with a magazine, etc.

JT
Click to expand...

Thank you. I hadn't seen that.

See what a devious money hungry organization is the NRA? The moment I turned my back it did a special offer at $10 off the regular price for full membership.

So the cost of an annual NRA membership at that rate is about 1/7th of a cent per day and it would take about 358 days of putting aside a penny each day to pay for it. The $10 saved over the full price would buy five MacDonald's Happy Meals (not including tax of course).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Now that Kavanaugh is confirmed as a SCOTUS justice what 2nd Amendment cases could come up next?
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Tommygunn
Tommygunn
D
  • Locked
Theoretical 2nd Amendment excercise
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
tyme
T
A
  • Locked
Shouldn't Pro-2nd Amendment groups hold off on petitioning SCOTUS until it's more favorable?
Replies
4
Views
639
AlexanderA
A
T
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Court Cases
Replies
6
Views
997
JPinAZ
J
A
  • Locked
Any potential 2nd Amendment cases that could be granted cert by SCOTUS this fall?
Replies
8
Views
722
denton
D
Back
Top