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

[munangokeewati]

NRA Rules

The notion that the NRA is doing nothing significant to support the Second Amendment is simply uninformed. In just the last couple of years --

Expiration of the "Assault Weapons" ban
Lawful Commerce Act (restricting lawsuits)
Emergency Confiscations Act (no New Orleans style gun grabs)
No money to the U.N. in support of gun control.

That's nationally. In state after state (I've lost count) they've introduced and passed Emergency Powers and Castle Doctrine acts. Every time someone introduces gun control at the state level in my state, it's throttled in the cradle.

This is why I'm a member. Hell, it's why I went over to the on-time life membership program. What they accomplish behind the scenes is worth the price.

 

[outerlimit]

Let's just say the NRA could do ALOT more rather than just try to preserve the status quo.

It's time they started pushing back.

We're are where we are. There's been alot of bad things happening on the state level the past few years, where has the NRA been?

 

[Colonel]

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).

Better check the muffler bearings on your slide rule.

A penny a day adds up to $3.65 per year. That is, unless a year suddenly became 3,650 days. Do the math.

 

[Mannix]

I think he just got his fraction backwards, still, his point is still valid, I mean what's 7 cents a day to help protect the government recognition of your right to keep and bear arms?

Even if the NRA was only working to preserve the status quo(which they're not), that'd a hell of alot better than what the Brady Bunch would like to see.

 

[Waitone]

Second Amendment advocates are willing to roll the dice on individual right interpretation in front of the same court which gave us:

McCain-Feingold--aka Campaign Finance Control--an attack on part of the first amendment

Kelo--which effectively allows the confiscation of private property by the state for the benefit of a private commercial interest.

Both court actions are bald-faced attacks on constitutional restraints on the government.

And now we want the same cast of characters to rule in a showdown case on the second amendment.

We may not like the outcome of this one.

 

[illspirit]

Hmm, if anyone doesn't like the way the NRA does things, they could always become a life member and go vote at board meetings and stuff to change it from the inside.

As for the NRA (or anyone else for that matter) being able to fold up their tents and go home if SCOTUS rules in favor of an individual right, well, look at the First Amendment. It's been widely accepted as an individual right for ages, but has that stopped politicians from trying to infringe on it? It's been settled since at least Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 that speech which depicts violence is protected so long as it's not a call to "imminent lawless action." Yet this hasn't stopped Hillary, Kucinich, and their other gun grabbing friends from trying to censor violent artwork (usually defined by things with guns in it) "for the children."

Even with an individual rights ruling, the antis will be using any and every method they can think of to try and weasel in restrictions under whichever level of scrutiny is applied. Even with a strict scrutiny standard, they will no doubt be trying to use junk science to trick legislators and judges for decades. If the fight over the First Amendment is any indication, an individual rights ruling is only the start of the fight.

 

[Titan6]

This whole thread is starting to remind of a line from A Few Good Men:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago (Heller), and you curse the marines (NRA). You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

 

[ServiceSoon]

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago (Heller), and you curse the marines (NRA). You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Right out of Wikipedia What happen to Jack N. after that wonderful speech?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Hey, I don't need no steenkin' math. I am a gun owner!

Thanks for the arithmetical correction, though, and for appreciating the point I made.

 

[rugerdude]

Well, if the SCOTUS deems the right to bear arms a collective one, then what are they going to do about the millions of guns in civillian hands? That's just the kind of thing that starts violent revolution, and that'll have to be the time for an effective one to be started, not after half the guns have been confiscated.

If they rule it as an individual right, then yay, but like people have been saying, the antis aren't going to give up the fight if the decision doesn't go their way any more than we would in the same situation.

It looks like the SCOTUS wins if it doesn't take the case. D.C. handgun ban is a no-go, but they save themselves from dealing with the bigger issue. There may be outcry at first if they shrug off responsibility, but our memory is short, and we will only complain for so long.

I'm betting the SCOTUS refuses cert, and this all quietly fades away, and the SCOTUS won't have to do any of that icky work stuff that they're paid to do.

However, if the do grant cert, I'm betting it will be a narrow pro-2A decision, but one that won't change things all that much.

 

[Robert Hairless]

That's just the kind of thing that starts violent revolution, and that'll have to be the time for an effective one to be started, not after half the guns have been confiscated.

Ah, to be seventeen years old once again.

Leaders of that violent revolution should not forget to notify TV Guide in advance and post reminders in the forum when the violent revolution starts. It would be a shame to miss watching the news coverage of it. Try to schedule it for a weekend, but--please--not during lunchtime or dinnertime, and don't let it drag on to Monday. Some people need to get to work on time and others need to be in school.

 

[mljdeckard]

Without reading the whole thread,

I'm sure 4/5 of the justices ARE sweating bullets over this one.

No, this is not the SC that gave us McCain-Feingold. It's the court that OVERTURNED the most important parts of it.

 

[Titan6]

Right out of Wikipedia

Actually from IMDb. You can't really trust Wikipedia for anything.

What happen to Jack N. after that wonderful speech?

The same thing that is happening here.

Even with the heightened sense of self importance the NRA has I can actually think for myself.

I don't think that Heller/ Parker needed to be culled from the herd. The thread title was not aptly named and the justification given by the OP was fairly typical of what you hear.... but there is an element of truth... even if the reasoning was false.

 

[rugerdude]

well, hmmm, hehe, maybe revolution was too strong a word.

I was in a sort of...."grand" mood at the time. I keep forgetting that everything always turns out to be nothing.

Replace "revolution" with "weak protest" and that should take care of that.

 

[Art Eatman]

And another thread went wandering...