NRA Making Deals Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dang it!!!

I just re-upped with the NRA for two years!!

Good, you should. This is a good bill. Even Jeff Knox thinks it's a good bill. Perhaps you should read about the bill before jumping to conclusions like Knox did. He subsequently said
there is absolutely nothing in this bill that could be considered a sell-out or give-away. It's a very good bill which I can't help but support. -JAK]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4112
This legislation (H.R. 6691) is necessary to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, by repealing the District’s recently enacted unconstitutional restrictions on its residents’ right to keep and bear arms.
1. Repeal D.C. Ban on Semiautomatic Pistols

In Heller, the Court held that “Handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid”. Semiautomatic pistols are the most commonly owned handguns in the United States (75 percent of the handguns sold in the past 20 years are semiautomatics), and are therefore “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home”. The new D.C. City Council ordinance continues the 30-year old ban on semiautomatic pistols, which clearly violates the Heller decision. This bill repeals D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic pistols in order to comply with Heller.

2. Restore Right of Self-Defense in the Home

In Heller, the Court held that “the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.” The D.C. ordinance provides that trigger locks may only be removed and firearms made operable if there is an “immediate” threat of danger. Once a threat is “immediate”, however, there is no time to remove a trigger lock or assemble a firearm. This clearly violates the Heller decision. This bill repeals D.C.’s requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home.
3. Repeal Registration Requirement

The D.C. ordinance maintains an extremely burdensome registration process for handguns and ammunition, requiring: multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. Each of these must be met before D.C. residents are allowed to legally own a handgun. This bill repeals the current D.C. registration system, which is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions.

4. Allow D.C. Residents to Purchase Handguns

Federal law prohibits the purchase of a handgun outside of a person’s state of residence. There are currently no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, nor are there likely to be in the near future. Therefore, D.C. residents are allowed under the Heller decision to possess handguns, but are prohibited by federal law from purchasing handguns. This bill creates an exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yokel
....Compromising is a necessary and good thing, except when it is a bad thing.

At the same time, complete and utter defeat is most often a bad thing.

The choice between a messy/bad compromise and "complete and utter defeat" is a false dilemma.

The important question is when compromise or accommodation should be resisted, and when instead it should be advanced.

What are you willing to compromise on? What is beyond compromise for you?

Sometimes compromise is wrong. It's generally in these cases where you'll find 'principles' coming into play.

Principles are tricky things. One key point about principles is they usually won't survive a compromise. Once even a bit of a principle is given away in the bargain, it's all gone. All that's left is a convenient attitude, but never a principle.

If you let it, compromise will eat you alive, cell-by-cell until there’s no you left, just a vacant shell that looks like you.
 
"Once even a bit of a principle is given away in the bargain, it's all gone."

According to this philosophy, the anti-gun forces have compromised their principles and therefore they've lost.

Right?

John
 
"Without groups like GOA and a few no-compromise memers within the NRA keeping them honest, it would almost certainally end up giving away everything except single shot shotguns and maybe .22s."

:scrutiny:

Oh good grief. That's silly nonsense.

John
 
According to this philosophy, the anti-gun forces have compromised their principles and therefore they've lost.

Right?

You're referring to the the most contemptible, untrustworthy and most unprincipled political tricksters in America...right?
 
Are we all on the same team?I think not.What we have here are some folks that love firearms and the ability to protect onself and we have some self engrossed ball busters.I am through wasting any more time on ball busters.
 
Just to bring us back on topic; what exactly was the compromise here? Can anybody who is complaining point that out to me? I guess I don't understand why people see this as a compromise. Apparently Mr. Knox no longer is concerned about this, so maybe some of the members who spoke harshly earlier regarding the NRA can explain to me why they perceived this to be a compromise?
 
There may be good content within this thread or it may be just another NRA bash fest(which is what I suspect). I didn't read the posts because the thread title turned me off.
 
There may be good content within this thread or it may be just another NRA bash fest(which is what I suspect). I didn't read the posts because the thread title turned me off.

You saved 15 minutes of your life. Well done!
 
I don't think I'd be so ticked off at the NRA if they'd be just a little bit more honest. We all know that in the early days of "Parker" the NRA was afraid of the outcome and tried to scuttle the case. What they feared is open to conjecture, whether it was the possibility of total failure or - as some have suggested - total victory, hence no further need for them.
Whatever...
Now that the case has been won, groups like the Brady Bunch and a variety of news organizations continually refer to the NRA as having won "their" case before the SCOTUS. The NRA soaks up the praise and adulation from an uninformed public rather than taking the 'highroad' and letting everyone know they were on the outside, looking in.
Many years ago I worked with an NGO to get some federal legislation passed. In the end, we were successful but during the infighting that led up to the victory I found that "the good guys" lied just as much as their opponents. The NRA, the GOA - indeed even individual members do the same.
I don't know whether this bill is good or bad and I don't really care all that much. If past cases are any indication of how long it will take to reach the SCOTUS I'll be pushing up daisies before it gets decided. You younger folks need to keep an eye on groups that say they're your friend though. Groups like the NRA, GOA, JPFO and especially Congress are all made up of politicians for whom lying is just part of doing business.
As I believe Ronaldus Magnus once said, "Trust but verify,"
 
my understanding is that there is a good bill (Ross's bill) that has been stuck in committiee for a very long time.

The play is now to have a vote to discharge this bill onto the floor as the committiee obviously has enough people to hold it there forever.

Here's the problem, a bill discharged to the floor can only be discharged and up for vote on the fist monday of the month or something like that.

If the antis (or even the Democrats who are pro gun but are commanded to obey their leadership's anti desires) know exactly when a vote is going to be called, they can simply not be present in high enough numbers to sabotage the vote.


This happened back in MN on one of the early attempts to get CCW passed, getting it out of committie for the first time. With republican plus some Democrat support we had a slim majority to get it out of committie. Democractic leadership simply walked in and asked 3 of the anti Democrats to come talk with them about somethign in the hall, which resulted in less than 2/3rds fo the committie members being present, so no vote could be called.

I suspect this stunt is being tried here too, so what choice does the NRA have? Let the politicians play numbers games and accomplish nothing or gut the bill?
 
I believe the "compromise" was that the NRA was willing to get this bill on the calendar this year in a manner that didn't require a vote by Democrats that might have put them on the spot.
 
"You're referring to the the most contemptible, untrustworthy and most unprincipled political tricksters in America...right?"

You mean there's a group you dislike more than the NRA?

John
 
So the bill isn't about giving back a bunch of rights and throwing away the advantage gained by the Heller decision? It isn't a bill to reinstate gun bans? It's a, dare I say it, reasonable compromise about the timing of introducing something to Congress that is in our favor?!

In other words, somebody jumped the gun on this and slipped into a NRA-bashing tirade without checking out the facts?!

I better put this lighter down and slip my NRA card back in my wallet now... Jeez, fight the real enemy for cryin' out loud. The NRA is not the enemy.

gp911
 
Just to bring us back on topic; what exactly was the compromise here? Can anybody who is complaining point that out to me? I guess I don't understand why people see this as a compromise. Apparently Mr. Knox no longer is concerned about this, so maybe some of the members who spoke harshly earlier regarding the NRA can explain to me why they perceived this to be a compromise?

As I've read this thread, I keep asking the same question, and not getting a clear response. If you folks have read any of my posts on NRA-ish topics, you'll find I'm quite neutral, and maybe leaning more towards critical. But I don't see a problem here. Can someone clue me in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top