The NRA out there "doing nothing for gun rights" again

[Zundfolge]

source

NRA to File Lawsuit Challenging
San Francisco Gun Ban

Wednesday, November 09, 2005



Fairfax, VA - Even with opposition from San Francisco law enforcement and major media outlets, Proposition H -- a measure banning the lawful possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits -- passed yesterday. The National Rifle Association (NRA) will file a lawsuit challenging this severe gun ban.



NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, “We are disappointed, but this fight is just beginning. Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense. We will fight this outrageous assault on the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans and I believe that we will prevail.”



Many San Francisco residents who initially supported the ban changed their opinion after NRA and local volunteers began voter education efforts throughout the city. The campaign received an additional boost when the San Francisco Police Officers Association condemned the gun ban, declaring it would "nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes.” Major San Francisco newspapers also voiced opposition to Proposition H.



In response to the passage of this proposition, NRA will lead a coalition of organizations to immediately file a lawsuit against this illegal ban in San Francisco. Proposition H, in addition to violating federal guarantees, also violates various California state laws and is therefore preempted.



Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist, concluded, “This is a hollow victory for the gun control lobby because this scheme is in clear violation of California law. We will file suit and fight this to the highest courts in the country until good sense prevails once again in San Francisco.”

Read our brief by clicking here.

 

[madmike]

There are two ways this can play. The law gets struck down, good precedent for us. The law doesn't get struck down (doesn't seem likely it won't but possible), and the increase in crime is great propaganda.

Of course, there are reasons why crime might not increase if the law persists. Which would screw the above.

 

[HKGuns]

I just sent another donation to help with this cause and wrote the SF visitors bureau to object and inform them of my intent never to spend a dime in their city when I am there on business quite frequently throughout the year.

 

[Sindawe]

Post-Katrina gun grab response by the NRA was N=1. This make its N=2 for the NRA waking up and realizing that continual compromise (aka surrender) to every gun grabbing legislation put forth is not a winning strategy. If/when N=3, I'll rejoin since THAT indicates a clear trend. I'm pleased that they are responding in this fashion though.

 

[rick_reno]

SAF going at this one too

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION SUES TO STOP VICTIM DISARMAMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO
BELLEVUE, WA – Despite opposition from police, media organizations and various organizations to an ill-advised ban on handguns and the sale of firearms and ammunition, Proposition H passed in San Francisco Tuesday, and today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joining in a lawsuit to challenge this measure in court.

"If you ban firearms, criminals will not obey the law and only law-abiding citizens will be victimized, first by the ordinance, which we believe violates state statute, and then by the outlaws," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "In addition to all the gun rights organizations and various other groups, the San Francisco Police Officers Association opposed the ban and so did the media. Mayor Gavin Newsom, Senator Dianne Feinstein and others acknowledge that the measure is pre-empted by state law.

"If this measure were to go unchallenged, San Francisco would become a magnet for criminals," Gottlieb said. "That's a high price for law-abiding San Franciscans to pay, just so the city's social Utopians who pushed this ban can feel good about themselves, because that's really all this ban amounts to; a feel-good act of symbolism without substance."

Proposition H was authored by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who insisted that the law is necessary to reduce the number of firearms in the city. The law prohibits sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city and bans possession of handguns.

"The proponents of this initiative acknowledge it will only ‘reduce' the number of firearms in the city," Gottlieb observed. "Enactment of this measure will leave guns in the hands of the criminal element, while disarming the public. Even Daly admits that it will not solve the city's violent crime problem.

"We are going to court in an effort to protect the rights of law-abiding San Franciscans," Gottlieb stated. "Twenty years ago, we successfully battled an earlier gun ban in this city, and we're willing to fight this battle a second time because it is the right thing to do."


-END-

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, got a call from a 2AF guy this evening. They're drum-beating for money for this suit and the WashDC lobby effort.

Art

 

[ssr]

Post-Katrina gun grab response by the NRA was N=1. This make its N=2 for the NRA waking up and realizing that continual compromise (aka surrender) to every gun grabbing legislation put forth is not a winning strategy. If/when N=3, I'll rejoin since THAT indicates a clear trend. I'm pleased that they are responding in this fashion though.

What about the passage of protection for gun manufacturers? Is that another one for the NRA?

The NRA is not all powerful and does not "allow" congress to pass laws or executive branch to do things either. They can only influence through money, lawsuits like this, and more importatnly through their numbers, meaning voters. The bigger they are the stronger they will be.

 

[c_yeager]

Hey, watch it man.

I am almost positive that the GOA is dropping a really nasty press release into their fax machine as we speak.

 

[straightShot]

It's a good response to the situation.

straightShot

 

[straightShot]

Post-Katrina gun grab response by the NRA was N=1. This make its N=2 for the NRA waking up and realizing that continual compromise (aka surrender) to every gun grabbing legislation put forth is not a winning strategy. If/when N=3, I'll rejoin since THAT indicates a clear trend. I'm pleased that they are responding in this fashion though.

Sindawe:
Sorry, but It's not about you nor the NRA somehow 'earning' your allegiance via doing enough deeds to somehow justify your joining our group. This is coming from an NRA endowment member/recruiter, too.

Nope. The picture's much bigger.

In instances such as this, it's about doing the right thing so that we have guns for ourselves, our kids, and our grandkids. If we sit idly by, we're going to lose them. Some idiot on a misguided mission will work continually to take them away from us. If we sit idly by, some pinhead in a position of authority will use public money via the court system, slip something into a bill that becomes law, or use other means such as this vote to take away our rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Take a kid shooting,

straightShot

 

[hillbilly]

The NRA is a bunch of anti-gun sellouts! They're sellouts, I tell you, sellouts!!!

They are a bunch of compromising wimps!!!

They....they..........aw jeez, this is making me tired...............................


hillbilly

 

[jfh]

[sarcasm The NRA is a bunch of anti-gun sellouts! They're sellouts, I tell you, sellouts!!!

They are a bunch of compromising wimps!!!


Well, finally, I understand. I had better run right over to DU and let them know how the NRA is so, so--well, wimpy!!!

Thanks for the alert, hillbilly. I'll start spreading the word. /sarcasm]

 

[hillbilly]

jfh..

Yes, spread the word to DU and every liberal and leftist blog you can find.

They can quit worrying about the NRA.

The NRA is a bunch of wimpy, anti-gun sellouts.

In fact, if any of the DUers or the leftist bloggers want to get involved in a juicy, sneaky conspiracy (and we all know just how much the DUers and leftist bloggers just loooooooooove conspiracies) drop this one on them.

If they really really want to end ownership of guns, they all need to JOIN the NRA and GIVE THE NRA MONEY!!!!!!!!

That way, they'll be participating in the secret, covert, and sneaky plot to end gun ownership.

And what's more (and this is the part the DUers and the leftist bloggers will really, really love) they will be helping to end gun ownership in a manner so sneaky and subtle that none of the knuckle-dragging, neanderthal gun nuts will realize it!

Not only will they not realize, those stuuuuupid gun nuts and bambi-killers and small-penis-size-compensators will actually think the DUers and leftists who join the NRA are being their buddies even as their gun rights are sold down the river by the wimpy sellouts of the NRA!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, any DUers who want to end gun ownership need to stop buying Starbucks lattes for one month, or should send the equivalent amount of money for a new pair of Birkenstocks to the NRA instead!!!!!!!!!!!

It's the sneaky, smart, sophisticated, nuanced way to end gun ownership in the US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we all know how desperate DUers and leftists bloggers are to appear to be smart, sophisticated and nuanced!

hillbilly

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If/when N=3, I'll rejoin since THAT indicates a clear trend. I'm pleased that they are responding in this fashion though.

So when the NRA reaches the point where it can accomplish goals without your help, you'll join? I like that strategy myself. I use it after dinner every night... "Need some help with the dishes, dear? What...you are already finished? Gosh, I wish I'd have realized that the water running and the dishes clanking meant you were working on them. I'd sure have loved to help."

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Shame that the NRA and the SAF as well as gunowners across the nation will be put to uneccessary expense to pay for a legal battle to save the RKBA rights of a bunch of left-wing gun hating rabid extremists.


This passed with nearly 60%. A population that votes for that is a lost cause. My goodness even BRAZIL voted down a gun ban!!!!!!


I feel for our brothers in SF who are losing rights because of an oppressive majority. But I still maintain that SF is a lost cuase because of the culture there. We've lost the cultural battle DECADES ago in that region. We are battling tactically for a war we've lost strategically there.


We could be using all this money and efforts to bring a better case to a court in pro-gun circuit...

 

[pcf]

Post-Katrina gun grab response by the NRA was N=1. This make its N=2 for the NRA waking up and realizing that continual compromise (aka surrender) to every gun grabbing legislation put forth is not a winning strategy. If/when N=3, I'll rejoin since THAT indicates a clear trend. I'm pleased that they are responding in this fashion though.

And sometimes we wonder, even with Republicans controlling Congress and the Executive, why the entitlement mentality survives in government. There's always someone complaining about what people do for them, when they're not willing to attempt it for themselves. It's easy to dictate what the NRA should do with other people's money, time, and efforts. As my Irish brother-in-law likes to say, "What are you doing for the cause?"

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Look, I'm a member of the NRA. I think battling in California is futile and only makes us look bad as defeat is inevitable. We're making positive, serious progress in other states. Florida is enhancing and improving the RKBA while California is destroying it...

We could use another example of gun control failure in America. Apparently, Chicago and D.C. aren't enough.


If we win in court, and this is reversed, it is a nice in-your-face to all the extremists out there. It will be bitter for them to be reversed on a proposition that passed easily. Imagine what they'll say! They'll scream that democracy was overruled. It will also make other cities think twice before attempting a stunt like this says the NRA. I don't know about that. They'll do it anyway taking their chance in court, and at worst, they'll cause the NRA to divert resources and funding....

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Of course, inaction on this would be the end of the NRA, be it california or not.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

You think so? I'm not so certain, but I am not a PR expert.


I suppose the strategy is "it's better to fight them over there, rather than fight them here"....rofl...sorry to relate gun-grabbers with terrorists. LOL. See below..

Yesterday the voters of San Francisco, California voted to strip you of your gun rights.

They approved Proposition H, a measure banning the lawful possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits. They also banned the transfer of all rifles and shotguns, even among family members.

The effect of the measure is local but its supporters are sending a message across America that voters want to support gun bans at the ballot box. And they are hoping to spread that message to a politician near you.

If they are successful, they will spark a national feeding frenzy in the elite media, spreading the lie that there is no political support for our Second Amendment rights. And some local, state and federal lawmakers will believe them.

We have no intention of standing idly by while the anti-gun lobby tries to build momentum for gun ban measures in other communities.

No, we intend to strike down this ill-advised, clearly illegal and unconstitutional measure - before it spreads like wildfire. I hope we can count on your help.

In response to the passage of Proposition H, NRA is filing suit today to stop this unconstitutional ban.

This gun ban scheme not only violates federal constitutional guarantees, but also the California statute that gives the state sole authority to regulate firearms. But the outcome of any court proceeding is far from guaranteed.

We are bringing the finest legal minds and constitutional authorities to bear, and we will incur sizeable legal fees and expenses. But the defense of our Second Amendment rights demands no less. We will borrow the money if we have to...but we will fight this ban until freedom prevails.

 

[Art Eatman]

Correct me if I'm wrong: I was browsing somewhere, last night, and ran across a comment that California already has a pre-emption law? If so, the SanFran vote is purely symbolic.

As far as "spreads like wildfire" across the country, many states have already passed pre-emption laws. I see it as good, though, that the NRA and GOA are lighting up a PR wildfire...

Separately: On the recruiting issue, the demographics of who's enlisting in the military since 9/11 show that MOST are Anglos from middle-class backgrounds. Not from the poor; not from ethnic minorities.

Art

 

[jsalcedo]

This passed with nearly 60%. A population that votes for that is a lost cause.

The NRA is looking after the other 40%+ that voted against the measure.

What's it called? Tyranny by majority.

If 60% voted for concentration camps and execution of all gun owners..still stupid, still unenforceable, still illegal.

 

[antarti]

If it does spread like wildfire, it will burn the gun lobbies war chests quicker than all the manufacturer lawsuits hurt them. Or is that the plan?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I agree with you, but say we're after that 40%...that just means 40% of the radicals thought an out-right ban was too extreme. I'd bet most of that 40% minority is pro-.50cal ban, pro-AWB, pro-gun registration, pro-excessive waiting periods, pro-shutdownthegunshowloophole.....


Doesn't mean the minority in that election is your average NRA member. Most of the SF media opposed this, and my goodness, we all know from the past how HEINOUS their anti-gun editorials have been....

 

[ssr]

The effect of the measure is local but its supporters are sending a message across America that voters want to support gun bans at the ballot box. And they are hoping to spread that message to a politician near you.

It amazes me how many people are beginning to believe that our country is based upon majority rule and how everything should be put up for a vote. It seems that since voting is how we elect officials, etc, that they believe everything should be up for a vote and let that decide it. They have no concept that our country was founded upon preventing simple majority rule and preswerving the rights of all individuals in spite of majority opinion. They were escaping majority rule and oppression.

 

[odysseus]

Correct me if I'm wrong: I was browsing somewhere, last night, and ran across a comment that California already has a pre-emption law? If so, the SanFran vote is purely symbolic.

Yes this is correct, and is the basis for the legal fight currently. Local jurisdictions cannot superscede the state's jurisdiction on firearms issues, per statute as I understand.

However S.F. city attorney is prepared to fight this along with help from a bunch of leftist groups ( I am sure Brady people are in there somewhere too) to set precident. They contend that the Cali state's court allowance for local counties to ban "gun shows" from their locations gives a path for S.F. to ban guns locally as well. It's an exact example of how allowing these local bans of gun shows starts to creep into other things. It's why there is a snowball effect, and why people who believe in Liberty can't accept the small incremental restrictions. It never just stops there.