USA: "NRA vs. Ron Paul"

[Chris Rhines]

Righto! But what would you do to solve the problem?

I can think of a few potential solutions that Rep. Paul has supported in the past, including jury nullification in civil cases, "loser-pays" tort systems, and other such band-aids on our festering wound of a court system. But that was not what the bill in question was about. It was about the feds interfering in a state-level judicial process. Rep. Paul refused to compromise his principles for a short-term victory, and good for him!

What is your practical politically oriented means of stopping an unconstitutional attack on the right to keep and bear arms?

Um, keep in mind, there ain't nothing unconstitutional about the attack. Brady, Sugarmann, et al, are expressing their 1st Amendment rights. Nothing wrong with that. A practical, politically-oriented means of keeping unconstitutional laws and judicial findings from happening, on the other hand? Easy. Don't vote for anti-gun laws, and don't vote to confirm anti-gun judges.

What is you solution that would be acceptable to consititutional limitations and feasible to the parties in power?

"...feasible to the parties in power." Interesting term, there. Everyone gets all worked into a lather over the Brits and Frogs appeasing Nazi Germany, but here we have a suggestion to appease the Demopublican party. Wonderful.

Waitone, there is no way to stop the attack on out gun rights that is acceptable to the parties in power. The parties in power are anti-gun. The parties in power are the SOURCE of the attacks on our rights. The only thing 'feasible' to the parties in power is our eventual disarmament.

If you insist on an electoral solution to our problem, the only hope is to elect a whole lot more Rep. Pauls, and make them the party in power.

- Chris

 

[Silver Bullet]

The problem is, stupid people in jury boxes

This has been my position for a long time. People rail against the lawyers, but ultimately it is the jurors who make the bad decisions.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Jury duty is essentially slavery. Slaves aren't known for quality of work. Our present system excaserbates the problem by allowing voir dire, which generally eliminates from the jury pool anyone remotely qualified to serve.

Jurors should be paid volunteers. In the short term, eliminate voir dire and you'll help the issue immensely.

- Chris

 

[Hard Charger]

The day the NRA oppose Ron Paul, is the day I oppose the NRA.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well my initial thought is "Which is more likely? The NRA going after Ron Paul or Robert Novak doing questionable journalism?"

Doing a quick Google search on Novak, I find he is generally quiet on the gun issue and conservative but the few times he has spoken it has generally been pro-gun and at least one of the archived articles is an NRA-ILA article congratulating Novak on an article.

I'm inclined to think that this is a warning shot across the bow from NRA and not anything serious; but I think NRA is foolish to have even done that and will be beyond foolish to pursue it any further.

There is no questioning Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials. If the NRA wants to "punish" him, then they better be prepared to receive "punishment" from their members in the form of no more funds to pursue questionable policy such as this. I sure don't intend to be sending money to the NRA so they can infight in a secure pro-gun district with the one most reliable progun vote that we have had in ten years. I don't see TSRA backing them on this either...

 

[Pendragon]

I respect that Ron Paul sees the law as unconstitutional.

However, I think it is quite constitutional.

The law addresses suing gun makers under very specific circumstances - they are suing saying that if a criminal uses a gun in a crime, that that gun is somehow defective and that if a criminal acquires a gun, the gun industry is liable for that criminal acquisition when they "should have known better".

The commerce clause was designed to protect business in one state from being preyed upon by the laws and actions of another state. While the states and cities seeking redress are not in actual business competition, they do seek to threaten financial ruin and gain compliance through that threat.

Congress is essentially defining what does not constitute a defect in a gun and what is not criminal negligence in a gun company.

They are not saying that gun comapnies cannot be sued, they are saying that gun companies cannot be sued for these reasons and are legislating that certain behaviors do not constitute a civil cause of action due to the forseeable impact on interstate commerce.

 

[English John]

Quote "They are not saying that gun comapnies cannot be sued, they are saying that gun companies cannot be sued for these reasons and are legislating that certain behaviors do not constitute a civil cause of action due to the forseeable impact on interstate commerce."

I agree with you, BUT where does the FED gov't get off telling the STATE courts what kind of lawsuit they should handle? They can tell the Fed courts not to accept such suits (and they should, and did) but they shouldn't stick their noses into the state level. We are concerned because of the connection to guns, if it was a different topic we probably wouldn't care (but we should). I gotta go with Mr. Paul on this one, and I'm a Life Member of NRA. The State judges should be smart enough to throw those suits out (I bet they wouldn't let you sue the car companies) but they aren't that smart, or maybe they are politically motivated? The "stupid jurors" could nullify that part of the suit, but instead of judging on the facts (as they took an oath to do) they often make decisions based on emotions. Bad decision.

Sue the people with "deep pockets"? If I get drunk and run down your family you will sue Dodge because I don't have any money, Dodge does, and Dodge can't solve the problem of drunk drivers? Sorry, I can't agree.

If my Dodge truck is defective, we can both sue Dodge.

Maybe the solution is a return to following the Constitution, as EVERY legislator takes an oath to do. Maybe an idea so naive won't happen, but if it doesn't our grandchildren will live in a country we don't recognize.

 

[WonderNine]

Ron Paul is the only member of Congress who is worth voting for.

4/21/03: Ron Paul blasts Bush administration's support of Assault Weapon Ban

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm

1/26/03: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces bill to repeal 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.153:

 

[Satellite]

Is your sole interest in firearms duck hunting?

If so, continue to support the NRA. If not, you need to swing your dollars and your influence over to the GOA.

The NRA long ago became part of the problem.

Ron Paul is one of the VERY few principaled members of Congress.

 

[WonderNine]

The NRA sold us out years ago.