What's the NRA's next "legislative priority"?

[Don't Tread On Me]

I say it should be the repeal of the "sporting purposes" clause in 922. That is the most subjective, ambiguous piece of **** legislation. Surely the definition of tyranny right there.


If it isn't what do you folks think the NRA should tackle next?


I don't think the 1986 machine gun ban is possible to repeal. Look at semi-auto rifles being called assault weapons..imagine real machine guns being blasted in the media...

I don't even think the "sporting purposes" clause is either. Remember, the NRA is backed by gun manufacturers also - and the very old, very established names in the business do NOT like affordable, reliable, high quality foreign arms undermining their over priced, cheaply made domestic firearms...*cough* Ruger, Remington et al *cough*



What do you folks think the next legislative priority should be that is realistic and feasable for the NRA to pull off? We're on the offensive now.

 

[Mulliga]

I'm guessing CCW and stand your ground laws in all 50 states. Not sure what else, though.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I am against national concealed carry. It would require compromises with very anti-gun states that would limit or repeal many of the forward steps we've made in states like Florida.


The idea of nationalizing something like that has about 100 reasons as to why it is a real BAD idea.


Ideally, it is a great idea, but the reality is - the whole nation isn't so gun friendly.

 

[alan]

Enactment of HR 1703 would be nice to see, as would the following. Repeal of GCA'68 and National Firearms Act of 1934 also.

It's my dime, so can't I dream whatever dreams I'd like?

 

[fourays2]

I say it should be the repeal of the "sporting purposes" clause in 922. That is the most subjective, ambiguous piece of **** legislation. Surely the definition of tyranny right there.


If it isn't what do you folks think the NRA should tackle next?


I don't think the 1986 machine gun ban is possible to repeal. Look at semi-auto rifles being called assault weapons..imagine real machine guns being blasted in the media...

I don't even think the "sporting purposes" clause is either. Remember, the NRA is backed by gun manufacturers also - and the very old, very established names in the business do NOT like affordable, reliable, high quality foreign arms undermining their over priced, cheaply made domestic firearms...*cough* Ruger, Remington et al *cough*



What do you folks think the next legislative priority should be that is realistic and feasable for the NRA to pull off? We're on the offensive now.

according to the media the AWB was all about machine guns "flooding the streets" so repealing the '86 ban should be a non-event for them. Don't you remember all the slanted stories with police chiefs doing mag dumps from FA AK47s?

 

[M-Rex]

Repeal the Roberti-Roos anti-firearm act, and all related 'assault weapons' legislation in California.

So California goes, so the rest of the nation follows. As long as one head of the hydra is alive, the beast still lives. As long as one state has this type of legislation active, other states will look on it as an example.

 

[K-Romulus]

intrastate Fed CCW law (i.e., Raich ruling)

Some of us will otherwise never see CCW pass in our home states, in our lifetimes . . .

 

[TexasRifleman]

As long as one state has this type of legislation active, other states will look on it as an example.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I dont' see Texas and Arizona, among others, looking at Caifornia as an example of anything other than how NOT to do it. It's always the Californians that think the rest of the country will follow them. I feel your pain, but you truly are alone. Well, you have Illinois, NY and Jersey with you, so you're not totally alone.

I do agree the CCW needs to stay out of Federal jurisdiction. I'd rather deal with 50 messed up state carry laws than one REALLY messed up Federal program.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'd stilll like to see the NRA own the lawmakers in New Orleans who thought it was OK to confiscate weapons from the people. But that's a legal priority, not a legislative one.

I'd also like to see the '86, '68, and '34 laws declared unconstitutional. Again, that's for the courts to handle, not the congress.

What we need are less laws, not more. Trying to push new law through congress probably isn't the right strategy.

 

[stsltd]

I would certainly like to see them step up the pressure to get the remaining may issue and no issue states to join the majority of the country as far as CCW is concerned - I suspect its easy for us "have nots" to dream of a federal system and accept potential limitations since our states may never see the light on their own...

 

[bamawrx]

Why not have fed's require other states to honor each others permits. Just like the drivers license. I don't see a down side to that.

 

[RealGun]

National gun lobbies have at least two fronts, one state and one federal. The big one that effects everything is that the 2A should apply to States via the 14th amendment. I would expect a national organization to have a strategy to move in that direction. Otherwise they will always be fire fighting. Once that is completed, there is essentially one front, all federal...everything trickles down.

So tactical operations with the feds and strategic with the States.

 

[Fly320s]

I agree with RealGun.

Force the States to recognize that the 2nd amendment is just like the 1st: the same in every state.

After that, we can start on the individual laws.

 

[Standing Wolf]

It's always the Californians that think the rest of the country will follow them.

In individuals, that's known as "megalomania."

Repeal the Roberti-Roos anti-firearm act, and all related 'assault weapons' legislation in California.

How is the N.R.A. supposed to do what Californians aren't willing to do for themselves?

 

[M-Rex]

In individuals, that's known as "megalomania."



How is the N.R.A. supposed to do what Californians aren't willing to do for themselves?

Lobbying efforts. Roberti-Roos was never voted upon by the general populous.

 

[Kharn]

I am against national concealed carry. It would require compromises with very anti-gun states that would limit or repeal many of the forward steps we've made in states like Florida.


The idea of nationalizing something like that has about 100 reasons as to why it is a real BAD idea.

Congress could just pass a law similiar to the CCW-for-cops one just passed last year, but change it to any civilian with a CCW permit from any state. If we could get it to say they must accept non-resident permits, all the better (and I bet Florida would get an immediate jump in number of applications).

Kharn

 

[Hawk]

Reopen the registry?

according to the media the AWB was all about machine guns "flooding the streets" so repealing the '86 ban should be a non-event for them. Don't you remember all the slanted stories with police chiefs doing mag dumps from FA AK47s?

+1

The MSM shot their wad last year - everybody already believes they became available at firesale prices to grammer school kids last September.

Brady:
"Ah, we were just kidding before: now they really are going to flood the streets"

Still no chance though. Apart from a few altruistic types here and on TFL, the current owners won't want to see their M-16's drop to 1500.00 in a heartbeat. A lot of our friends have bought the equivalent of 2,000.00 beanie babies - I'd anticipate some internal resistance.

When one knowingly overpays for a product based on one's belief that somebody else will knowingly overpay even more due to an artificial paperwork shortage, they won't want to see the drain plug pulled. Can't say as I'd really blame them. Pity.

 

[Kharn]

Still no chance though. Apart from a few altruistic types here and on TFL, the current owners won't want to see their M-16's drop to 1500.00 in a heartbeat. A lot of our friends have bought the equivalent of 2,000.00 beanie babies - I'd anticipate some internal resistance.

Most class-3 shooters I've seen (at least on the various forums) are very hostile to those that openly never want the ban to expire due to their investment. Most just want cheap MGs just like the rest of us, since then they could just buy more of them, rather than having to sell one to afford to buy another.

Kharn

 

[dpesec]

Kharn, excellent. I'd like that before having the Feds issue permits. Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd like to see the 2A back to where it should be, living and breathing, not on life support.

Remember the phrase "shall not infringe? ?

 

[LAR-15]

Repeal 922 (o)

and tackle the DC handgun ban

 

[Kharn]

DC handgun ban is a good target (HR1288/S1082), it has 222 co-sponsors in the House, 35 in the Senate (S397 had 61 in the Senate and HR800 had 257 in the House, for comparison).

Kharn

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Sorry California, but you guys are a LOST cause. I don't even think the NRA should spend a penny in your state that exceeds what members there put into it. It is just unworkable and a waste of RKBA resources.

If anything, California should go as anti-gun as possible so that we have a nice large example for the whole nation to the failure of gun control.


34, 68, and 86 bans aren't going away. But I think the "sporting purposes" clause can be attacked. Problem is, a large part of the pro-gun movement will be sabotaging it from the start (ie domestic manufacturers)



The repeal of the D.C. ban is a good idea. Very workable. D.C. doesn't get much say in it, and D.C. belongs to all of us. Although I don't know if it is worth the full efforts of the NRA to slug it out there. While it would be a blow to the gun-controllers...how does it serve the RKBA movement as a whole?


Say it is repealed, we all know D.C. will remain a crime infested ****hole for decades. Guns do reduce crime, they do deter violence, they do make people safer --- but they DO NOT reduce crime in slums, ghettos and areas plagued by drugs, gangs and thugs. That is where all the anti-gun statistics come from. The miscreants of society. A gun ban repeal in D.C. would be good for the citizens (which is the best reason to do it)..but will not show the nation that our cause is effective - it might give the other side ammo to say that it didn't help one bit.


It's like betting on a 3-legged horse to win the Kentucky Derby. I wouldn't want to see our main argument of more guns, less crime blown by a FREAK case like D.C....which is plagued by other issues.



For D.C. to reduce its murder and crime problem, it shouldn't ban guns, but instead should ban certain people!

 

[Lupinus]

I think working on the state level to get CCW in all states with reasonable terms and requirments. Also work with all fifty states so that the permit from your state is good in all 50 states. Open carry would be nice but I think concealed is a better stratagy anyway. Also I think that (sorry I don't know the exact bill) the idiocy that keeps people under 21 from purchesing handguns and even jsut handgun ammo needs to get kicked out. I can do just as much damage if not more depending on range with a shotgun then I can with a 9mm. Yet I can go to walmart buy a shotgun and a thousand rounds of ammo perfectly legal. And yet, I can't go buy a 9mm or ammo. I have to drag my mother out to buy my ammo (father isn't in the picture).

I think most gun law (like CCW) while pushed in all states needs to stay at the local level. Actully I think most every law should be at the state rather then federal level. This way states that are more pro gun can advance at their own faster pace. While states more anti gun like California and Jersey can advance at their own slower pace. Basicly all stupidity ridden federal laws should be worked to be repealed and on the state level same laws repealed as well while we work on the state level to get laws passed establishing gun owner's rights.

First it should be the repeal of such things as the federal law requiring 21 years old to buy a handgun. And on state levels removing bans on mag capacity, hollow points (not sure bout other states but I believe in Jersey hp's are illegal), and other such bans. While working for CCW and other things in state. The progression should not be to fast. To fast and you cause shock and backlash. If you take baby steps in the long run itll work much better. Restrictive CCW is better then no CCW. So get it in there and then work to refine it to being less restrictive. If you demand CCW with no restrictions (similer to PA's for example where you don't even need a class) in states like Jersey of Cali it will backlash. Rather get in there with one that is restrictive that you can get passed. Let people get used to the idea, get stats to prove your ground, and then you can push for less restrictions.

 

[Basura Blanca]

It's always the Californians that think the rest of the country will follow them.

Ever seen the "new improved" spill-proof gas cans?
Where was that idea born? Where has it spread to now and where is it (apparently) headed? Like it or not, California has a lot of political influence for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

 

[Waitone]

Get rid of the DC gun ban. Straight forward, in-your-face power play which will have tremendous symbolic value. Get rid of the ban and watch how fast congress loads up.