The NRA elbows its way into the McDonald Case

[S. Fisher]

I sure wish I wasn't duped all those years ago when I supported them. I could have had a lot more fals, and a Barret M82A1 with what I sent them.



http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-nra-elbows-way.htm



"The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”

All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!"

[JR in the NW]

The NRA is controlled opposition-always was.

[torquemada055]

After what they have done to gun owners in my lifetime I wouldnt support those assholes in a vote to toss the Pelosiraptor out of Congress...........

Gee, do I sound like a disgruntled former member? Take those fudds and shove a boot up high and hard till they squeal like the pigs they are.

[StG58Freak]

I hate the NRA and always have. Every gun show i go to there is always an NRA table and a guy begging for money saying we'll fight for your rights.
I always walk by with a battle pack or case of ammo and say i'll use my money to buy this and hold up the ammo and use it to fight for my rights myself.
Shuts them up every time.

[cowbilly]

I had to join for rifle competition when I was young, (life time type). I have been dissappointed in them when it comes to CL III and military firearms, they definately pick and choose their battles.

BUT...the NRA is what the Senate, House and President look at when the gun issues rears it's ugly head. Without the NRA, we would be like Great Britian or Australia. They have the funds, numbers and lawyers to be a threat. This is why I still support them, they have the capability to make noise. Other groups are not big enough (and yes I give to them too on occasion (SAF).

All gun owners should join one group if all (State Associations etc). If you don't like their policies, join and voice your opinion, they listen to $$$ and will act, just like your Reps and Senators.

Every gun owner needs to be in the fight for the 2nd Amendment, NRA, SAF, State Association numbers mean alot to our government especially during elections.

Anti gun folks hate the NRA too, time to pick sides, warts and all.

[gunplumber]

Serious question. In its 100 years, what anti-gun laws has the NRA gotten repealed?

[gunplumber]

No, I don't. Gunowners in general, yes, the NRA in particular, no. It expired on its own after 10 years. That is was passed in the first place is just another example of the catastrophic failures of the NRA.

But I ask the question again, in the last 100 year, what gun laws has the NRA gotten repealed?

[cowbilly]

I would say the last 50 years of the NRA has been a fight, the majority of the infringements on the 2nd Amendment came after the JFK Assasination. Prior to that there was little to fight, government was'nt concerned with 2nd Amendment issues as they are today.

NRA has not repealed anything, thus my comment on CL III and some of my disappointment in the organization. Prevention and mitigation is what the NRA provides. NRA is involve in almost every gun issue that comes across the house and senate. Court victories backed by the NRA and SAF in recent history are noteworthy.

What have they prevented is the question to ask. Look how many stupid gun laws have died in commitee bacause of the NRA lobby, or pressure on Reps to vote against additional nonsense, several per year by the looks of it. Their presence give us an organized voice.

Bottom line is do something, call your Reps, Senators, join an organization that has the power to take Unlce Sam to court. Anti gunners are in power, aside from rebellion, the NRA is our best weapon.

[W.E.G.]

NRA is really not in the business of causing repeal of particular laws.

Much more in the business of getting the least-worst candidate elected.

[gunplumber]

I think this illustrates a fundamental flaw in NRA "strategy" - a half-hearted retreat. Where is the offense? Oh . . . that might offend some duck hunter.

The NRA is better than nothing is like saying a toy beach shovel is "better than nothing" for fighting a forest fire.

And yes, I've been a life member for 20 years.

[cowbilly]

Gunplumber, you have a good point.

What rights or priveledges has the government given back after they have taken them away?

Prohibition is one, they eliminated the draft if you can count that one. Getting a law repealed is tough, takes a long time and a lot of money.

Seems to me once the government takes somthing they are very unlikely to give it back. So the odds are not in our favor. NRA is insurance against the taking part, once Uncle Suger gets it, it is most likely gone forever.

Downing the NRA just because it has not had any law repealed and ignoring everything else they do is ridiculous. I want the NRA to be more aggressive too. I let them know about it, the more members that tell them what they want, the more they will do on our behalf, just like any organization. NRA is your best bet to be successful against the anti gunners.

As usual, we are a divided bunch, (duck) hunters, competitive shooters, survivalists, Class III owners, pistol shooters, shotgunners, collecters, we all have our opinion. NRA is a good medium for all and the numbers count in politics, whether you like the NRA or not.

[StG58Freak]

If you want to throw your money away to the NRA you go right ahead. Think of the hundreds, even thousands of dollars you've given them over the years and have received nothing in return but compromise of your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

They won't stop the next ban on our beloved FAL rifles when it comes. The NRA has done nothing, they are hand in hand with Sarah Brady and her commie allies. If you want to throw money away, send it to me, i'll buy alot of ammo etc. and put your dollars to better use than the NRA ever will.

[S. Fisher]

One Thing the NRA has done...
NICS, about as effective at keeping guns out of criminals hands as the war on drugs is at stopping drug abuse. Its really just back door registration.

Bought and paid for by the members of the NRA, myself included.


Limeyinaz I have read their brief, it does look to be up to par however the fact that Paul Clement has been hired by them is reason enough, to be skeptical of their intentions.

[cowbilly]

Hey, I got some life insurance, firearms theft insurance, a bunch of American Rifleman mags, access to a few indoor ranges and some discounts here and there. I also still have my black rifles and hi cap magazines. Not 100% saisified but feel like I have a voice.

Can anyone suggest an effective group aside from the NRA, SAF and State Associations that I should support?

I got better idea, lets all disband and form our own indivivdual islands and wait for the end to come.

The point is to do something, get involved and do not stand by and do nothing but complain about the NRA.

[gunplumber]

With regard to the original post, its a poor lawyer who can't effectively argue either sides of any case.

As far as the NRA goes, the same specious argument can be made to continued support of "Republicans".

It's better than nothing? If I, as an NRA life member, cannot express my intense displeasure with the abysmal performance - then who can?

[S. Fisher]

Paul Clement argued the side of the the government in the Heller case. He argued against Gura.

I agree cowbilly we do need to get involved, but resting our hopes in any so called organization is just laziness on our part. I still like the GOA and JPFO. Donations to the JPFO are tax deductible, and you know what your getting for your money

I've given $1000's to the NRA over the years I'm allowed to bitch.

[JohnnyMac]

Mark, you do not believe the NRA was istrumental in the 1994 AWB being allowed to sunset?

Actually the sunset provision was the work of Bob Dole's legislative director, designed so that some fence-sitting Democrats would go for the ban. That is not a typo. Good ol' Republican Bob Dole, while publicly speaking against the ban, privately made sure that some Democrats would be more inclined to support the ban. Why? Because he knew that the backlash would come against the Democrats in November of 94, and he would be the Majority Leader in the Senate. His fellow Republican Kansan Nancy Kassebaum was chosen to vote for the ban to put it over the top, as she was retiring and thus didn't have to run for re-election.

I was working on Capitol Hill at that time, and got to watch that ugly bit of legislative "sausage" being made.

JMc

[cowbilly]

Republicans have let us down for sure. Both Bushes, with non-sporting clauses, Reagan's 86 MG ban. Those will be difficult to overturn, reps and senators will not even consider authoring a bill to repeal the MG ban.

Republicans have turncoated in the past, can't tust the democrats, 3rd party can't seem to win and usually leads to a democrat victory. Definately an uphill battle for something as simple as a basic right.

[Aifwikir]

The NRA endorsed the '94 AWB after the 10 year expiration date was included in it. As far as I'm concerned the NRA allowed the 94 ban to pass into law. I'll never forgive them for that,,, HOWEVER, let's see what happens on the Mc Donald case. They were already in it before it was brought up to the USSC.



Aif

[Hole_Puncher]

I am lifetime member and I am not happy with the NRA on many things however no matter what you are involved with there will always be something you are unhappy about.
I agree with Cowbilly you need to be active. Join some other organization like GOA or your local state organizations.
The bottom line is do something.

[Heat]

Originally posted by cowbilly
Hey, I got some life insurance, firearms theft insurance, a bunch of American Rifleman mags, access to a few indoor ranges and some discounts here and there. I also still have my black rifles and hi cap magazines. Not 100% saisified but feel like I have a voice.

Can anyone suggest an effective group aside from the NRA, SAF and State Associations that I should support?

All you NRA guys, instead of throwing your money down the NRA rathole and paying for 'Eddie Eagle' and glossy mags and extravagant dinners your not really welcome at---give it to Larry Pratt, increase THEIR membership 20 fold, and we'll see some real action

[Manedwolf]

Originally posted by Heat



All you NRA guys, instead of throwing your money down the NRA rathole and paying for 'Eddie Eagle' and glossy mags and extravagant dinners your not really welcome at---give it to Larry Pratt, increase THEIR membership 20 fold, and we'll see some real action

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Uh. No. Larry Prattle has zero credibility with anyone. He should be working for the Fortean Times. He just MAKES SH_T UP and then claims conspiracy when called on it, like including CA law as part of the healthcare bill and claiming it called for gun registration. How is that helpful at all? It just makes 2A rights sorts look like idiots.

I even have to wonder if he's being paid by liberal groups to make gun rights sorts look like conspiracy-minded nutcases.

[bykerhd]

I'm signed up for a few more years with the NRA.
I don't appreciate, or approve, of all they do, but they are one of the only groups out there working for us, at all. And, they are, arguably, the most effective.
Support GOA or any of the other groups if you like. But, support something.
Not just your keyboard.
If you really dislike what a group is doing, join it and work to change it from inside. You may not work your way all the way to the top, but one person still CAN have an impact. Depending on their abilities, determination, drive and whether their "vision" attracts anybody else.

[TXVEPR]

Ya, the NRA would never have someone sitting on their board that wants restrictions on rifles you could own.. Especially someone like, oh , Joaquin Jackson... That wouldn't make sense, would it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

Just keep on supporting the NRA and never change to an organization that might be able to do the job better.

[cowbilly]

Any recommendations? Are you in the fight or a by-stander?

SAF, GAO, JPFO don't have the member base (not even combined) or $$ to garner enough attention in Washington D.C. but I do support them too.

[yarro]

The NRA wants the second amendment complete affirmed as much as the American Cancer Society wants a cure for cancer. The bylaws of the NRA are designed to allow Lapierre and his cronies to stay in control no matter what the members want due to the fact that they approve who can appear on the ballot for the board. I stoppped giving them money and told them to stop calling me twice a week telling me how a law in SanFrancisco or Chicago is going to result in my losing my guns unless I give them more money. I give my money to Gun Owners of America who actually seeks out good cases to go to trail with rather than try to muscle in at the end like the NRA does. The GOA would have more members if you would forget "the NRA is the olny game in town" mantra. I have met lots of NRA members who think that I shouldn't own MGs or EBRS or high cap mags and that the NRA should protect their hunting rights and rifles; my uncle is one of them. I have never met a GOA member who thought so.

-yarro

[bykerhd]

You certainly make some good points yarro.
And, I don't disagree with you on some of them.
The NRA leadership certainly does have a rather strange symbiotic relationship with our enemies in Congress and the Anti-Gun groups.

All of them benefit from the existence of the others. While the "Royalty" in Congress doesn't feel it really needs either the NRA or the Brady Bunch and their friends, but the politicos benefit from the soap box they supply and know it.

The Brady Bunch exists solely to fight, and ultimately disarm, the gun owners and destroy their organizations. If they succeed, they are out of business. Unless they successfully morph into something else.

The NRA has their fraternal, social, training, and gun advocacy to fall back on if they do ultimately "Win". Which, given the number of gun laws on the books across the country, is unlikely. The fight will probably be never ending.
Were they to win, the NRA would have to trim their budget and expenditures sharply as contributors tend to have short memories when the wolves have been driven off.

What the GOA would do if the battle were to end successfully ?
Who knows ? Do they exist solely for the fight ? If so, I wager they'll disappear shortly if the battle ends with gun owners as victors.

There are probably a higher percentage of non-"Black Rifle" people in the NRA than the GOA has, but there are certainly more pro-"Black Rifle" people overall than the GOA has. The ARs becoming more and more mainstream has helped I think.

The "Fudds" are certainly part of our problem. But I think the major problem is the millions of gun-owners who choose not to get involved in the fight at all.
And certainly, those who misguidedly, or treacherously actually support the antis and their agenda.

[1gewehr]

My main problem has to do with compromise. I don't take kindly to those who are willing to compromise away MY rights. Or the rights of others.

While I recognize and appreciate that the NRA has done SOME good. I decry their willingness to roll over and beg for concessions rather than stand firm.

The NRA has helped write and pass the following: 1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (Machinegun ban), Gun Free School Zones 1990, 1994 Brady Act, 1994 Assault Weapons Bill, and the Lautenberg Amendment 1996 (first time a person could lose Constitutional rights for a misdemeanor).

On none of these has the NRA said 'no compromise'. Every time, the NRA has said, 'Let's see what we can live with'.

I am a member. The only way to get the NRA to actually defend the 2nd amendment is by working within it. But I have no illusions that they will fight rather than compromise.

[keiser]

Don't forget that the NRA is big business and lots of money. If they were to fight hard and secure our 2nd Amendment rights to the point that there is no more screwing us, they are out of business.

These groups become self defeating after a while because they are generating so much money and the leaders don't want to lose their paychecks so they quit fighting.

The only groups that truly stand firm are groups that do not pay their leaders. They have no financial incentive to fail.

[cowbilly]

1gewehr,

Never heard of the NRA help writing those antigun bills. I know that once they were authored or proposed by a Rep/Senator they stepped in and tried to mitigate the bill by adding or removing clauses. I guess I'll do some research on those bills, can you cite your sources? Not trying to be an A$$, I really want to know the extent of their ( NRA) involvement. and if it was pro or con. I truly believe those laws would have been worse, I know the original AW ban was an outright ban, no ownership, turn them in type bill.

Lautenberg Amendment may be going away in the near future. Lost some good Soldiers because of that one (someone accused them, no weapon, no use to the military, bye).

[1gewehr]

Originally posted by cowbilly
1gewehr,
Never heard of the NRA help writing those antigun bills. I know that once they were authored or proposed by a Rep/Senator they stepped in and tried to mitigate the bill by adding or removing clauses. I guess I'll do some research on those bills, can you cite your sources?

This will get you started:
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-friends-like-nra.htm

That column has a lot of references that will lead you elsewhere. The beginning, of course, was when the NRA decided to not fight the 1934 NFA if handguns were removed from the bill. They figured that the courts would declare it unConstitutional and therefore they didn't need to really fight it. Unfortunately, they started a history of compromise that they have never stopped.

[cowbilly]

Thanks for the link, this is'nt one organization bad mouthing another to boost their membership is it?

The NRA was right to assume in the 1934 case, it should have been stricken. Anti-gunners were'nt as rapid as they are today. I'd like to see someone one challenge the ruling using an M4, it is a militia weapon issued by the military by the court's definition.

The NRA definately needs to be more aggressive and fight fire with fire.

[Randall]

Originally posted by cowbilly
The NRA definately needs to be more aggressive and fight fire with fire.

The NRA doesn't give a damn if it wins. The money is in the fight, not in the win. So long as our side has the cash to continue, the NRA will be on our side. They'll change their name to the National Registration Association as soon as we members run out of cash.

[Heat]

Originally posted by cowbilly
Any recommendations? Are you in the fight or a by-stander?

SAF, GAO, JPFO don't have the member base (not even combined) or $$ to garner enough attention in Washington D.C. but I do support them too.

So, want to increase those groups member base and take this fight for your rights SERIOUSLY? Join GOA, JPFO, SAF and let NRA know why!!!
NRA thrives on the continuation of hostilities, much like our govt. thrives on constant wars and division--NRA can blow me, they are useless at the end game--they are not 'closers'

[Dolvio]

The NRA is controlled opposition and people pay for their own enslavement. If they wanted to truly help the 2A they would open ranges across America and offer free firearms education to young people, not only shooting, but the historical importance of the 2A.

How much was LaPierre's salary? How many ranges would that have opened? Would have paid for a lot of .22 ammo to train folks with. I have yet to see anyone shoot a .22 pistol and not smile.

*ETA: The NRA should be funding the Appleseed Project as well.

[dirtyrice]

And if cmp really carried about the mission it was founded with. It would atleast lower the price of a shitty condition garand some. I saw a guy walking around the entire place with a muzzle gauge, interesting to say the least. Like most people say the good stuff never touches those racks. Though I did want one of the refinished ones and a carbine He finally found his in the barreled actions. I'm sure it was alot better in the beginning.

But yeah range time needs to be part of p.e. class

[gunnut1]

Originally posted by limeyinaz
Have any of you NRA haters read the synopsis of their brief? (That is what the original subject of this thread was about)

Mark, you do not believe the NRA was istrumental in the 1994 AWB being allowed to sunset?

I'm not an NRA apologist, but agree with cowbilly.

+1

During the Senate debates on the AWB where were the rest of the so called gun rights groups? The NRA was the only one that was there fighting for our rights.

[bobk538447]

Cowbilly,

I read your argument with great interest IRT the NRA. I dropped out of the NRA after the assault weapons ban because I felt that the NRA had compromised and betrayed my rights.

With everything going the way that it is going I rejoined today. Thanks for your posts. United we stand and divided we will fall!

Bob

[1gewehr]

Originally posted by cowbilly
Thanks for the link, this is'nt one organization bad mouthing another to boost their membership is it?

The NRA was right to assume in the 1934 case, it should have been stricken. Anti-gunners were'nt as rapid as they are today. I'd like to see someone one challenge the ruling using an M4, it is a militia weapon issued by the military by the court's definition.

The NRA definately needs to be more aggressive and fight fire with fire.

L. Neil Smith wrote that column for his own website. It was just archived on JPFO's site. It's an excellent summary with links to allow you to do your own research.

Anti-gunners were just as rabid then. There is a lot of material available about the 1934 NFA debates. The original NFA was written to include all semi-autos and handguns.

As for a perfect Miller challenge, how about a State Guard unit that tried to acquire M16A1 rifles. NRA wouldn't even respond to the letters for help. Try US v Hamblen.

[gunplumber]

Originally posted by dirtyrice
And if cmp really carried about the mission it was founded with. It would atleast lower the price of a shitty condition garand some. I saw a guy walking around the entire place with a muzzle gauge, interesting to say the least. Like most people say the good stuff never touches those racks. Though I did want one of the refinished ones and a carbine He finally found his in the barreled actions. I'm sure it was alot better in the beginning.

But yeah range time needs to be part of p.e. class

No - you've got it all wrong. The CMP is FINALLY fulfilling its mission. The "old way" of rare collector garands mixed in with rack grade ones may have been great for the collector to profit, but it is not part of the CMPs mission. The CMP is about marksmanship training, and they can't fund that without functioning like a business - and businesses don't give away inventory at a fraction of the market value.

Now all our government needs to do to fund the military rifles is release all the old M16s to CMP. Just drill the Auto sear hole bigger like on the Blue Labels (Or get rid of the fracking NFA alltoghter). Would be tens of millions of dollars going back into the military. But its more important for some washed out, obsolete tax collectors to justify their continued existance.

[L Haney]

Originally posted by gunplumber



Now all our government needs to do to fund the military rifles is release all the old M16s to CMP. Just drill the Auto sear hole bigger like on the Blue Labels (Or get rid of the fracking NFA alltoghter). Would be tens of millions of dollars going back into the military. But its more important for some washed out, obsolete tax collectors to justify their continued existance.

Amen, brother! You nailed a big one right there. But you suggestion has logic and reason applied, so it's a non- starter from the other sides view.

[cowbilly]

I read about the gentlemen from Tennessee and the State guard/M16 case. Did he use the Miller decision in his defense as precedent? Last I heard he was appealling the decison and trying to take it to the Supreme Court. The NRA needs to be pressured to lend legal counsel, I'm going to call them on it, if enough people call they will act.

Who mitigated the original 1934 NFA law to drop the semi-auto/handgun ban etc? I doubt a senator did it out of the goodness of their heart.

From the reading I have done, the NRA has reduced the reach of these anti-gun laws. Their bend but don't break defense will have to change soon, ant-gunners keep coming up with brilliant new ideas for control and censorship.

A gun is a gun, does'nt matter if it is full auto or semi, belt or magazine fed, barrel under 16" or 18". We have way too many laws and a criminal does'nt care which one of those he/she breaks. I'm tired of being punished or limited in my rights for someone else's crime.

Every gun law on the books is a knee jerk reaction to someone else's inability to control themselves. We need to come together an stop the mass punishment and get back to the constitution.

[cowbilly]

I remember in the late 80's early 90's the push to get M14s released to the DCM. Instead of selling them for a profit, Uncle Suger paid to have a good many destroyed.

Machinegun is a dirty word to a politician, they won't hardly give it a thought. As soon as you mention it you will be dismissed as rabid militant. It is a sad day when a governmnent does'nt trust its own citizens.

They trust me with one while on duty, but not off duty, go figure.

[molotov]

I always walk by with a battle pack or case of ammo and say i'll use my money to buy this and hold up the ammo and use it to fight for my rights myself.

Haha, classic.

[Heat]

Originally posted by cowbilly
I remember in the late 80's early 90's the push to get M14s released to the DCM. Instead of selling them for a profit, Uncle Suger paid to have a good many destroyed.

Machinegun is a dirty word to a politician, they won't hardly give it a thought. As soon as you mention it you will be dismissed as rapid militant. It is a sad day when a governmnent does'nt trust its own citizens.

They trust me with one while on duty, but not off duty, go figure.

As long as your on duty and doing their bidding--shoot for Haliburton, Standard Oil and all the other corporate entities that politicians have their incestous relationships with

[gunnut1]

Originally posted by cowbilly
I remember in the late 80's early 90's the push to get M14s released to the DCM. Instead of selling them for a profit, Uncle Suger paid to have a good many destroyed.

Machinegun is a dirty word to a politician, they won't hardly give it a thought. As soon as you mention it you will be dismissed as rapid militant. It is a sad day when a governmnent does'nt trust its own citizens.

They trust me with one while on duty, but not off duty, go figure.

Seems to me that Potato nose Clinton had something to do with that. Go figure!

[cowbilly]

As long as your on duty and doing their bidding--shoot for Haliburton, Standard Oil and all the other corporate entities that politicians have their incestous relationships with......posted by Heat

Whatever Heat. We have a lot of people on duty in harms way so you can say stupid stuff like that, but whatever.

[Dolvio]

For anyone that still had any doubts:

Who is NRA giving money to--and why?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ney-to-and-why

[John Culver]

the NRA is proof that member base is rather worthless.

The SAF has few members but have done more for your rights in the last 5 years then the NRA has done in 50.

Its not large memberships that get things done, it is constant attacks on unconstitutional laws. THAT is what the SAF (and some other groups) do.

I have supported the NRA in the past, but not anymore, they kept sending membership money to fuckin China, (yah all the swag they send you is made with slave labor in China, go figure)

[JasonB]

Originally posted by JohnnyMac


Actually the sunset provision was the work of Bob Dole's legislative director, designed so that some fence-sitting Democrats would go for the ban. That is not a typo. Good ol' Republican Bob Dole, while publicly speaking against the ban, privately made sure that some Democrats would be more inclined to support the ban. Why? Because he knew that the backlash would come against the Democrats in November of 94, and he would be the Majority Leader in the Senate. His fellow Republican Kansan Nancy Kassebaum was chosen to vote for the ban to put it over the top, as she was retiring and thus didn't have to run for re-election.

I was working on Capitol Hill at that time, and got to watch that ugly bit of legislative "sausage" being made.

JMc

I joined the NRA for a few years in the mid 90's and every issue was talking about how great a friend to gun owners Bob Dole was and always had been. Then one day I was perusing some of my Dad's American Rifleman issues from the early 80's and smack in the middle of a legislative alert section was an article on a certain senator from KS who's name rhymed with Bob Dole and how the bastard had to be stopped from getting a 21 day waiting period passed. No more interest in renewing after I got through the end of that article.