The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 12, 2017, 12:59 PM   #126
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,605
Even if the NRA was caught in a Catch-22 with Republican leadership, there was no reason for them to opine that rate of fire of a firearm was a valid basis for additional regulations. Do they have any idea what a can of worms they are opening in regards to both legislation and Scalia's "dangerous and unusual" language?

In my view, that was a clear knife to the back. All we're arguing abput know is whether it was accidental or intentional.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 12:59 PM   #127
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrinne0430
I believe the NRA's move has been interpreted by some GOP congressional members as an OK to seek a ban, such as Republican Carlos Curbelo of Florida.
Then the NRA should promptly remove all doubt by loudly trashing Rep. Curbelo, his bill, and all of its co-sponsors.

IMHO it's quite easy to explain how the bill's ambiguity threatens the legality of virtually all semi-automatic firearms.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 01:07 PM   #128
jrinne0430
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 207
Quote:
Then the NRA should promptly remove all doubt by loudly trashing Rep. Curbelo, his bill, and all of its co-sponsors.
They stated they oppose the bill however; their earlier statement, let the cat out.


http://freebeacon.com/issues/nra-opp...tock-ban-bill/
Quote:
"The ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump fire stocks," Feinstein said. "Period.
jrinne0430 is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 02:04 PM   #129
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,161
Quote:
The NRA states it opposes the bump stock bans being proposed. But when the NRA releases this statement:

Quote:
The National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the NRA said in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
what did they think was going to happen next?
I believe they may have thought that a review of current regs that may or may not culminate in any regulatory change provides a PR benefit without committing to any concrete concession.

When passions are still running hot a message that these things will happen may not fare very well in the face Think of the dead! hysteria. This avoids a basis for an accusation of callousness, and gives adminstrative personnel room to outmaneuver the sort of clumsy over-reach the legislation represents.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 02:38 PM   #130
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankenMauser View Post
...Didn't stop them at Wounded Knee...
True, however the troops at wounded knee were smart enough to wait until the natives had turned their weapons over to murder them.

The 2A in no way advocates turning our weapons over. The Indians unfortunately were to trusting like many have been for 100 yrs now.

The nra does not want nationwide constitutional carry. If that happens there is no cash cow anymore and they cease to exist or be relevant.
The NRA has always served the NRA, they as an org could care less about gun rights.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 03:21 PM   #131
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,669
I wonder if Feinstein realizes that her comments, which point towards the current and past legality of bump stocks, is likely destroying the case her pals at the Brady institute are attempting.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 04:02 PM   #132
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,534
Quote:
The nra does not want nationwide constitutional carry. If that happens there is no cash cow anymore and they cease to exist or be relevant.
The NRA has always served the NRA, they as an org could care less about gun rights.
Curiosity makes me wonder about the reasoning behind this, but whatever it is, it is seriously flawed.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old October 12, 2017, 04:18 PM   #133
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...The nra does not want nationwide constitutional carry. If that happens there is no cash cow anymore and they cease to exist or be relevant...
Of course you have no actual evidence to support that?

How could anyone believe that the interests antagonistic to the RKBA would ever just slink away?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 09:32 PM   #134
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
Of course you have no actual evidence to support that?

How could anyone believe that the interests antagonistic to the RKBA would ever just slink away?
Why yes I do. NRA supported the NFA,and the GCA.
They insisted on NICS and still do to this day.

Those are just historical facts that are well known.
They opposed handgun open carry in TX until very last min.

First hand, they threw a bill into my state to do away with needing a permit to conceal.

Which would have been dandy except their bill called for force of law signage, complete with fines, making a building that contained a police dept, even if it was only one room, entirely a no concealed carry area even if it was, multi story.

Removed the statute that prohibits employers from banning guns in their employees vehicles on business parking lots.
Would have removed the ability to keep a loaded weapon in your vehicle on school grounds.

Of course none of that was in the summary of the bill they gave to the two idiot legislators here who sponsored it without reading it.
NRA wrote so it must be fine right?

Of course it didn't pass and was dropped like a hot potato once gun owners here figured out what was in it and went ballistic.

None of the regulations they wanted had KY, ever had since statehood.

So yep there is historical proof and Kys near miss of one of there signature bills just last year.

They stick a finger in the wind just like with bump stocks now, open the gun control flood gate single handidly again, and now will squeal for money to fight gun control proposals they brought on by their stupid anti 2a position on full auto or anything approaching full auto.

Last edited by Ghost1958; October 12, 2017 at 09:53 PM.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 10:19 PM   #135
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...Why yes I do. NRA supported the NFA,and the GCA.
They insisted on NICS and still do to this day....
Phooey! Not evidence -- just meaningless sound bites. You're weak on details, but details count.

Some reality:
  • Until fairly recently the NRA was primarily a competition and sportsman organization. It wasn't until the late 1960s that the NRA really started to become politically active. In fact, the NRA is not the politically active organization. The political heavy lifting is done by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

  • So in 1934, the focus of the NRA was its sportsman constituency. What could the NRA, as it existed in 1934, reasonably have done to defeat the NFA? That was then, and this is now.

  • The motivation for the enactment by Congress of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was the assassinations by gunfire of three wildly popular public figures: JFK; RFK; and MLK. In the political climate of the times absolutely nothing would have stopped that law.

    • But the original bill contained a number of particularly repugnant provisions, including:

      • A requirement that persons buying certain types of ammunition show ID.

      • A national gun registry.

      • A requirement that anyone carrying a gun be licensed.

    • These provisions were blocked by the NRA and not in the final law.

    • So without the NRA, the Gun Control Act of 1968 would have been worse than it is.

  • The impetus for the Brady Bill was attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and the coincident sever injury to James Brady. There was tremendous political support for the bill.

    • Nonetheless, the NRA spent millions of dollars attempting to defeat it. The bill could not be defeated, but the NRA was instrumental in winning a concession.

    • The bill as originally proposed included a five day waiting period. But the NRA led the fight to have that replaced by 1998 with a computerized instant background check (NICS) by 1998.

    • Then the NRA funded lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming arguing that certain provisions of the Brady Act relating to the operation of the NICS were unconstitutional. These lawsuits led to the Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997) that provisions in the Brady Act requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment and were therefore unconstitutional.

      (Printz did leave open the possibility for state and local law enforcement agencies to voluntarily participate, and many do. However, the ruling in Printz serves the longer term purpose of limiting the federal government's power to force state and local governmental departments to assist in the implementation of federal programs.)

  • The NRA was also able to get a sunset provision in Clinton's AWB. And the efforts of the NRA have been instrumental in preventing the AWB from being revived.

  • So the politically adroit NRA was able to ameliorate the effects of some bills which could not have been defeated. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the impossible. A "no compromise" gun lobby would not have stopped GCA68 or the the Brady Bill or the AWB. And a "no compromise" gun lobby would have left us with a worse GCA68, Brady Law, and AWB still in effect.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 10:50 PM   #136
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
That's your take on the nra and one alot of die hard supporters of them make.

My opinion, the NRA has folded or outright supported some of the most horrendous gun control acts ever passed while wheedling, we are better of giving away part of our RTKABA and go along to look reasonable. Now send us money.

You declined comment on what they tried to backdoor thru in KY. Unless you would like to say I just made it up.
The NRA history is clear. No matter how it's dressed up. And not all ancient history. As in their stand right now that opened a flood gate they can't close and cost them a lot of members.

Either the 2A means what it clearly says in one simple sentence or it doesn't.
An individual or organization either supports and defends it or they don't. Simple as that.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:17 PM   #137
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,049
Frank you can find scans of a 1968 American Rifleman article where they respond to criticisms of never supporting regulation that yes indeed they supported 34 and 68 on the GoA's website.
I think it was March issue.

Seems like your argument is, nothing would have stopped those laws.
Maybe you're right.. none the less how does that counter ghosts point that they supported those bills? It doesn't.

Anyway regardless of culture or organization changes they did support those laws.
Let's fast forward to the 2010 DC/Heller case and maybe you can rationalize their attempts to squash and then take over the case all of which failed before finally realizing they couldn't and got behind it.

My understanding is they thought the case would loose and didn't want to risk the loss.
After that they took a harder line, seemed to get more active in and the motto "stand and fight" came about.

After you get done with that maybe you can explain the response to the vegas shooting and bump stocks.

Is it another case of, If you can't beat'em join'em?
__________________
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:18 PM   #138
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...My opinion, the NRA has folded or outright supported some of the most horrendous gun control acts ever passed while wheedling, we are better of giving away part of our RTKABA and go along to look reasonable.....
Being your opinion doesn't make it true or accurate. What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.It appears that your opinion is based on at best a superficial view of things.

As such it's not worth much, and I don't plan to take it seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...You declined comment on what they tried to backdoor thru in KY....
I declined comment because I'm not going to do the research necessary to comment. And I'm certainly not going to accept your characterization of the events. You haven't shown yourself in the past to be a particularly insightful or reliable commentator on legal or political matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...Either the 2A means what it clearly says in one simple sentence or it doesn't....
What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

In the real world the Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Quote:
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

Thus if there is disagreement about whether a statute enacted by Congress applies to decide a controversy or the application of the statute is barred by the Constitution, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):
Quote:
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply....
It's well settled law that under certain circumstance and to some extent a constitutionally protected right may be regulated. What those circumstance might be and the nature and extent of permissible regulation will be worked out by the courts. To do so, a court will consider, among other things, the nature of the right, the nature of the regulation, and the governmental purpose intended to be served.

For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
  • Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

  • If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.

  • Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:

    • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
      Quote:
      ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...
    • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
      Quote:
      ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...

  • In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.

    But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):
    Quote:
    ...The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. That is undoubtedly true; the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases. 'When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its error that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249, 63 L. Ed. 470. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.6 On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional guaranty of free speech does not 'protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 139, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874.' Schenck v. United States, supra. These limitations are not applicable here. Nor are we now concerned with questions as to the extent of authority to prevent publications in order to protect private rights according to the principles governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of courts of equity...
  • In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).

So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation. The foregoing discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts.

We can not expect, nor will we see, perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is quite mature at this point, but Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the wake of Heller, is in its infancy. However, we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.

With regard to any existing or possible future governmental actions which might be applied to limit, restrict or prohibit activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms, here's essentially how things work:
  1. Any governmental action limiting, restricting or prohibiting activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms is subject to judicial challenge.

  2. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

  3. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.

  4. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

  5. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.

  6. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. Until Heller just five years ago, it was still in doubt whether the Second Amendment would be found to describe an individual or collective right. Until McDonald just three years ago, the law was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). So the scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is still unclear.

  7. The bottom line is that Second Amendment jurisprudence will need to mature over time as these sorts of issues get litigated.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:44 PM   #139
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSixpack
..Seems like your argument is, nothing would have stopped those laws.
Maybe you're right.. none the less how does that counter ghosts point that they supported those bills? It doesn't....
What they did was make those bills as good for us as the politics of the time permitted. Things would have been worse.

You can draw your lines in the sand, and huff and puff "no compromise" all you want. All that means is that the side with the votes will just ignore your interests and roll over you.
It's always been politics; it's politics now; and forever shall be politics -- world without end. That's how decisions are made as a group composed of people with disparate interests, beliefs, and values.

As I've said before, the reality is that we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give us to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

Success will depend on political acumen. Holding one's breath until turning blue isn't a very effective strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSixpack
...Let's fast forward to the 2010 DC/Heller case and maybe you can rationalize their attempts to squash and then take over the case all of which failed before finally realizing they couldn't and got behind it....
When the NRA opposed moving forward with Heller, the composition of the Court was such that a win was unlikely. A loss would have been disastrous.

Heller was for all the marbles. If the Court supported the "collective right model" of the Second Amendment, which was then in vogue, we'd be done at the federal level. The Second Amendment would no longer be useable to challenge gun control in court. It would be open season on guns and gun owners. And the NRA quite properly feared that outcome.

But Justice O'Connor retired, and she was replaced with Justice Alito (who wrote the pro-RKBA opinion in McDonald). Now there was a reasonable chance for a RKBA favorable result, and the NRA withdrew its opposition.

See here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 13, 2017 at 12:43 AM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:49 PM   #140
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,534
Quote:
...Either the 2A means what it clearly says in one simple sentence or it doesn't....
You'd think so, but life isn't that simple. Extension of that particular logic says that if there is infringement, then the whole point is moot.

I don't think that's the way to look at it.

Blaming the NRA for the 1934 NFA is particularly unfair, and inaccurate. As mentioned, at the time, the NRA was still only doing its original mission, to promote marksmanship and safety. NOBODY was paying attention to what was essentially the first national gun control law, which is why they got away with it.

The GCA 68 was a different matter, SOMETHING was going to pass, and the GCA had widespread support, mostly because the proponents of the bill were crafty and selective about what was in it. US gunmakers supported the bill, because, at the time, it was sold to them as a trade protection measure.

FAILURE of the NRA to stop ALL gun control measures does NOT equal endorsement or support.

Quote:
The NRA has always served the NRA, they as an org could care less about gun rights.
Well, of course the NRA has always served the NRA, that's what they are there to do. Remember the NRA is NOT a public service organization, it's a private membership organization. Membership is open to all who pay dues. But they don't work for the public at large, or the public good, they work for the membership, and the good of the membership.

Are you a member??

and the idea that they could care less about gun rights is just laughable.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:51 PM   #141
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
Being your opinion doesn't make it true or accurate. What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.It appears that your opinion is based on at best a superficial view of things.

As such it's not worth much, and I don't plan to take it seriously.

I declined comment because I'm not going to do the research necessary to comment. And I'm certainly not going to accept your characterization of the events. You haven't shown yourself in the past to be a particularly insightful or reliable commentator on legal or political matters.

What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

In the real world the Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

Thus if there is disagreement about whether a statute enacted by Congress applies to decide a controversy or the application of the statute is barred by the Constitution, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):It's well settled law that under certain circumstance and to some extent a constitutionally protected right may be regulated. What those circumstance might be and the nature and extent of permissible regulation will be worked out by the courts. To do so, a court will consider, among other things, the nature of the right, the nature of the regulation, and the governmental purpose intended to be served.

For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
  • Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

  • If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.

  • Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:

    • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
    • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:

  • In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.

    But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):
  • In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).

So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation. The foregoing discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts.

We can not expect, nor will we see, perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is quite mature at this point, but Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the wake of Heller, is in its infancy. However, we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.

With regard to any existing or possible future governmental actions which might be applied to limit, restrict or prohibit activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms, here's essentially how things work:
  1. Any governmental action limiting, restricting or prohibiting activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms is subject to judicial challenge.

  2. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

  3. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.

  4. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

  5. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.

  6. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. Until Heller just five years ago, it was still in doubt whether the Second Amendment would be found to describe an individual or collective right. Until McDonald just three years ago, the law was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). So the scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is still unclear.

  7. The bottom line is that Second Amendment jurisprudence will need to mature over time as these sorts of issues get litigated.
There's our difference.
You because you were in it for 30 yrs believe that it's impossible for SCOTUS to violate the 2ndA.

They ruled themselves the power of judicial review long ago. A power not granted them by the cotus.

Thankfully a YUGE to borrow a phrase from the POTUS , lol, don't see it like lawyers and politicians do.
I know that scotus and gov has been violating the law of the land, the BOR, for 200 yrs.
Many others do also regardless if legaleeze mumbo jumbo attempts to muddy the water.

As to my being stupid to the what constitution says, or how things work, I'm not. I was heavily involved in getting the NRAs bill killed here last year.
Simply because SCOTUS says a violation of the bor, isn't a violation simply in truth and reality do not make it so.

King George I'd imagine was of the opinion that because he said so that's the way it would always be.
Didn't work out so well.

I really would appreciate it if when we have a discussion you would refrain from in so many words saying I'm to stupid to take seriously simply because you can here.
I've done no such to you.

Last edited by Ghost1958; October 13, 2017 at 12:16 AM.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 12:10 AM   #142
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
You'd think so, but life isn't that simple. Extension of that particular logic says that if there is infringement, then the whole point is moot.

I don't think that's the way to look at it.

Blaming the NRA for the 1934 NFA is particularly unfair, and inaccurate. As mentioned, at the time, the NRA was still only doing its original mission, to promote marksmanship and safety. NOBODY was paying attention to what was essentially the first national gun control law, which is why they got away with it.

The GCA 68 was a different matter, SOMETHING was going to pass, and the GCA had widespread support, mostly because the proponents of the bill were crafty and selective about what was in it. US gunmakers supported the bill, because, at the time, it was sold to them as a trade protection measure.

FAILURE of the NRA to stop ALL gun control measures does NOT equal endorsement or support.



Well, of course the NRA has always served the NRA, that's what they are there to do. Remember the NRA is NOT a public service organization, it's a private membership organization. Membership is open to all who pay dues. But they don't work for the public at large, or the public good, they work for the membership, and the good of the membership.

Are you a member??

and the idea that they could care less about gun rights is just laughable.
It actually is that simple. The entire COTUS is about limiting gov power. And protecting the individuals rights as stated in the BOR.
Those rights are expressly off limits to be interfered with. Precisely to prevent politics and voting majorities from violating them.

No I'm not a member of the nra for a long time now. The majority of gun owners aren't even if you accept the gov has any idea how many gun owners there are. Their guess is hilariously low.

But. The NRA is by any estimate very small compared to the number of gun owners.

With their history and right up including today their history of give a little get nothing it should not surprise they are small and now rapidly getting smaller.
To the NICS argument. A five day waiting period would have not affected most folks anyway because of private sales and would not have created a federal defecto gun registry.

If you think those records get destroyed as the law states think again.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 12:35 AM   #143
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,702
Quote:
They ruled themselves the power of judicial review long ago. A power not granted them by the cotus.
When you make statements like this it makes it impossible to take anything else you say about the Supreme Court or the Constitution seriously.

If you're getting that out of the Constitution, then your interpretation of it is "remarkably unconventional". In the same way that a person would comment that interpreting darkness as being the same thing as light is a remarkably unconventional interpretation.

Strong opinions are not the same thing as fact and saying a thing does not make it true. A person can call darkness light, but when it comes time to read, they're still going to have to turn on the light like the rest of us.

You can claim that the Constitution doesn't grant the Supreme Court the power to decide cases having to do with the Constitution when it says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..." and "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." but it's not a claim you're going to be able to support. It just isn't--the language is far too clear.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 12:41 AM   #144
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...They ruled themselves the power of judicial review long ago. A power not granted them by the cotus....
No. Judicial review is necessarily a consequence of the mandate under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution that the federal court exercise the judicial power of the United States to decide cases arising under the Constitution. It's impossible to decide such cases without judicial review, and judicial review is necessarily a component of judicial power. Chief Justice Marshall explains in the snippet I quoted from Marbury.

In any case, and notwithstanding your opinions, I've outlined how things are in the real world in real life. We have over 200 years of precedent supporting judicial review. The opinions of the courts on matters of law affect things in the real world. Yours do not.

And the world will continue to go on about its business without regard to the way you think should be.

Those of us interested in furthering the RKBA need to have a solid grounding in reality. We must be able to deal with the real world on its terms. If we confuse what is with how we'd like things to be, we will get nowhere.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 01:20 AM   #145
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,680
May I also point out that the NRA ILA wasn't conceived until 1978, IIRC, which was when the NRA became far more active in legislative actions. I am a Life Member, as is my wife. I also support Gun Owners of America and Arizona Citizens Defense League.
armoredman is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 03:55 AM   #146
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,534
Quote:
To the NICS argument. A five day waiting period would have not affected most folks anyway because of private sales and would not have created a federal defecto gun registry.
A five day waiting period would have not affected most folks anyway....
A ban on bump-fire stocks would not affect most folks anyway....

There's a bit of similarity between those two lines, and a lot of difference.

That 5 day wait would have affected everyone desiring to purchase a new handgun, or any handgun from an FFL dealer. AND it would have overridden state laws where less than a 5 day wait was allowed.

At the time the law was proposed, my state already had a 3 day waiting period for handguns, which was waived if you had a concealed pistol permit.
The Brady waiting period would have overridden this, and removed the waiver.

When issues before Congress reach a certain point, Congress will pass something. It is inevitable. What gets passed is usually under the name of the issue as it was first brought up. But, under that name what the bill actually is and does can change hugely between what is initially proposed and what is finally passed.

because there absolutely was going to be some kind of "background check law" passed. You can't stop a flood, but you might be able to channel the flow and minimize the damage. Instead of a five day national wait, we got NO federal waiting period, and the "instant" check, done over the phone by the FFL. Because the NRA was willing to support that compromise, many still wail about how the NRA didn't defend the 2nd amendment, and betrayed us all.

Had the NRA not done so, I believe we would today have a national 5 day waiting period, and we would still have people wailing about how the NRA didn't defend the 2nd amendment, and betrayed us all.

I ask you, which of those situations is worse??

and, I just gotta ask...is " a federal defecto gun registry" a typo, or a pun???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old October 13, 2017, 07:03 AM   #147
jrinne0430
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 207
As for the NRA's actions, they certainly exposed the chasm among us and reinforced many people's skepticism of their existence. Those who did not trust the NRA now have more reason not to, some who were members have left, and others who where on the fence may tilt away (see comments on this site and others). I am a life member but no matter how I look at this, I cannot see the positive side of the NRA's actions. If anything, their comments encouraged more congressional members to sign on with ban movement.
jrinne0430 is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 07:51 AM   #148
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,605
Well, kudos to Frank and 44AMP for saddling up your horse and tilting at the windmills. That poster was so riddled with inaccuracy and fake news that I couldn't muster the energy to even start addressing it...

In related news it seems Marion Hammer has sent a letter to board directors arguing that bump stocks should never have existed anyway and NRA must support bans on any type of accelerated rate of fire out of respect for the spirit of the 1986 ban. Also, there are "Trojan Horse members who are deliberately misinterpreting what NRA has said."

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...p-fire-stocks/
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 09:27 AM   #149
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,553
As a side issue, Open Carry was not seen universally as a great idea in TX by many in the pro-gun community. Practically, all it accomplished was a wave of OC ban signs AND an increase in signs banning concealed carry (a net negative). It is rarely done anyway.

Don't want to divert from the main issue but that's how it happened and the consequences.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 09:49 AM   #150
Ghost1958
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
A five day waiting period would have not affected most folks anyway....
A ban on bump-fire stocks would not affect most folks anyway....

There's a bit of similarity between those two lines, and a lot of difference.

That 5 day wait would have affected everyone desiring to purchase a new handgun, or any handgun from an FFL dealer. AND it would have overridden state laws where less than a 5 day wait was allowed.

At the time the law was proposed, my state already had a 3 day waiting period for handguns, which was waived if you had a concealed pistol permit.
The Brady waiting period would have overridden this, and removed the waiver.

When issues before Congress reach a certain point, Congress will pass something. It is inevitable. What gets passed is usually under the name of the issue as it was first brought up. But, under that name what the bill actually is and does can change hugely between what is initially proposed and what is finally passed.

because there absolutely was going to be some kind of "background check law" passed. You can't stop a flood, but you might be able to channel the flow and minimize the damage. Instead of a five day national wait, we got NO federal waiting period, and the "instant" check, done over the phone by the FFL. Because the NRA was willing to support that compromise, many still wail about how the NRA didn't defend the 2nd amendment, and betrayed us all.

Had the NRA not done so, I believe we would today have a national 5 day waiting period, and we would still have people wailing about how the NRA didn't defend the 2nd amendment, and betrayed us all.

I ask you, which of those situations is worse??

and, I just gotta ask...is " a federal defecto gun registry" a typo, or a pun???
Should have been defacto.

It was my phone substituting it's own version of what I want to type because it'd "smart".

Changes the meaning sometimes of what I wrote.

Kinda like has been done with the BOR.
Deleted prose - GM
Where in the 2A does it in any way even hint the gov or a court has authority to regulate guns.
It doesn't even grant the right as the RTKABA preexisted this nation. By the beloved SCOTUS own words.
So how is it in anyway moral or legal for the gov to infringe on pee existing human rights that existed before the nation or it's gov or courts existed.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14132 seconds with 8 queries