|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 12, 2017, 12:59 PM | #126 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
October 12, 2017, 12:59 PM | #127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
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 |
|
October 12, 2017, 01:07 PM | #128 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 298
|
Quote:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/nra-opp...tock-ban-bill/ Quote:
|
||
October 12, 2017, 02:04 PM | #129 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
October 12, 2017, 02:38 PM | #130 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
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. |
October 12, 2017, 03:21 PM | #131 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
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.
|
October 12, 2017, 04:02 PM | #132 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 12, 2017, 04:18 PM | #133 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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 |
|
October 12, 2017, 09:32 PM | #134 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 12, 2017, 10:19 PM | #135 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Some reality:
__________________
"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 |
|
October 12, 2017, 10:50 PM | #136 |
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. |
October 12, 2017, 11:17 PM | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
|
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? |
October 12, 2017, 11:18 PM | #138 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
As such it's not worth much, and I don't plan to take it seriously. Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
__________________
"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 |
||||||||
October 12, 2017, 11:44 PM | #139 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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:
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 |
||
October 12, 2017, 11:49 PM | #140 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
October 12, 2017, 11:51 PM | #141 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 13, 2017, 12:10 AM | #142 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 13, 2017, 12:35 AM | #143 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
October 13, 2017, 12:41 AM | #144 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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 |
|
October 13, 2017, 01:20 AM | #145 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
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.
|
October 13, 2017, 03:55 AM | #146 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 13, 2017, 07:03 AM | #147 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 298
|
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.
|
October 13, 2017, 07:51 AM | #148 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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/ |
October 13, 2017, 09:27 AM | #149 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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 |
October 13, 2017, 09:49 AM | #150 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
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. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|