Where’s The NRA When We Need Them?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I think spending on counter advertising is a waste of our money. Better to "waste" the money in court challenges, instead.

I think both of these are epic wastes of money. In general, the courts seem about as anti-gun as the media. The U.S. Supreme Court barely affirmed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was actually a right and seems inclined to not take gun cases, so lower courts are free to ravage this right by upholding virtually every anti-gun law as reasonable. I'd say the best money spent is on trying to keep anti-gun stuff from passing in the first place or barring that, inserting a sunset clause and/or other things to minimize the damage.

[zukiphile]

In general, the courts seem about as anti-gun as the media. The U.S. Supreme Court barely affirmed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was actually a right and seems inclined to not take gun cases, so lower courts are free to ravage this right by upholding virtually every anti-gun law as reasonable.

Why is this though? Those judges were nominated and confirmed by elected officeholders. Their voters were influenced by public advocacy.

If Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer are a problem, they are a problem that was planted in prior elections.

[Prndll]

There are those with 'bloody hands'. The bloodiest are not part of the NRA. Regardless of how you may view the NRA, don't be distracted. There is evil out there. Real evil. Alot of people are getting played (much of it through social media). The worst of the worst offenders are not members of the NRA and consider the NRA an enemy. That's not to say it's ok for the right (conservative or otherwise) to allow the left to destroy. It is quite simply that it's easy to lose focus. Perhaps too easy.

Personally, I question how the NRA can hold the stance it has regarding bump stocks AND simultaneously have such problems with raising the legal age to 21. But, that doesn't turn the NRA into bad guys. If anything (for me anyway), it means holding off on membership.

Who cares what position the NRA takes with regard to immigration? That's not what they are there for. I would rather they have no (public) opinion on it.

As for their publicly stated views on the left being socialist:
Well....they are.

[JoeSixpack]

@ligonierbill
They also say the NRA sells guns which is flatly untrue, NRA is hated on the other side because they are the biggest target.

Im not seeing a whole lot moving at the federal level and the NRA is not credited with improvements at the state level.. That credit goes to OFCC and BFA which are state org's.

I give credit where credit is due but I also damn them when they go limp.

[Aguila Blanca]

The NRA does a lot of work behind the scenes, that most of us don't see because it doesn't make headlines, and the NRA doesn't push to have their name attached to it. Case in point:

For a number of years, my municipality had on the books a local ordinance that said it was unlawful to possess a loaded firearm on municipal property. The reason this was a huge issue is that the police (correctly) viewed public streets (other than a couple of state highways crossing the town) as municipal property. For those of us who are residents, this meant our state-issued carry permits were virtually useless. For me to carry legally, I had to unload before starting my car, then drive 2+ miles to reach a state road before I could reload. And then hope I didn't hit a traffic detour that took my off state roads before I could get out of town. I also couldn't carry when taking my trash to the transfer station, dropping off a book at the library, or paying my taxes at the tax collector's office.

I set out to challenge the ordinance, and I hired a gun rights attorney to advise me and to put together a lawsuit to overturn the ordinance. This attorney had connections to the NRA, and the NRA agreed to contribute toward my legal fees because they agreed the ordinance was horrible. Most people IN town didn't know about it, but how would anyone from a different town know that they couldn't drive through my town with a loaded gun on their hip or in their purse -- even with a permit?

We tried the carrot and stick approach. The carrot was to play nice and politely meet with the municipal board to request a change. The stick was the threat of the lawsuit -- which we had ready to file.

And then Sandy Hook happened, and the already anti-gun chief executive officer got her knickers in a twist and directed the municipal counsel to make us go away.We looked at the array of judges we'd be up against if we proceeded with the lawsuit and decided we would be guaranteed to lose. "Bad cases make bad law," so I made the decision to not file the suit rather than proceed and give the other side a win.

And, in the end, the effort did give us a partial win. Just before the end of her last term (she retired rather than run for reelection) the chief executive officer pushed through a revision to the ordinance. A major change was an exception for carry on public streets pursuant to a permit. I still can't carry at the transfer station, but at least now I don't have to disarm when I walk out to my mailbox and cross the property line. More importantly, people driving through town don't have to worry about being busted for a firearms violation if they get stopped for a broken taillight.

My point is that I could not have taken the effort as far as it went without the support (financial and moral) of the NRA. They have a fund for such cases, and a committee that meets two (or four?) times a year to decide which cases they're going to help fund.

[Mike38]

-Extended concealed carry to national parks, within the laws of the states containing them.

-Allowed checking firearms on Amtrak trains, bringing their regulation consistent with air travel.

Yea, Obama did do those. But I still have a bad taste in my mouth about his Kalashnikov import ban. I had two .22 caliber Target pistols made by a sister company of Kalashnikov, Izhmash. Valued at $800-1000 each. Imports of these pistols, as well as repair parts came to a screeching halt. Basically, I had two paper weights. When it came time for periotic tune ups for these pistols, I had to sell them both at a huge loss. Sold them while they still worked good.

I haven't been in a National Park or rode Amtrak for over 30-40 years, so Obama did more harm to me than good.

[Prndll]

Aguila Blanca:
This is the kind of thing I would like or expect to see from the NRA. Reading your post made me feel better about things and is part of why the NRA does look appealing to me. The more I see though, the more I really think I just need to get off the fence. This might be a struggle that I will just have to live with and simply pick a partner and accept what is to be.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Prndll

This is the kind of thing I would like or expect to see from the NRA.

The thing is, I don't know if you'll see much about such activities. I have the impression that they intentionally don't make their participation known.

Speaking only to my own case, I can say with absolute certainty that the municipal government is heavily Democratic, and extremely anti-gun. We had three meetings with the governing board, one of which also attended by several women in professions that take them to multiple towns and cities and who tried to explain why they felt it necessary to go armed for self defense. And my attorney went into the RKBA, both from the U.S. Constitution and from our own state constitution. The chief executive officer (who is, by the way, a professor of law) ended all that when she said, "That's all very nice, but ... we don't like guns."

That was the reception we got when we went in as home-grown, grass roots citizens (I grew up in the town, I was a Boy Scout, my father was a deacon in the church adjacent to town hall, I was president of my senior class in high school). We did everything we could to keep it low key and to try to make it easy for them to do the right thing. Imagine how they would have reacted if they had known we were being backed (even partially) by the dreaded NRA.

I believe there is a lot of this going on that you'll never hear about, and that's the reason why.

[5whiskey]

This is the kind of thing I would like or expect to see from the NRA. Reading your post made me feel better about things and is part of why the NRA does look appealing to me. The more I see though, the more I really think I just need to get off the fence. This might be a struggle that I will just have to live with and simply pick a partner and accept what is to be

I'm not a pusher of the NRA. I'm a member, and I agree with their mission. But I don't push, because I recognize there are alternative organizations.

For someone who wonders if they should do the NRA or another organization, my recommendation is to join something right away as a yearly member. You're not marrying the organization. You're just joining a group that represents you as a gun owner and 2A supporter. If that's important to you, then do it. Don't wait another 6 months to decide. Just pick one. If you find later you don't agree with their stances you can change next year.

Second off, regarding the NRA. No other organization has done more, in all and in general, for gun ownership, rights, and education, than the NRA. The NRA has partnered to influence military training, law enforcement training, hunter safety education, and has sponsored youth firearms safety and competition for at least a century. Their initial charter was not to lobby for firearms rights. Pretty much prior to the NFA in the 30's, no reason existed for them to. That was likely believed to be a one time thing, an anomoly, and its hard to pass judgement on it without living during the period. Then came GCA '68. The NRA is accused of being a bunch sellouts because of that but that law was initially much worse before they influenced it. They finally had to become a pro-2A lobbying organization but only in the last 40 years or so. In the big picture, the need for pro-2A rights lobbying is relatively new. The Brady campaign really kicked it off. And the NRA has been there to respond through it all.

All of this history for a reminder of what the NRA is and does. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the very good. They have a strategy. It may not be perfect, but it's likely pretty good. Its important to be counted as a member of 2A rights somewhere. The NRA is at least as good as any other.

[In The Ten Ring]

Allowing 18 to 21 year olds to buy weapons IF those people are in the military is a violation of existing law. Disabled persons are not allowed to join the military but if such a law passed they'd then be discriminated against again.

It depends on the judges but the law being proposed by Trump would fail in this regard....nothing new for Trump, he doesn't have a great batting record on his actions passing judicial review. "We'll ban all Muslims!" I was disgusted how many people supported that insane campaign rhetoric. They clearly had no idea what the nation was founded upon nor what conservative principles are.

[Johny Smith]

When I did my courses to get my carry and conceal permit I took them at our States premier gun club but only because it was sponsered and taught by the NRA using trained NRA members and local active duty police officers.
(and I wanted a real education and not a gun-ho sally in fatigues teaching me)
It was a two course deal with safety and it took a week, with live fire qualification on the last day to get your certificate. And some did not make it.

Fast forward a few years and the NRA no longer offers the course but you can buy the course material online.


I'm afraid some do not really want to look deeply into what they are all about and have bought spiel hook, line and sinker. If the NRA was to fold tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference for the individual private gun owner,,,not one difference !


They have done nothing but spend money to bribe Congress members and only then to serve the gun manufactures.
And guess what, Trump won't help us either.

Come 2020 we will still not be able to go on vacation out of State with our carry guns because after all, driving is privilege while gun ownership is only a Constitutional right.
Do some even realize what is happening if you go for a yearly routine physical and you are on a social security pension ? Trump only stopped them black balling those who are drawing an SSI check but having their money mange, he did nothing about what Obama sneaked in going to you primary physician.

Be very careful in how you answer those questions because if he interprets your sadness because you dog died and writes down "Joe Blow came to see me, he looks good but seem 'Depressed' over his dog dying"
Guess what it gets reported and you get flagged, no guns for you ever !

So why did the last f rauds in office do that, because it helps stop the flow of guns, remember the goal is not gun control it's a total gun ban.

[In The Ten Ring]

There was a judge that ruled a couple of years ago that even "illegal aliens had the right to keep and bear arms." I can't quote what case but I recall reading it in the news. Maybe someone will chime in.

Do illegal aliens have the right to worship freely? I would say "yes." Does every human have the right to keep and bear arms? Yes. So yes, illegal aliens have the right to arms because it is an inherent human right.

Many existing laws violate the Constitution, and they violate human rights.

I agree the NRA works "behind the scenes." That's a good thing.

I had a friendly chat with a Yankee today (MA) who said he didn't own any guns, it was clear he was not up with gun laws, but then he pulled out an NRA credit card. I was impressed.

When I broached the subject of firearms I did it with a true story, concerning driving across NY state and being followed by a would-be robber into PA.
It was a great way to bring up the topic and engage in conversation.

Conservatives have dropped the ball on spreading the virtues of our principles, we have surrendered the school systems and colleges. Even on this board we disagree, argue over bump stocks and open carry, etc. while the Left is united in their goal of complete disarmament. Divided we will fall. Stay united. Don't let one more slice of cake be taken.....strive to protect the cake we have while we bake new cakes. Be friendly, compassionate, and factual when discussing with the anti's...it's going to take that and a lot more to win back some hearts.

And he agreed, the "students" in this "new movement" are paid by Soros and the gun grabbers, they are the same students that protested the election results. We've got to motivate our people the same way. If you don't belong to a state "defense league" (Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) comes to mind), join or start one. WVCDL has had a string of victories in that state since its inception.

[5whiskey]

When I did my courses to get my carry and conceal permit I took them at our States premier gun club but only because it was sponsered and taught by the NRA using trained NRA members and local active duty police officers.
(and I wanted a real education and not a gun-ho sally in fatigues teaching me)
It was a two course deal with safety and it took a week, with live fire qualification on the last day to get your certificate. And some did not make it.

Fast forward a few years and the NRA no longer offers the course but you can buy the course material online.


I'm afraid some do not really want to look deeply into what they are all about and have bought spiel hook, line and sinker. If the NRA was to fold tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference for the individual private gun owner,,,not one difference !


They have done nothing but spend money to bribe Congress members and only then to serve the gun manufactures.

You do realize that your state's "premier" gun club was not owned by the NRA or operated by the NRA. That particular course shutting down was not because the NRA decided to shut it down. Its because the "premier" gun club decided to shut it down. The fact that the curriculum is provided online proves that the NRA still provides its original support...

The NRA does not fund private clubs, nor does it influence the classes that private clubs provide outside of providing curriculum and certified instructors. BTW, NRA is still the gold standard in certifying instructors. Most states that require a class for CCH permits will require the instructor of said class to be NRA certified at a minimum.

[Johny Smith]

@5whiskey,

I'm not sure you understand, they don't offer it anymore because it cost them money.
Easier and more lucrative just to sell it online.

Do you further understand who the NRA is involved with behind the scene's ! They are in total conspiracy to help get the guns out of the United States, that's right you heard correctly, they are working secretly behind the scenes to destroy the 2nd amendment.


You will note the money brokers like Michael Bloomberg among others have been quite for a few years now, the NRA has been bought.






Load up and keep it dry and may God have mercy on our wrenched lives ..

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Johny Smith

Fast forward a few years and the NRA no longer offers the course but you can buy the course material online.


I'm afraid some do not really want to look deeply into what they are all about and have bought spiel hook, line and sinker. If the NRA was to fold tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference for the individual private gun owner,,,not one difference !

I think you need to check the NRA training site again. They have been trying to make their curriculum more available by adapting it to a modern society in which people don't have sufficient attention span to sit in a classroom for four to six hours before getting to the live fire portion of the class. First they tried making it so that students bought the course and took the test on-line, then found an NRA instructor to conduct the live fire portion. That was a brief effort -- it didn't go over well at all with instructors, and it didn't work out particularly well for the students, either.

There's a second new Basic Handgun class out now, that the NRA thinks is an improvement over the first attempt at on-line instruction. I can't comment -- I'm a certified instructor, but I've been bogged down with health issues recently so I haven't brought myself up to speed on the current iteration of the course. I hope to rectify that soon.

In any event, it seems you are criticizing the NRA for responding to what people have been asking for. Maybe that's valid, but it seems a bit unfair to me.

Originally Posted by Johny Smith

I'm not sure you understand, they don't offer it anymore because it cost them money.
Easier and more lucrative just to sell it online.

How do you figure it cost the NRA money to do it the old way? They didn't give away those course books -- the instructors bought them. I don't think the NRA is making more money on the new system. If they are, I don't know how.

[Johny Smith]

@Aguila Blanca,

If we were smart we'd form a 'coalition' separated from those conniving pimps. Grass-roots brother and we can make it work through the power of the Internet. The NRA and some others are selling our collective rights down the toilet and some of you are paying for the privilege.

That prof would show itself if we ever got big enough. We hired them at my gun club to come out and do a safety assessment to keep the peace in the neighbor, it cost $5000.00 dollars , when they got done with their report and submitted it looked like Joseph Stalin warm over.

And some of the top brass at the club ran with it, the proposal now on the table is that all members have a background check and a sponsor in good standings.
Some are wondering what's next.

[JohnKSa]

You will note the money brokers like Michael Bloomberg among others have been quite for a few years now...

I assume you mean "quiet". Which he has not been.

22 February 2018
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/thou...-violence.html

23 October 2017
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...rticle/2638337

4 October 2017
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/mike...-violence.html

10 April 2017
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...d-carry-237056

Do you further understand who the NRA is involved with behind the scene's ! They are in total conspiracy to help get the guns out of the United States, that's right you heard correctly, they are working secretly behind the scenes to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Well, it's not a secret any more, is it? Now that you've foiled their evil plot by making their secrets public on the internet, I suppose they'll have to take a different approach.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by In The Ten Ring

There was a judge that ruled a couple of years ago that even "illegal aliens had the right to keep and bear arms." I can't quote what case but I recall reading it in the news. Maybe someone will chime in....

Great Caesar's Ghost!

First, don't rely on memory. Look things up.

Second, never imagine that you understand a court decision from reading about it in the news. You must read the case.

The only case of which I'm aware which comes anywhere close to fitting your description is United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 7th Circuit, No. 14-3271, 2015. In Meza-Rodriguez a three judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found: (1) the protections of the Bill of Rights can extend to person in this country illegally; and (2) a foreign nation present in this country is prohibited under 18 USC 922(g)(5) from possessing a gun or ammunition; and (3) 18 USC 922(g)(5) as applied to illegal aliens is not unconstitutional, but rather is valid and enforceable; and (4) therefore Meza-Rodrieguez' indictment for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun and/or ammunition standards and his prosecution for that crime can continue.

First, there nothing really new here. There are other cases in which courts have concluded that even illegal aliens can, under some circumstances, be entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights. And there have been other court decisions which have upheld various of the factors enumerated in 18 USC 922(g) disqualifying one from possessing a gun or ammunition.

Background

As the 7th Circuit in its opinion outlined the background of the case (slip op., at 1 -- 2):

When Mariano Meza-Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested in August 2013, he was carrying a .22 caliber cartridge. But it was what he did not have— documentation showing that he is lawfully in the United States—that concerns us now. His immigration status made his possession of the cartridge a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits foreigners who are not entitled to be in the United States (whom we will call “unauthorized aliens”) from possessing firearms. Meza-Rodriguez moved to dismiss the indictment that followed, arguing that § 922(g)(5) impermissibly infringed on his rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The district court denied his motion on the broad ground that the Second Amendment does not protect unauthorized aliens. That rationale swept too far, and we do not endorse it. The court’s judgment, however, was correct for a different reason: the Second Amendment does not preclude certain restrictions on the right to bear arms, including the one imposed by§ 922(g)(5)....

Questions on Appeal

Meza-Rodriguez' appeal of the District Court's refusal to dismiss his indictment potentially raises two questions: (1) do the rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to unauthorized aliens (using the terminology of the Circuit Court); and (2) if so, is prohibiting unauthorized aliens from possessing a gun or ammunition a constitutionally impermissible regulation of the rights protected by the Second Amendment?

To respond to and rule on Meza-Rodriguez' appeal, the Circuit Court needed to address both those questions.

Do the Rights Protected by the Second Amendment Extend to Unauthorized Aliens?

The Circuit Court did not comprehensively answer that question. Rather it concluded that the rights protected by the Second Amendment extended to Meza-Rodriguez, and unauthorized aliens similarly situated. To reach that conclusion, the Circuit Court looked at other cases extending under some circumstances certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to unauthorized aliens.

As the 7th Circuit noted (Meza-Rodriguez, slip op. at 9 -- 10, emphasis added):

...The conclusion that the term “the people” in the Second Amendment has the same meaning as it carries in other parts of the Bill of Rights is just the first step in our analysis. We still must decide what it means. The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue, albeit obliquely. In Verdugo-Urquidez, the Court determined that the Fourth Amendment did not protect a noncitizen brought involuntarily to the United States against a warrantless search of his foreign residence. See Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 274–75. In rejecting Verdugo-Urquidez’s position, the Court stated that “‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” Id. at 265. Of interest here, the Court also said that “aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.” Id. at 271. ...

And with regard to Meza-Rodriguez' ties to the United States, the 7th Circuit notes (Meza-Rodriguez,slip op at 11):

...see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has extensive ties with this country, having resided here from the time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five until his removal. He attended public schools in Milwaukee, developed close relationships with family members and other acquaintances, and worked (though sporadically) at various locations. This is much more than the connections our sister circuits have found to be adequate.....

Thus the rights protected by the Second Amendment extend to Meza-Rodriguez.

Is Prohibiting Unauthorized Aliens from Possessing a Gun or Ammunition a Constitutionally Impermissible Regulation of the Rights Protected by the Second Amendment?

And with regard to that question, the 7th Circuit concluded the disqualifying unauthorized aliens from possessing a gun or ammunition was a permissible regulation.

In sustaining the application of 18 USC 922(g)(5), the 7th Circuit found (slip op., at 15):

...Congress’s objective in passing § 922(g) was “to keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people” and to “suppress[] armed violence.” Yancey, 621 F.3d at 683–84 (citing S. REP. NO. 90-1501, at 22 (1968)); see also Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1169–70 (§ 922(g)’s purposes are to assist law enforcement in combating crime and to keep weapons away from those deemed dangerous or irresponsible). One such group includes aliens “who … [are] illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The government argues that the ban on the possession of firearms by this group of people is substantially related to the statute’s general objectives because such persons are able purposefully to evade detection by law enforcement. We agree with this position: unauthorized noncitizens often live “largely outside the formal system of registration, employment, and identification, [and] are harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity.” Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170. Persons with a strong incentive to use false identification papers will be more difficult to keep tabs on than the general population. (Section 922(g)(5)(B)’s prohibition on firearms possession by most aliens who are lawfully present but who hold only nonimmigrant visas reflects a similar concern....

Discussion

Basically, the 7th Circuit could not resolve this case by refusing to extend the rights protected by the Second Amendment to unauthorized aliens. Were it to do so, it would have undercut existing and important legal principles extending certain fundamental, personal rights to persons who , "...have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country...."

However, several of the conditions listed in 18 USC 922(g) disqualifying one from possessing a gun or ammunition have been sustained at the Circuit Court level.

Note that this, like many court decisions, is not straightforward. Decisions on multiple points are necessary to reach the conclusion. The intermediate decision, that rights protected by the Bill of Rights can extend to illegal aliens, does not end the matter. In trying to understand the law (1) one must take things step-by-step; and (2) one must remember that details matter.

Originally Posted by In The Ten Ring

....Many existing laws violate the Constitution,...

Only if the federal courts say so. Your opinion on the question doesn't mean anything.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca

How do you figure it cost the NRA money to do it the old way? They didn't give away those course books -- the instructors bought them. I don't think the NRA is making more money on the new system. If they are, I don't know how.

I noticed that you did not respond to my question ...

[5whiskey]

Do you further understand who the NRA is involved with behind the scene's ! They are in total conspiracy to help get the guns out of the United States, that's right you heard correctly, they are working secretly behind the scenes to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Cite your sources to prove this claim. Conspiracy theories, especially grand ones with no shred of proof provided, are against this forum's rules. But by all means if you have some evidence or documentation that the NRA is secretly working to destroy the 2nd Amendment, please provide it so I can burn my membership and spread the word. If you're just referencing a tacit approval of government regulation of bump stocks... we've discussed that ad nauseam here and a great many folks understand that banning bump stocks may be a tactically smart decision even if they don't like it or agree with it.