Archive for category: NRA
Maybe it’s petty jealously or pure greed, but we do not see another option with the NRA supporting H.R. 5175. It is very apparent that the NRA is trying to put all other gun rights groups out of business. A monopoly case could be made. However the government will not bring a case against themselves for a monopoly they create. This bill H.R. 5175 could shut down all other groups like GOA, SAF, and others. Is the NRA upset that not only lawsuits got filed but got to the supreme court by another organization specifically the SAF? (Second Amendment Foundation). All members of the nra need to contact the nra and tell them it is absolutely not a good idea to sell out all the other firearm and second amendment groups. This verges on the side of criminal. It is at the VERY LEAST unethical. If the nra gets in then ALL OTHER groups need to be in as well. All or nothing you petty nra. Deal with the fact that others are doing the same job or get out of the business all together.
NRA National Riffle Association cares more about their own political victories then the second amendment of the US Constitution we have proof.
The NRA is reportedly threatening to campaign against a pro-gun Iowa legislator because he is pushing a bill that is too pro-gun.
Rep. Kent Sorenson is an outspoken gun advocate and one of the leading voices for 2nd Amendment rights in the Iowa legislature. He introduced and pushed for a right-to-carry bill that would have given people the right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, without having to obtain a permit. The bill did not pass because of a tie vote. Other compromise bills have also been introduced. Sorenson is against these “watered down” bills, saying they don’t provide true gun rights.
The NRA is involved in crafting one of these compromise bills that was introduced last week by two traditionally anti-gun politicians. The bill was written in such a way that moderates could support it, giving it a better chance of passing.
Sorenson came out against the NRA bill. So according to a report on Ammoland.com, a lobbyist working for the NRA went to Sorenson and told him if he didn’t support the bill, the NRA would work to get his opponent elected in an upcoming election — an anti-gun candidate at that.
The NRA has not commented on the accusation.
Over the weekend the Iowa Senate approved a bill that overhauls the system for issuing permits to carry concealed weapons. It requires that sheriffs give a reason if they deny a permit and make such decisions based on consistent state guidelines.
This from the NRA-ILA “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American. All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”
Lets start of by calling this what it is sour grapes. This particular ruling came down by NO effort by the NRA. In fact they had nothing to do with the case. This ruling was brought to us thanks to the SAF Second Amendment Foundation. So NRA nothing to do with it, SAF be praised for it.
Now on to ripping the statement apart. First of all they say “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American.” Which is what it was intended for. Every single American no matter what. 200 years ago, every single person could and did own a firearm. Great however these hypocritical moron’s go on to add the final sentence. “All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”
There was no intent from the founders to prevent “criminals” from owning firearms. Especially since they them selves were considered criminals by the king of England. Not to mention all the laws they have supported to take firearms out of the hands of the so called “law abiding”. National firearm acts of 1934, 1981, and so on. So lets just call them what they are lying hypocritical fools.
Did I ever mention I HATE being lied to, thought a fool, or considered ignorant?
The NRA issued a release today saying that it supports a ban on ammunition sales in the U.S..”It’s a fact”, said a spokesman, “guns don’t kill people, bullets do”. The NRA has long been of the opinion that any restrictions on gun ownership would violate the constitutional right to bear arms. “Nowhere in the constitution does it give the right to bear ammo, so we’re fine with a ban on bullets”, said Arnold “Pop gun” Gunnarson, at an NRA conference.” We still get to keep our weapons, which is all we really wanted in the first place.”. Some of the membership were a little reluctant to endorse the NRA’s stance. These are generally considered to be fringe elements. ” Those guys are kind of crazy anyway. Who would want a bunch of people running around with loaded guns? They might shoot somebody”, said Gunnarson.
This is from our friends at JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism. The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.
NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.
The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”
All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!
That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!
Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.
“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”
Now take a look at this one:
“The Second Amendment talks about "the right to bear arms", not just "a right to bear arms". And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”
Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!
And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:
“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just… I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”
Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.
And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment."
How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?
Some icing on the cake:
“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood — and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”
Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.
This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: "NRA Letter"
This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: No Guns for Negroes".
In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: "Cato @ Liberty article.
Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic? How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”
Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy? And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?
The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory
OK Here we go again. The NRA (National Riffle Association) is supporting a law that is NOT only unconstitutional in a major way, but completely discriminatory. The basic run down of NRA supported H.R.3752 is this: It will allow for ALL former and active duty Police (including “current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces”)
Here is my first problem. It makes all of the rest of us second class citizens. That’s right I said SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. And of course we have NEVER heard of police going bad, have we? (L.A. Rampart division). Also when said officers are off duty, they are that OFF DUITY. Meaning they are now citizens, not police officers. However that doesn’t seem to mater. That is a bunch of junk. Also when a police officer retires, they are no longer part of the police department. Why are they special? I know for a fact there are a lot of cops out there that can not shoot as well as I can. So it can not be because they are “trained” to shoot. This is the major part of the discrimination charge put forth earlier.
There is another issue with this. The same damn issue I had with the thune amendment. It’s called state’s rights and that pesky 10th amendment of the constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Oops canceled carry is not directly mention in the constitution. That “bill of negative rights” as obama called it. That alone stops all this crap.
Another issue, the military factor. Ever hear of The Posse Comitatus Act? If not then this is generally what it’s all about. “The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime.” Basically the military is not allowed to act as law enforcement here in The USA. Unless the president waves The Posse Comitatus Act short term.”
By now you are probably asking what the hell is he talking about. Well here is the bill: To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes. Introduced Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009 – Amends the federal criminal code to:
(1) expand the definition of “law enforcement officers,” for purposes of provisions authorizing such officers to carry concealed weapons, to include current and retired law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve System, the executive branch, and the Armed Forces;
(2) allow law enforcement officers who are retired or who separated in good standing after at least ten years of service to carry a concealed weapon; and
(3) expand the categories of law enforcement officers authorized to possess a fireman in a school zone to include retired law enforcement officers.”
There you go the holy crap act of 2009-2010. Basically if you are not one of the above you and your second amendment rights do not matter. Call me paranoid, but, I can see this act passing and it being used as sledge hammer to take away our rights to keep and bare arms. Am I anti military. HELL no. My brother is active duty Army. And I am very pro military. Tell your elected official to vote against the BS bill.
The Second Amendment to the constitution states as follows “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There nothing there that says “except” or “Unless” or even “If”. The Second Amendment is pretty plain and doesn’t really leave much to be interpreted. With that stated go look up all the federal guns laws. I hate to break it to you, every single federal gun law or law that mentions firearms, are 100% Unconstitutional. Everything from the first gun control act of 1934 all the way through the Brady bill and beyond were all in the entirety our flat out unequivocally completely unconstitutional. Let me say that again ALL and every federal law on the books in regards to firearms are flat out unconstitutional.
The biggest dog in the so called gun rights fight is the NRA. The NRA has the money, has the member’s, and the lobbying group. The problem with the NRA is simple. They do not care about the constitution, the second amendment, or even real firearm rights anymore, if ever. The NRA historically supported gun laws intended to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, while opposing new restrictions that affected law-abiding. The problem with this stance is the constitution and thus the Second Amendment applies to all citizens of The United States of America. The Second Amendment does not preclude criminal’s. In fact during the 18th and most of the 19th centuries people who committed crimes could get out of jail, and legally go purchase a firearm. So when did the constitution change? It didn’t. The NRA will support or oppose a bill coming before congress depend on which way they can get enough people to pay to sign up for the NRA; and thus make money. A lot of politicians today look at an NRA endorsement as a badge of honor. It is NOT.
NRA favorite, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has joined Representative Carolyn McCarthy, one of the countries most ardent gun control supporters.
Why is this important? Because the NRA bent over backwards to put Gillibrand in office. Proving once again that an NRA endorsement only means one thing, “beware”.
And lets not forget Freudenthal and the NRA.
This “tit for tat” strategy by the NRA has become part of the problem in Washington. Instead of changing the political machine the NRA has become part of the dysfunctional chaos.
We must no longer compromise the Bill of Rights. To understand how this mentality has infected Wyoming, earlier this year in a discussion of concealed-carry legislation in Wyoming, Matthew Huntington from Gadsden Legal and Mark Spungin from the state level NRA group WSSA, both left me with the impression that it was perfectly acceptable to support legislation that has a “disarm the citizens” clause. For the record the NRA regularly supports legislation like this as well.
“…inform the peace officer that he is carrying a concealed deadly weapon…The peace officer may secure the concealed deadly weapon, or direct that it be secured, during the duration of the contact between the person and the peace officer…”
Since almost every gun rights case has been won because of the fourth amendment – Why would anyone support legislation that would give up fourth and fifth amendment rights?
More important, once you give up your right to say no or nothing at all, you loose!
No more must we give in to this stupidity. In the words of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt – “When we politically compromise…no matter how insignificant it may appear to be, we have abdicated our responsibilities. Abdication is the work for surrendering our principles legislatively. Honor binds us to resist with all our might.”
For the sake of liberty, the Bill of Rights must stand intact and we must not compromise on its principles. All legislation must pass through this “eye of the needle”
Rumors have it that the good folks of Utah are getting ready to tell the fed to shove their unconstitutional gun laws up their collective ass’. Bad news for the NRA
We are starting to see rumors that Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton is in the process of trying to get an FFA (Firearm Freedom Act) law presented to the state congress there in Utah. Utah would be roughly number 14 to either pass a FFA law or introduce one. Go get them Utah.
How is this bad for the NRA? Well simply, if every state pass’ FFA law’s then the NRA would loose it’s big gun status in the “second amendment” supports group. Please excuse the Pun. There would in fact be no need for the NRA at that point. This writer can’t help but wonder when (Not if) the NRA will start fighting to stop states from doing this. What it comes down to is money. Think about it. If every state in the union were to pass these laws. Or at least 45 or so people in said states will begin to wonder what do they need the NRA for. Just something to think about.
By the way Good Luck Senator Margaret Dayton we hope and pray you can get this passed for your state residents.