NRA - Why or Why Not?

[1pheas4]

Oh yea that crazy no good good extremist group brought the law suit against both cities. And both plaintiffs in that case only wanted to keep a handgun in there own house. What a radical thought, being able to have a gun in your own house.

Good point Moellermd. The NRA has saved what little gun rights are left in Chicago and have even gained some ground. It's amazing what Chicago politicization do in Chicago. They really want guns removed from ALL citizens of Chicago. The NRA is the one of the few org. that's blocked them from doing so.

 

[1pheas4]

I'll never join the NRA because they spend most of their effort in the interest of a few who think they should own assault weapons and 31 round handgun mags.

My second amendment rights are being protected just fine by the Supreme Court. Their opinion counts for everything, the NRAs counts for nothing.

jnormanh, school me here because I'm not sure. Is it or is it not the NRA that debates the anti-gun advocates before the supreme court justices prior to making their decisions

 

[beaglebob1]

Good point Moellermd. The NRA has saved what little gun rights are left in Chicago and have even gained some ground. It's amazing what Chicago politicization do in Chicago. They really want guns removed from ALL citizens of Chicago. The NRA is the one and only org. that's blocked them.

And look at the funds it takes to fight the Chicago Machine. Not for the NRA it would be over.:cheers:

 

[jnormanh]

jnormanh, school me here because I'm not sure. Is it or is it not the NRA that debates the anti-gun advocates before the supreme court justices prior to making their decisions

The only significant 2nd Amendment case argued before the Supreme Court in decades was the Heller (aka Parker) case. I don't believe the NRA was involved in any proceedings in the Heller case, nor did the NRA provide financial support.

In fact the NRA opposed bringing the Heller case to court at all.

Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."

The challenge to D.C. law was initiated by Robert Levy who financed the Heller side.

Alan Gura, of the D.C.-based law firm Gura & Possessky, was lead counsel for Heller, and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[40] Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, were his co-counsel.[41][42]

The Supreme Court found in Heller that the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms. Had it been up to the NRA, the Heller case would never have been heard and that right would still be in doubt.

So the answer to your question is no. The NRA did nothing in the Heller case, and to the best of my knowledge has never brought or participated in a 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

However they will take your money and pay Wayne La Pierre $1,281,365 last year.

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#National_Rifle_Association

 

[1pheas4]

The only significant 2nd Amendment case argued before the Supreme Court in decades was the Heller (aka Parker) case. I don't believe the NRA was involved in any proceedings in the Heller case, nor did the NRA provide financial support.

Thanks for your reply jnormanh:thumbsup: Wow......the supreme court doesn't seem to have as much influence on U.S. citizens keeping/loosing gun rights as I thought.

Maybe I'm misreading into your reply "My second amendment rights are being protected just fine by the Supreme Court". Their opinion counts for everything, the NRAs counts for nothing". It doesn't seem the supreme court has had all that much to do with defending our gun rights --1pheas4

 

[carptom1]

The only significant 2nd Amendment case argued before the Supreme Court in decades was the Heller (aka Parker) case. I don't believe the NRA was involved in any proceedings in the Heller case, nor did the NRA provide financial support.

In fact the NRA opposed bringing the Heller case to court at all.

Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."

The challenge to D.C. law was initiated by Robert Levy who financed the Heller side.

Alan Gura, of the D.C.-based law firm Gura & Possessky, was lead counsel for Heller, and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[40] Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, were his co-counsel.[41][42]

The Supreme Court found in Heller that the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms. Had it been up to the NRA, the Heller case would never have been heard and that right would still be in doubt.

So the answer to your question is no. The NRA did nothing in the Heller case, and to the best of my knowledge has never brought or participated in a 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

However they will take your money and pay Wayne La Pierre $1,281,365 last year.

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#National_Rifle_Association

All that money and he isn't even moses. I understand what you are saying. But the supreme court is only as good as the justices that are appointed to it. I am sure the gun manufacturers can buy enough votes in congress to keep the vote in their favor.

 

[jnormanh]

Thanks for your reply jnormanh:thumbsup: Wow......the supreme court doesn't seem to have as much influence on U.S. citizens keeping/loosing gun rights as I thought.

Maybe I'm misreading into your reply "My second amendment rights are being protected just fine by the Supreme Court". Their opinion counts for everything, the NRAs counts for nothing". It doesn't seem the supreme court has had all that much to do with defending our gun rights --1pheas4

Hmmmm. The Heller decision was a big deal. Had it gone the other way states and cities would have been free to do pretty much whatever they want restricting gun rights. The SC in Heller did more for gun rights than the NRA could ever hope to do.

 

[jnormanh]

supreme court is only as good as the justices that are appointed to it.

Well, sure, that's true, but to get appointed to the SC you have to have some mighty fine education and experience, get nominated by the President, examined by Congress and approved by the Senate. Once on the SC, justices are informed by the Constitution and precedent from previous decisions.

You have to remember that in every court case there is a winner and a loser, so however a case is decided, somebody is going to be disappointed. The losers always call the judges bad names, and claim they are good-for-nothings.

I try not to look at it that way. Our democratic system of laws and courts is still the best on earth, even if courts don't always see things my way.

But you're correct - Congress can always overrule any court by changing the law.

 

[1pheas4]

But you're correct - Congress can always overrule any court by changing the law.

Man, now I'm really confused So congress has the last say not the supreme court? If so, wouldn't that place the NRA back in positive territory because they can influence congressional members?

Also, here in Illinois we don't have a right to carry/conceal like other states. Once it's passed and we can cary/conceal is that the SC that makes that decision or our state legislators who are influenced by the NRA's muscle? --1pheas4

 

[1pheas4]

Hmmmm. The Heller decision was a big deal.

Hmmmmmm......So is the NRA --1pheas4


p.s.-- here in Illinois our Attorney General wants to make the personal and private information of us FOID (firearm owners identification) card holders public for everyone to see. That means my personal and private info will be out there for the world to know we(FOID card holders) most likely own firearms and have them within our homes. The NRA is at the forefront of blocking this ludicrous law. If it were not for the NRA to do this dirty work, then who?

 

[oldandnew]

How bout you Illinois voters do your own "dirty work", as you put it, and vote the assinine governor, attorney general and legislature out of office! organize a grass roots effort to repeal and or quash restrictive gun laws. If you have the votes you will prevail, and you will have been the instrument of your own salvation, not the NRA. I admit it's a lot harder than paying ten bucks a year to the NRA and trusting to fate,but reward is comesurate with effort.

 

[1pheas4]

How bout you Illinois voters do your own "dirty work", as you put it, and vote the assinine governor, attorney general and legislature out of office! organize a grass roots effort to repeal and or quash restrictive gun laws.

Two words oldandnew.......CHICAGO POWER --1pheas4

P.s.--And please don't imply that Illinois citizen have not done their share of "dirty work" when it comes to fighting for pro gun rights politicians. We have plenty of grass roots org. out here. Believe me, we do a lot. CHICAGO POWER is very corrupt and many times has it's way with the people of this state. It's to the point we feel like Chicagos run like a dictatorship and it over flows into all other Illinois counties.

If it weren't for the help of the NRA gun rights would have been crushed by now.

Thanks --1pheas4

 

[steele]

Is it possible the reason the NRA opposed the Heller case was because they didn't think Levy could win? What would be the consequence if Levy lost?
It was a heck of a gamble that turned out positive. To say that the NRA is only out for peoples money and that they are ineffective when it comes to second amendment rights is a lie pure and simple.

 

[moellermd]

The NRA was initially reluctant to take th lead in Heller, bad decision on their part, they did not think the time was right. However they did file briefs on behalf of Heller once it got there.

I believe that the Chicago case was a combination of plantiffs including the NRA. With the NRA argueing in the Supreme Court.

 

[RedNose]

NRA Life Member and proud of it!
There many things they do that I believe are a waste of money and should be saved for fighting for more guns rights, but who am I to say. I'm not a lawyer (I have a hard time typing that word unless they are Mr. Tulin a true conservative attorney).
There are other pro-gun organizations but I joined the NRA back in 1983 and have never regretted it one bit.

 

[BritChaser]

The NRA was initially reluctant to take th lead in Heller, bad decision on their part, they did not think the time was right. However they did file briefs on behalf of Heller once it got there.

I believe that the Chicago case was a combination of plantiffs including the NRA. With the NRA argueing in the Supreme Court.

That's right. The NRA got 10 of McDonald's 30 minute allocation for oral argument. The NRA predicted that if the court upheld an individual right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment against state and local infringements, it would do so under the "selective incorporation" doctrine of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause which has been relied upon to make several Bill of Rights provisions applicable to the states. McDonald's lawyer, however, was pushing for application of the 2nd Amendment to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment which the NRA correctly predicted would not persuade a majority of the justices, although that is Justice Thomas's view as expressed in his concurring opinion.

 

[jnormanh]

Man, now I'm really confused So congress has the last say not the supreme court?

The Supreme Court has the final say interpreting law. If the Congress doesn't like a decision, they can change the law.

And the Congress is influenced by many, some more important than the NRA.

In spite of dire warnings for the past 50 years, nobody has ever grabbed any of my guns. In fact I don't know anyone who has had their guns grabbed. Do you?

 

[beaglebob1]

I think one of the main jobs for the Supreme Court is to judge whether or not the laws that congress passes is constitutional.

 

[1pheas4]

In spite of dire warnings for the past 50 years, nobody has ever grabbed any of my guns. In fact I don't know anyone who has had their guns grabbed. Do you?

Yeah unfortunately I do. But we have a FOID card law here. One the NRA and other orgs. been fighting for a very long time.

Anyway, if you get caught with even one round of ammo and an expired FOID your in for a nasty battle here in Illinois. I have a friend who's had all his guns taken because he broke the law as a teen. Took some golf carts out for a joy ride. Got caught and prosecuted. He's 36 now and still can't have his guns. The attorney says $50,000 should get them back. That's a lot of $ for him to get his guns back.

I can go on with other stories too. But, to be honest I think I'm done with this thread. Good thread and all but I'm getting back to pheasants, habitat, etc.:cheers: Thanks :cheers:

Let me add, my friend who can't have his guns also farms over 6,000 acores with his dad. He can't hunt that land because he can't even cary a firearm let alone own one.

Also, my cousin (lives in Chicago) rid himself of his guns over the summer when the mayor went crazy and banned guns unless they were registered with the city. Last I heard he was allowed to bring one gun back (as of last summer) as long as it was in a metal case with a pad lock on it. --1pheas4

 

[moellermd]

In spite of dire warnings for the past 50 years, nobody has ever grabbed any of my guns. In fact I don't know anyone who has had their guns grabbed. Do you?

New Orleans post Katrina.