JPFO/NRA Have Different Views on BATFE

jpfo.org ^ | December 11, 2006 | The Liberty Crew

[looscnnn]

Recently a JPFO supporter sent a letter to the NRA asking about its position on the BATFE. As our readers know, JPFO has made it a mission to abolish that rogue agency and end federal control and regulation of your firearms.

In their response to our supporter, the NRA spokesperson, on behalf of Sandra Froman, president of the NRA, made several statements that are contrary to what JPFO believes gun rights organizations should support.

"...we support certain federal laws relative to firearms..."

"The Association does not object to many of the federal laws..."

"...greater emphasis should be placed on enforcing existing laws..."

"...NRA did not object to the increase in funding to BATF..."

We've reprinted the NRA letter in full on our website. We've also added a list of questions that the letter raises, as well as what we consider to be the best answer to those questions. You can read both at www.jpfo.org/nraletter.pdf .

If you agree that it is imperative to abolish the BATFE and end federal control and regulation of firearms, please download and share this letter (and our response) with everyone you know.

- The Liberty Crew

[looscnnn]

Yup, the interesting thing about this case (from what I understand) is that there are no other laws that were broken (unlike other cases that could have been used to challenged) that could interfere with getting the case heard. Fincher's record is clean (almost as if he has been preparing all his life for this).

[Ancesthntr]

I agree with Fincher 100% in principle, but he did knowingly break a federal law, no matter what the Silver Bullet says.

You need a real case or controversy, plus some actual (or immediately potential) harm that can be fixed by a court in order to have standing. Fincher couldn't just challenge the NFA on a theoretical basis - otherwise so could all of us, and the courts would be dealing with millions of cases per month.

[Shooter 2.5]

An anonymous JPFO "supporter" sends a letter to the NRA and somehow that letter is published on the official JPFO website and you're trying to tell me JPFO didn't have anything to do with it??? JPFO has just lost my support.

[looscnnn]

I have the feeling that you were never a supporter. They were probably asked by the supporter to keep the his/her id protected. Oh well, I doubt that JPFO would want you as a member based on some of your comments.

[Shooter 2.5]

You lost that bet.
It started when a lady helped us to fight the Oak Park Illinios gun ban. She had the tattoo on her wrist. She said she would never allow a government to disarm her. Never again.

[looscnnn]

So what, because you didn't like the tattoo or you didn't like what she said?

[Nailbiter]

self ping

[tpaine]

well said bump

[Shooter 2.5]

I said you lost that bet.

[Lurker]

It started when a lady helped us to fight the Oak Park Illinios gun ban.

IIRC the NRA lost that suit.

L

[2nd amendment mama]

This was already posted and we both missed it....ugh!

[basil]

Oh well--thanks for getting it up again, anyway! If we missed it, many more must have also. Apparently the Gun List wasn't pinged.

IMHO, this "altercation", for want of a better word, between the NRA and the JPFO has brought up a lot of points of which all gun owners should be aware.

And note to all: Don't forget Second Amendment Sisters when you're discussing guns right orgs! We are working constantly to bring a lot of women up to speed on these and other things facing the American gun owner today. We may be small in comparison to the other groups, but for an organization with no paid personnel, no office anywhere but cyberspace, and no money, we are managing to keep our heads above water, and our membership growing. (All donations kindly accepted!)

[2nd amendment mama]

BTW, the "Fincher" case being discussed is the one in Arkansas we were talking about.