KABA asking for cash - AGAIN

Haas' Guide to Small Arms Ammunition ^ | 10/27/2003 | Mike Haas

[bigcuz]

As for KeepAndBearArms.com asking for money again, I ran across some interesting figures at http://www.charitywatch.org/criteria.html in their Top 20 Compensation Packages. Wayne LaPierre came in 11th at $515,895 a year. I am quite certain that $500,000 is more than KABA has taken in during its entire existence. I also know that in the last year or so their donations have dropped tremendously because most of what would normally go to the site has gone to fund Silveira v. Lockyer instead.

So tell me, who has more to lose if the USSC rules absolutely in our favor on a Second Amendment case, a group that has a chief executive making over a half million a year? Or an organization running "out of someone's garage"?

[Visualwave]

The Kaba folks are great people with vision and dedication. I purchased 10 tickets my self today. as for being run out of a garage so what. I happen to know they have servers in Florida I have helped them out from time to time. Apple Computer put together computers in their garage, Einstein did his Noble prize winning work working in the patent office as a clerk. He won it for the formula e=h*Lambda, the basis for quantum mechanics today. I work out of my basement and make a fair income.

What matters is Vision, integrity and the commitment to make things happen. To Stand up for what you believe in. This is what KABA does. You can call them extremist, or some other -ist or -ism, but the 2 things that will stick is that they are honest and if you need an ist it is humanist.

The founders of this country stood on principal and knew that to gain freedom and to enjoy it for them and their children they would have to risk that freedom. Does the case have risks, sure it does. They are well with in the acceptable range. IF SCOTUS rules against us then no amount of NRA incremental-ism would have made a difference now or in the future.


As for the Lawsuit, I suggest you read all the briefs. I have several attorney friends who think it has a great chance. They understand the NRA case and the approach. They didn't agree with it and neither do I. They think the silveria strategy is far better. It had a much better chance at getting in front of SCOTUS than any other case and by the look of it they are in the game. SCOTUS would have denied after the first conference if they were not serious about it.

The KABA case is strong on the merits and Roy Lucas has painted the opposition into an interesting corner including SCOTUS. He understands well how they think more so than Mr. Halbrook. If the SCOTUS denies and upholds the 9th Circuit, they side with collective rights view and edit the constitution. This sets a precedent that the people do not mean individuals in the bill of rights. A real sticky point when it comes to the 4th and the 5th amendment. That is going to give some justices real heartburn. I don’t think any of them are inclined to do that.

If we lose, we know exactly where SCOTUS stands and at that point we then have to try and get a constitutional convention and amend the constitution to clarify who the people are. This is for not only for the 2nd but for the rest of the rights as well. If that doesn't happen I would rather know sooner rather than later, when we are all disarmed and waiting in line for the ovens.

There is something to be said for standing on strong principal with strong arguments. This case asks strongly do we have a right to self-defense or not and is it protected by 2A. It also directly challenges Miller. That horrible decision has given us the NFA Law in 1934 and the gun Control act of 68 and the 20,000 gun laws on the books today.

Another matter is addressing what "shall not be infringed" means. It is a stronger term than “congress shall make no law” as in the 1st. It suggests stongly, as other judges have stated, that the right absolute. A very strong term applied to only one right if they rule that it’s a right. That means no regulation, taxation licensing background checks or any other disqualifying factors in the eyes of the government. There is a bright orange line drawn here and Scotus will have to be on one side or another.

This addresses a right as fundamental as breathing, just because it isn't in the bill of rights does it mean the government can tax the air you breath and deny and license that right. I think there is a good case to equate self-defense with breathing. Both are just as necessary for life.

Also, read the preamble to the bill of rights. Ti is as follows:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

notice "further declaratory and restrictive clauses". It is and was understood that the bill of Rights added further restrictions to Federal power and via the 14th amendment the states as well.

The collective rights camps are trying to turn the bill of rights into a list of privileges granted by government that can be taken away. In other words, if it isn't on the list then you can have it, or you have no right to it. All they have to do then is make 2a not mean what it says and presto no more right to arms.

That fly’s in the face of the preamble. The preamble which important in determining the intent of the 2A as well as all the others.

If SCOTUS rules against this case then the bill of rights becomes a list of privileges. I think that would rub all the justices the wrong way. Granted SCOTUS have had some egregious errors of which miller is only one, but they have not thrown out the entire bill of rights out the window.

SCOTUS is not dumb they know what is at stake here. They also Have lived to see Waco and ruby ridge and Some I am sure are disturbed by the abuse of power demonstrated there. I think that will be in at least some of the minds of the justices.

So I think SCOTUS will consider carefully. I have to admit I am one of the ones that think they will rule on the side of government. Simply because history has shown governments do not cede power with out a fight. But this is America and we have done some interesting things in our past and SCOTUS has done the right thing.

I think they will take more seriously a strong and principled argument more seriously than and incremental one.

My attorney friends seem to agree and they fall on the side of the silveria legal team and KABA.

Sean Glazier

[El Gato]

Seems to me the NRA "Winning Team" used the same tactics and the same sorts of names against Neal Knox and others a few years ago. Anyone who didn't believe in "Compromise" and the advertising dollar, is attacked and/or purged.

Meanwhile the Reply to the State of California's response brief is being printed and can be viewed online at the KeepAndBearArms website. IMHO, the State of California is toast if the Justices, or at least 5 of them, have an honest bone in their bodies. Read the briefs filed by the the Silveira team to see what kind of work previous donations have paid for. Read those amicus briefs too. Including the one by an NRA paid attorney, even though not one of their usual attorneys. That one is particularly well done. The reply brief is wonderfull.

Read the California Reply brief too, if you have a strong stomach that is. I can't imagine how the lawyers for the state of California thought they could get by with such a sloppy submittal. (Of course, when it comes right down to it, they don't have many arrows in their legal quiver, and those they have are old, with worn fletching, and bent shafts. :) )

[Sloth]

That was explain about a dozen times already.

Then it should be easy to explain *right here.*

[Shooter 2.5]

Click the link to Halbrook's response.

[KeepAndBearArms]

Mr. Haas,

We have linked to this thread from atop our Newslinks page on this fine day:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=10/28/2003

Thank you for showing, so clearly, what you and your colleagues are made of.

Would you be willing to publish another smear in a couple of weeks, please? This one has been very helpful.

Sincerely,

Angel Shamaya
KeepAndBearArms.com

[KeepAndBearArms]

El Gato,

Once again, you see rightly.

[William Tell]

Visualwave said: "Apple Computer put together computers in their garage, ..."

The Hewlett-Packard Company, now worth in excess of $60 billion, was started in a garage in Palo Alto, Ca over 50 years ago. Hewlett and Packard had technical brilliance, leadership, and unfailing integrity. Even so, their $500 initial capitalization only afforded them a garage.

[Visualwave]

That is correct. From Thomas Edison, to the Wright Brothers American history and innovation is filled with people who took a lot of heat for having nothing more than Vision and dedication with a wing and a prayer.

I think to make a difference in this world the most important thing you need is courage to take action to pursue your dreams. A heated garage and or basement helps too :-)

[erlnwndy]

Very good post, Cat. Your presentation is clear, consice, and logical.

Ever since the NRA kicked out Neal Knox, Et Al, it has become increasingly more P.C.. I have read La Pierre's statements in the "Rifleman" with my own eyes, and it really "Ticks Me Off!!!!" (In the interest of keeping it clean I'll let "Ticks" supplant me real meaning!)

Yes, NRA DOES support gun control in many instances.

Angel and RKBA are on the right track with "Silvera" and deserve all the support we can give.

CRPA is too closely associated with the liberal elements of Kalifornia polotics to be effectual, as witnessed by all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books in Sacremento.

Earl Albright
NRA Endowment Member (from the pre-Knox expulsion era)
Barstow, Ca

[stevio]

Shooter 2.5, Thanks for defending the NRA. I don't have the time or the resources right now to do so. I wish all the freedom loving people, who have a problem with some of the NRA's positions, join the NRA along with GOA, and JPF, and maybe a local group. The NRA is the biggest dog in town and gets noticed by the media and politicions.

[Shooter 2.5]

As I said on numerous occasions, we do have to work together. No group can do it alone.

The reason we have gun control is because the 95% of the gun owners aren't interested in their Rights. We have to find some way of motivating them.

The NRA haters could do more by explaining what they have done to stop gun control instead of worrying about what the NRA does or doesn't do.

That would motivate that 95%.

[stevio]

we do have to work together, we do have to work together we do have to work together, we do have to work together, we do have to work together, we do have to work together, we do have to work together, we do have to work together,

It bears repeating.

[beaureguard]

I am a member of the NRA, GOA, and KABA. IMHO, GOA and KABA have more principled stands than that of the NRA. I'll continue to be a member of all three, but any donations I make other than membership goes to GOA and KABA. Keep up the good work, Angel.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Shooter 2.5, Thanks for defending the NRA. I don't have the time or the resources right now to do so. I wish all the freedom loving people, who have a problem with some of the NRA's positions, join the NRA along with GOA, and JPF, and maybe a local group. The NRA is the biggest dog in town and gets noticed by the media and politicions.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To stevio

As you have indicated their are numerous gun groups fighting the fight for the second amendment. GOA, JPF, SAF, CCW, KABA, and hundreds of other organizations.

My beef with Mr. Haas article is just one. Hate speech, rather than teamwork. Growing up on a farm give me one very important value. We treated our neighbors like brothers and sisters with respect. We are all neighbors in this process.

Mr Haas attack is not one of teamwork. Nor will he engage in debate of the issues. He has brought great damage to the values in NRA by using his given or self appointed titles in his piece.

Stevio perhaps you can debate this issue of hate speech.

Chicagofaremr

[stevio]

I don't want to get into any kind of dispute with anyone on this issue. If you have an issue with Mr. Haas let him know about it. I'm not opposed to steering the NRA, but I also give them some slack too.

As for Mr. Halbrook's comment, I got that in an email a couple of weeks ago by some local gun activists, whom I deeply respect. I waited to see what the context it was stated in before I went off. I am not a lawyer so I have to trust that the Mr. Halbrook knows what he is doing. In D.C. you can't carry a gun from your bedroom to your living room. One thing we can learn from the liberals is that they are satisfied with taking small steps. I believe that is what is going on in the D.C. case.

We have a lot of passionate, dedicated people concerned about this issue, which you sound like you are one along with me. I don't want to lose anyone over miscommunication.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

with Mr. Haas let him know about it. I'm not opposed to steering the NRA, but I also give them some slack too.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Stevio

I agree with the overall tone of your note.

The problem with Mr. Haas is that Mr. Haas has not responded to his hit post. Zero Zip Nona. This man who says he represents the NRA, and if he represents the NRA indirectly, this affects you indirectly and perhaps hundreds of thousands of others.

NRA needs to give the slack to KABA while this proceeds thru the courts. I have studied the arguments of Mr. Hollock and of Mr. Lucas. Currently, I believe in someone (Lucas) who as 40 years of Supreme experience rather than the alternative. If it is to be heard by the Supremes it would be best I would think that NRA then gets on board 100%. If they want to stand on the sidelines so be it. We need to fight this fight now while we have educated firearms owners, not the subjects of the future.

If they stand on the sidelines during the entire process, I believe NRA could lose huge. Hundreds of millions of dollars and tremendous clout. NRA has the funds to fund this case, in fact the Presents salary alone would be enough.

I think the real issue for the NRA is potential loss by the NRA of status, political clout, in the political process. It is easier to negotiate clout with a politician if you give small gun control issues like registration, firearm check, allow gun ownership databases. etc.

I think a huge moment is coming regarding the Second. Either the Supremes will hear the case or they will not hear the case.

If they hear the case, it will be $hit or get of the pot time for all gun groups who are standing on the sidelines, or risk losing huge status in the eyes of their flock. If the Supremes grant the rights bestowed in Second the gun owners win. If the Supremes rule not in favor of the Second gun owners lose, and in my opinion a growing anger will be sparked in gun owners.

If they do not hear the case, then the next case will be positioned with the information to go forward with the case for gun owners. So I think it is a win win. Either way the case will set the stage for the next action, either a national movement to restore our 2nd or greater activity by gun groups.

Here is what I know as a son of the American Revolution and the civil war. I should not leave this fight to my daughter. I have no interest in funding the political power of any self-serving group that is interested in creating power for themselves. I just want the rights bestowed in the Second. Many opportunities has come in the last sixty years since Miller and the NRA has failed to take advantage of the courts favorable split.

As I work with young people today regarding the rights that our veterans reaffirmed for us sixty years ago, I realize they do not have a clue what’s at stake here. I am not about to let down my uncle that fought from Normandy to Berlin.

These young people have been brainwashed regarding our rights by the NEA and other socialist groups. anyone who does not see this is part of the problem. Go visit Jews for the preservations of firearms site and purchase Innocents betrayal and perhaps the total picture will come into focus.

Chicagofarmer.

[stevio]

You're a good man, I'm glad we're on the same side.

[Abe Froman]

I decided several months ago never to support the NRA again. When I look at my own situation, in MN, our CCW law was passed without much help from the NRA proper, and I have no doubts that it would have passed even if the NRA didn't exist. Then I look at the state of my second amendment right. The NRA has done absolutely nothing to strengthen that right in the last 60 years. In fact it would appear that in every court case they contest, they purposefully avoid a direct 2nd amendment defense or argument. I don't know if the KABA case will win, but I do know that if a case is never tried on 2nd amendment basis, then we lose be default, since precedent right now is to laugh a 2nd amendment defense out of the courtroom. I'm gong to KABA to give them money.

[Abe Froman]

And the result of their big-dog status is vast amounts of revenue, not a stronger second amendment. If they are the big dog then they have shamefully squandered that position and the revenue associated with it. Why is the NRA afraid to try a real 2nd amendment case? 60 years and they haven't done it once, and now that somebody else decides that we've all waited long enough, the NRA tries to destroy them? America has traditionally been a supporter of the underdog, and as a result the NRA is losing people over this. They lost me.