KABA asking for cash

I am am on my way to becoming a life member of the NRA.

I have also donated an equal amount to KABA.

The NRA has demonstraded decades of political finese that I value have a great deal of respect for. At the same time, there is a power structure and and organization that has grown quite complacent in it's pursuit of the end goal - recognition of the 2nd amendment as being an individual right. It is now an organization that I believe fears for its own relevance.

KABA has the raw spirit and tenacity that is lacking in the NRA. Unfortunately, along with this ruff-n-ready spirit comes viscious self defeating criticism towards like minded individuals. Often deserved, but totally unecessary, these damning exhibitions do not help our shared cause.

It is far time that we unite for the common cause. I have repeatedly written the NRA asking them to help fund the KABA Silveria case. All my request go unanswered unless I inquire about recent criticisms from KABA. Then the NRA responds in volume, but never addressing the need to support the Silveria case.

Wayne LaPierre's salary alone would probrably fund the bulk of the proceedings that lay ahead.

The NRA must put away it's sacred cows and fully support KABA to the best of it's ability. I hold hope for the day where the NRA need not be the huge and powerful legislative power house that it is, and instead can focus all it's energies on the programs that it organizes.

KABA must embrace it's brothers in arms; imperfections and self serving agendas and all. The worst thing we can do is to splinter our power base.

I call on all those who read these words to hold these two 2nd amendment defenders accountable for the mutual respect and support of one another. It is the freedoms and liberties of all of us that are on the line here.

United we must stand, or divided we will certainly fall.

John Suykerbuyk

When I look at my own situation, in MN, our CCW law was passed without much help from the NRA proper,

That depends entirely upon what you mean by "much".

During the three years that I was involved, the NRA advertised our efforts, sent mailings to their members asking for their support, etc.

They had lobbyists at the Capitol, during at least the last two legislative sessions. Todd Adkins spent nearly a month, here, before the bill passed.

and I have no doubts that it would have passed even if the NRA didn't exist.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't have passed this year.

Look at the two critical Senate votes - the vote to send the bill to committee, and the vote to pass the bill - and look at who changed from one vote to the next.

We knew, if we could keep the bill from being sent to committee, we had a couple of Democrats who would simply have to vote for final passage of the bill, or kiss their political careers goodbye. But they felt perfectly free to vote to send the bill to committee, with the promise from the DFL Senate leadership that the revised bill would again reach the floor.

We knew, of course, that the DFL Senate leadership was lying through its teeth. And that voting the bill into committee would result in the bill being modified to restore arbitrary discretion.

But we did not have enough votes to keep the bill out of committee, until Todd Adkins arranged the deal: he convinced a couple of the Republicans who felt that they could not vote for the bill to vote against sending it to committee, recognizing that they'd vote against final passage.

And recognizing that when it came down to the final vote, we'd pick up enough DFLers to replace them.

It was Todd Adkins, the NRA-ILA State Liason who put the deal together. Without his last-minute legislative expertise, the bill would not have passed this year.

Yes, sometimes I get tired of how the NRA takes credit for what local organizations have done. And I am often pissed off at how it seems sometimes that the NRA's marketing efforts seem to serve primarily enriching the Mercury Group.

In Minnesota, the NRA was not the primary force in getting the bill before the legislature. We, the gun rights advocates of Minnesota did that. And it was we, in the caucuses, who put shall-issue in the MNGOP platform. And who made the difference in enough elections, through four election cycles, to create a pro-gun majority in both House and Senate.

And through all of this, the NRA provided some support. Not a great deal, and not terribly significant, but they provided some.

But despite all of that, we damned-near stalled again, for the third straight year. In 2001, if you remember, we were one vote short in the Senate. In 2002, we were tied. In 2003, we would have been one vote short, again, if hadn't been for Todd Adkins and the NRA.

Just the shear number of members gets noticed. The time LaPierre challenged clinton by stating; he is comfortable with a certain number of deaths, membership jumped to nearly 5 million members! To the enemies of the gun-rights movement this is a huge number. I belong to several gun groups, but the biggest contribution comes from the grassroots like us.

Welcome to FR.

Thanks for that fine contribution to this dialog. I would only argue one point with you and that regards Miller. My understanding is that it is not an unfriendly ruling, BUT is misconstrued and misused by the left to make it appear so. In addition, Miller was in 1939, right? So it didn't have any effect on the '34 gun law.

Other than that, I agree with your analysis.

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

Sean Glazier

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nice writeup Sean Glazier on Post 42

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here it is again

To: KeepAndBearArms

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

42 posted on 10/27/2003 10:01 PM CST by Visualwave

They had lobbyists at the Capitol, during at least the last two legislative sessions. Todd Adkins spent nearly a month, here, before the bill passed.

and I have no doubts that it would have passed even if the NRA didn't exist.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Their is a message in this post. The message is it takes teamwork, legwork, and effort. As the A team said. I love it when a plan comes togather.

NRA has definately sold out. On the state level, NRA helped the opposition in my state. NRA Political Victory Fund actively supported an anti-gun candidate in the last primaries for state senate against a pro-gun candidate Jeff Frederick (who is an NRA member). The NRA actually sent out postcards to Virginians urging them to turn out to vote for the anti-gun candidate. The NRA Political Victory Fund sent 32% of their financial support to Democrat PACs that election cycle (32% of NRA total donations in Virginia during those primaries going to Democrat PACs). Cases like this and worse are common place just go to www.ArmedFemalesOfAmerica.Com and see some examples they've documented.

What was the reason why they would do this?

Angel, Doggone, I haven't been around for quite awhile, but when I read Mini14's post, I was reminded to renew membership and get a raffle ticket.

That inspired me once more, a reminder that you have stood by your guns for a long time working for all of us. So I am extra glad this post popped up, or I would have let things slide longer.

But I guess you never will be on the list of Great Compromisers in History. LOL

Hi Angel,

I have to agree with you, Mr. Haas' post is nothing but ad hominem attack, cute names, colorful words, and inflammatory phrases (though you were courteous enough not to use those words). He has not posted a single piece of evidence to support his claims, and (now), he's apparently posted and run.

Congratulations on the progress of Silveira vs Lockyear, you've done a tremendous job with it, and, Mr. Lucas has written some brilliant Briefs and counter-Briefs. If they seriously apply 'Strict Scrutiny', there can be little doubt that it will restore the battered Talons of the American Eagle (...the People).

On the question of what Rights they would have in Alaska, were it not for passing the "Shall Issue" carry law (about two years ago): Prior to this event, Alaska had free, open carry for everyone (with zero checks), but, concealed carry was prohibited by law. Personally, I prefer the former (open carry), and, I would much rather have seen them with a Vermont Style 'No Law'.

I have several friends in Alaska who lobbied for the Shall Issue Law, but, after it was passed, they suddenly came to the realization that it was a back-door "Registration" law. CCW Laws, by definition, register the Gun Owner, which is the exact purpose of every other type of Gun Registration/Licensing Law enacted in this nation, over the last 130 years (registering Guns, necessarily links weapon to Owner...registering Owners necessarily implies they have weapons, which is the only thing tyrants want to know, anyway).

Thankfully, they rectified that situation, and, Concealed Carry is an option for all legally armed citizens in Alaska, in addition to Open Carry...Vermont style, though it took a ton of words to reach the level of 'No Law.'

However, that's not the most disturbing issue before the rest of us: in effect, CCW/CHL laws create a Quasi-Noble Title (in Texas-"Concealed Handgun License Holder") that is effectively a 'Rent-a-Right' scheme travelling under the color of 'Privilege.' All CCW/CHL "Titles" come with a 14th Amendment "privilege of Bearing Arms Concealed," 'granted' by the corporate "United States." It's important to understand that a "privilege" (immunity or benefit) 'must be granted' (to an individual) to have effect, but, may or may not be granted, at the discretion of the issuing bureaucratic authority. It 'must' be enabled to have effect, but, it may also be withdrawn, denied or taken away, at any time, for any reason, or, no reason at all (however, usually because the "Holder" failed to pay the rent).

Sorry about the double post, people. I couldn't find it, and, thought it failed to post the first time. I'm used to a forum where it takes you to the page your post will appear on, after you hit the button.

Ach,...hmmmm?

bump