Posted on 03/19/2007 2:25:43 PM PDT by AZRepublican
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals has thrown out the District of Columbia's gun ban, citing an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.
Which means residents of D.C. may soon no longer need to result to wearing whistles to thwart off violent attacks.
The suit was filed by legal whiz (and Agitator reader) Alan Gura, and includes a few of my former colleagues at Cato, including the brilliant Bob Levy. Congratulations are in order all around. This is a huge ruling, one that could well facilitate a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gene Healy has more details. His comment about the NRA is worth repeating. The organization has fought this suit every step of the way. The question is, why?
The NRA has said it's because they don't think the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is right for a Second Amendment case. Maybe. But it is the most conservative court we've had in at least a generation. A less charitable explanation for the NRA's opposition may be that the organization didn't want a suit to go forward that didn't include its name.
Of course, now that the case has made history (I don't think that's an exaggeration), the organization has to explain to its members not only why the group wasn't behind the most important Second Amendment victory in a long, long time, but why they actively opposed it each step of the way.
The most sweeping gun grabbing, rights stomping bill EVER is in the House right now. It has a good chance of going forward. It probably will not get past the Senate but I do not want Jorge to get ANY chance to sign it.
That seems like accession to a terrible compromise of our most critical rights.
I don't know what the NRA did in the couple weeks of window between the bill being passed and Reagan signing it. Whatever it was, they didn't manage to stop it. I would still ascribe this to a dirty trick by the Dems over the NRA going out with the intention of selling Class III shooters out.
I don't understand the reasoning behind that one. Which is part of why I just send the NRA $30 a year to keep their rolls up, and go to GOA or JPFO instead when I have a meaningful contribution.
Perhaps. Like Booker T. Washington said about a century ago, there is a class of do-gooders who don't want the patient to get well, because their livelihood depends on the patient being sick.
I don't recall where the bill started but did it clear the House or the Senate first? The NRA could have lobbied that the machine-gun part be removed when it was referred to the House, if the Senate had passed it first, or during the concurrence/conference committee. There would have been plenty of time from the time it passed the Senate until it got to committee or the President to stop it.
"Many people don't believe the dems would ever ban their hunting rifle."
So true. They fail to realize that their hunting rifles, with an evil scope, are just as easily characterized as "armor-piercing sniper rifles" that must be banned for the common good.
In combination with training in the proper use of a gun, nothing would be wrong with teaching the "don't touch, go tell an adult" message re guns unexpectedly found unattended, but there's no combination presented and the result is a message that guns are always bad and dangerous.
I remember a few years back I was staffing the Second Amendment Sisters booth just inside the entrance of a gun show, when two parents with their daughter of about age 10 were parting at the door -- dad going into the gun show, and mom and daughter to go off shopping elsewhere. The girl's parting words to daddy, in a genuinely worried voice, were "Remember, DON'T TOUCH ANY GUNS", apparently a concept she'd been trying to drill him on earlier. Where does a kid learn nonsense like this, while growing up in a home with a dad who enjoys attending gun shows, and a mom who at least showed no sign of any objection? My guess is that this girl was a victim of Eddie Eagle or some similar program.
He should have responded, "Don't worry--I'll tell an adult".
"Anyone complaining they have to walk to the garbage can and throw a couple of letters away isn't going to watch my back when the going really gets rough."
Its not about throwing the letters away. Its about the cost to send all of them out. Doesn't seem to be a good use of $$ to me.
"nd in case you don't realize it guns in the wrong or untrained hands are very dangerous. "
So is a hammer.
"Kids need to know what they will do.""
Making kids afraid of it doesn't help. Sure it works for 4 or 5 year olds. By the time a kid is 10 he should know basic gun safety.
Boy, how can so many people get the wrong message from my simple response.
Have you ever tried to get the NRA to comment on its participation in passing the MG ban? I have tried for years and have yet to have anyone from the NRA comment on it. It is though this subject is taboo.
The only response I ever received was from Wayne P., who in a repsonse to my letter at the time told me in no uncertain terms that the MG guys were sacrificed to protect the other firearms owners. Now, the question begs to be asked, the next time something like this comes up, who is the NRA going to sacrifice? It darn sure won't be any of the Fudds or target shooters. I will never trust the NRA as I did prior to 1986 again.
After having been a life member of the NRA for over 25 years I have learned that the only time they give a damn about the average member is why they want money.
I haven't, but I'm not especially surprised by the response you were given. A few slipups aside - eg. the "jackbooted thugs" letter in 1995 - the NRA has been very careful to stick to the mushy middle and not scare off the crowd that shoots $15,000 trap guns because that's where five figure donations come from.
Taken as an across the board gun rights organization, they are a failure. That's because that isn't what the NRA is. They are for hunters, target shooters, CCW holders, and the businesses that cater to them. And they have had great success at expanding the rights of these groups.
If you want a pro Class III, 2nd Amendment is about defense from the government association, that isn't the NRA.
That said, I still believe the 1986 ban amendment was a hoodwink they may have gone along with too easily afterwards and not a planned sellout from the beginning.
Thanks for the reply. Either way the silence condems the NRA in the Class III crowd, many of which own firearms that make a $15,000 trap gun seem cheap in comparison. Compared to some of the Class III firearms I have bought in the past few years I would have considered $15,000 to be a bargin. Unfortunately it appears the NRA has written Class III owners off altogether.
All I have asked for from the NRA is a statement explaining their side of what happened in 1986. Just this past week I emailed the membership services department asking them for a statement on this prior to my upgrade to an endowment membership and me buying my youngest nephew a life membership. So far I have not heard one word from the NRA and neither have I mailed them a check.
What irritates me the most about the NRA is their false claim to support all gun owners which they don't.
Yes, you are correct.
Yep, unfortunately I am correct on this point. I wish that I was not.
On the majority of Class III type online forums you will not see the NRA spoken highly of or defended for that matter. In addition you certainly do not see an official presence of the NRA at the Knob Creek events.
Unfortunately, the NRA is to the Second Amendment what National Right to Life is to the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
Actually, the NRA was formed by former Army officers after the War Between the States. They were appalled at the lack of marksmanship skills of most recruits and founded the National RIFLE Association to promote marksmanship in the interest of national defense.
You sure don't see much of THAT in the NRA publications anymore.The early emphasis by the NRA was making sure that civilians could shoot military-class rifles with precision and effectiveness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.