n.r.a

[redrock103]

well, the n.r.a is at it again. n.r.a attorney stephen holbrook told a judge, and i quote (your honor, we are here wanting to register handguns). that is your n.r.a for you. this can be found in the keepandbeararms.com web site also infowars.com. for over sixty years they have been destroying the 2nd amendment. join the n.r.a and have your 2nd amendment rights eaten away.

[karcent]

It would be nice if you could provide the text of the entire exchange, rather than one sentence standing alone.

[PhotoTom]

It would be nice if you could provide the text of the entire exchange, rather than one sentence standing alone.

Found at the references provided:

http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp

8)

[ANIMAL]

Some wonder why I didn't renew. same reason I gave up on the dark side. they slowly give away your rights in order to advance themselves.
We need to get down and dirty and refuse to give up anymore and retake what has been illegally taken from us by our so-called govt.

smoke em where ya find em

[Jim Simmons]

A good lawyer understands the difference between the arguments he or she wants to make, and those that are more likely to win. The D.C. case is not an appropriate case to make an absolutist Second Amendment argument; certainly not if the goal is to win expanded gun ownership rights for DC residents.

In the Ferndale case, Carol Bambery didn't argue the 2A absolutist position. That argument would have lost. She gathered the arguments that would win, (statutory preemption) she made 'em, and she won.

Mr. Lucas is a pretty critical "Monday morning quarterback." And as a 2A absolutist, he makes a great activist, but he's too good a lawyer to argue what he's arguing. He knows better. I read between the lines and wonder if there is bad blood between him and Halbrook.

[BigDaddy40]

NRA sucks. GOA

[Jim Simmons]

What's the difference? (This is not sarcasm, but a real question, since I don't know GOA very well.)

[AimHigh]

I believe each organization has a purpose. That is why I have joined the NRA, GOA, MGO, etc. If they are not against us, they are for us. We are on the same team.

Perhaps some group's practises are being questioned, but as long as their ultimate goal is pro-gun, I will support those groups. I may not fully understand their inside decisions, but the NRA has done a monumental job over the years to keep our position on firearms known and fought for.

[redrock103]

it would not matter if the n.r.a was to come out directly admit they were for gun control, most would not believe it. ( another quote: from mr. halbrook: your honor,we are here wanting to regeister handguns. we are not here wanting unrestricted access. we`re not here asking to carry them,other than in the home.......( the court) you`re saying that the government can impose reasonable restrictions? (mr halbrook:) yes, your honor. yes your honor. with the help of the n.r.a who needs enemy`s?

[Dave Edwards]

Here's Stephen Halbrook's answer:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-374.html

Shoot straight,

Dave Edwards

[alex-vitek]

Since owning handguns is illegal in DC would not the forcing of the registration of handguns there actually be a relaxing of the draconian laws currently in effect????

That seems to be the direction this case is going.

[AimHigh]

What's the difference? (This is not sarcasm, but a real question, since I don't know GOA very well.)

http://www.gunowners.org/

They are a large organization, committed to the 2nd amendment, just like the NRA. Their president has been on numerous news channels, explaining our position concerning the 2nd amendment and fighting the anti-gun communtists.

[AimHigh]

From another website:

Quote "Why the distrust of the NRA on AWB?
Let's look at the facts:

The first bans on semi-automatic weapons are introduced into Congress in 1989. From 1989 to 1990 there are TWELVE different bills attempting to ban, excessively tax or severely restrict semiauto weapons. The NRA fought every one of those twelve bills to a standstill and repeats that fight EVERY SINGLE YEAR until 1994.

Finally in 1994, the NRA cannot stand against a Democratic White House, Senate and House and a Democratic president who wants to make an issue of assault weapons. The NRA fights hard but loses by one vote - though they do get an important provision providing for a sunset that gives up future hope.

After the ban, the NRA leads the fight to oust those who voted for it and then forces the Republicans to take up an effort to repeal the ban, even though then Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole is not sympathetic about assault weapons and doesn't want to deal with the issue in an election year. The repeal passes the House with bipartisan support and a large margin but is tied up in the Senate judiciary committee where it dies.

2003: Both Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre state publicly that the NRA intends to fight ANY renewal of the ban.

Neal Knox, a man who is not afraid to criticize the NRA, says the NRA will fight the ban to the end.

So why is it I can't log onto any gun board on the Internet without seeing the chicken little prognostications of doom and NRA betrayal regarding the ban?"

End Quote

[johnlive]

All I know is that I was able to take my ccw class for only $60 because the NRA gave the sportsmans club a grant for $5000 to give the classes.My kids took hunters safty for free from an NRA class.My wife is taking the NRA class "refuse to be a victim" for free saturday.So yeah,I guess I can afford to keep my membership up to date. :D

[HK USP]

Am I the only one here but the quote at the site looks as if it has been taken out of context. Over the years I have seen the liberal press many time do this to cause harm to some cause they do not agree, or have a argument with. This would not be a first time this has happened to the NRA

[BigDaddy40]

What's the difference? (This is not sarcasm, but a real question, since I don't know GOA very well.)



The GOA is a more agressive. The NRA seems more interested these days in making nice with the anti's (Schumer) That did it for me. They started out great and got alot done, but seems to be much too passive these days IMO

[Jim Simmons]

One problem I see with "more aggressive organizations" (I'm not picking on GOA, because I know nothing about them) is that they sound good, but because they don't deal with political realities, they accomplish little.

The NRA is effective because it stays in the political fight, and gets what it can, win or lose. There was no way in 94 that a SAW ban wasn't going to pass; the only question was what was it going to look like. We have the NRA to thank for the fact that we are now looking at it's demise.

I'd rather have that, than have an ironclad ban that is not going to sunset.

[Freetime]

I totally agree, I can't think of any so-called " really aggressive" group that has really accomplished anything. Most of them end up looking rather ridiculous after all their posturing and "know it all" attitudes do nothing to better the situation. Just my opinion! :roll:

[OneShot]

Jim, Freetime I agree. Below is part of an E- mail I received from NRA.

UPDATE ON D.C. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS CASE

On October 8, a hearing was held on a motion to dismiss in the pending
Seegars v. Ashcroft lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought as a result of the
extremely restrictive gun laws that have been in effect in Washington,
D.C., for more than a quarter of a century. Handguns are effectively
banned in the District of Columbia. Before 1976, citizens could possess
registered handguns in the District. The city`s law required all
firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting
the registration of any more handguns, thereby completely banning them!
The Seegars lawsuit seeks to allow D.C. residents the right to once
again lawfully possess handguns. The case is a narrowly focused effort
to encourage the court to recognize the Second Amendment as an
individual right and to declare the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional,
so that residents who are threatened daily by criminal violence may keep
handguns in their homes to defend themselves.

NRA supports this litigation as a first step toward restoration of
Second Amendment rights to law-abiding D.C. citizens. NRA is also in
strong support of current legislation introduced in both the U.S. Senate
and the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal not just the handgun
ban, but also the requirement that all firearms be registered. The goal
is the complete restoration of Second Amendment rights, and NRA will
continue vigorously to pursue this objective in the courts and in
Congress.


Isn't this similar to what we did in Michigan with right to carry law? After it passed we could not carry in resturants that served alcohol. Now we can. We are still working to further loosen the restrictions on right to carry
Our gun rights were taken away incrementally. Now we must take them back one by one.

Just my opinion

[BigDaddy40]

Jim, I have a completely OT question.

A buddy of mine sued and won. The judge awarded legal fees to him. Since he had paid his attorney up front and in full, he asked him for his money back. The lawyer responded that the money was his and a bonus from the court for winning.

They had no formal agreement, just a deal to pay $175/Hr. The award was almost $20K

Is this typical?

[goldwing2000]

So the lawyer thinks he rates double his fees because he won the case? Sounds pretty d@mn shady to me!

Since when do courts award a bonus??

Since his legal fees were already paid, I'd think that the award from the court should go straight to your friend to re-imburse the cost.

[Jim Simmons]

Bigdaddy: See my PM

[BigDaddy40]

Got it, thanks

[alex-vitek]

There was no way in 94 that a SAW ban wasn't going to pass; the only question was what was it going to look like. We have the NRA to thank for the fact that we are now looking at it's demise.

I'd rather have that, than have an ironclad ban that is not going to sunset.
One thing that has come up in some of the email lists is that there are states that have passed similar bans, including bans on "full" and "high" capacity mags that will continue to stay on the books. For these peope there will be no sunset to see.

[Jim Simmons]

True enough, Alex. But are you suggesting you blame the NRA for those bans? I think that's a bit of a stretch.

[alex-vitek]

No, I am not suggesting that we blame the NRA for that situation. Not one bit. I am just trying to remind everyone that the sunset provision is not the beautiful thing that they think it will be. For gun owners in some states it will continue to be the same ol stuff and nothing will change.

[goldwing2000]

I think it may be easier to fight on a state level, though.

[alex-vitek]

I think it may be easier to fight on a state level, though.
We have to remind our elected officials to vote against any new federal level legislation that might be introduced to renew any ban. Let the current legislation sunset.

Then I would think it easier to fight any state level battles.

[mohavesam]

"Divide and Conquer" It's working with gun owners! Who would have thought?

In our hunting camps. if you don't arrive with a NRA card, you don't hunt. Its that simple.

NEWSFLASH: The NRA may not be perfect, but the ONLY reson we/you own a gun today is because the NRA made it happen in the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's.

If your Grandkids are allowed to legally posess guns in the 2020's, it will be because of the NRA's contributing membership and legel efforts. The armchair quarterbacks aren't getting the job done.

AFAIAC, The anti's include NON-MEMBERS!



Much as I'd like to report differently, the GOA is a non-entity inside the beltway, in all but the most press-worthy stories.