Brett Bellmore
New member
Just got the latest issue of the American Rifleman. LaPierre is reaming the President a new one over his refusal to enforce firearms laws against criminals. Only one problem, though: His poster child for failure to prosecute under the Brady law is Benjamin Smith.
Says Wayne, concerning Smith: "They caught him in the act of committing a series of Federal felonies. At a Federal Firearms Licensee, he was flagged as a criminal under the National Instant Check System (NICS). Smith - subject of a court's domestic abuse restraining order - was a prohibited person."
Now, aside from the fact that Smith later started blowing people away, and Emerson didn't, how does this differ from the Emerson case we've all celebrated? Smith WASN'T a criminal; He hadn't had a trial, even, let alone being convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers. He had been stripped of his right to keep and bear arms on the basis of an accusation, not a CONVICTION.
Now, is the NRA going to support Emerson, our best shot in ages of getting the Supreme court to uphold the Second amendment? Then Ben Smith is a really LOUSY example of Brady non-enforcement, because we're dedicated to the proposition that he SHOULDN'T have been denied that purchase. The last thing we should be doing is bringing up the Ben Smith case, with so many REAL criminals trying to buy guns.
On the other hand, if it was right to deny Smith that purchase, and he should have been locked away for decades for the crime of owning, handling, and attempting to purchase guns after merely being accused of some offense, but not being afforded a jury trial, then I suppose the NRA support's the GOVERNMENT'S position in Emerson. And I'm going to have to shred my life membership card, like I keep threatening to do.
Which is it? Can we settle on a postion, and stick with it consistently? Or is that too much to ask of the NRA?
Says Wayne, concerning Smith: "They caught him in the act of committing a series of Federal felonies. At a Federal Firearms Licensee, he was flagged as a criminal under the National Instant Check System (NICS). Smith - subject of a court's domestic abuse restraining order - was a prohibited person."
Now, aside from the fact that Smith later started blowing people away, and Emerson didn't, how does this differ from the Emerson case we've all celebrated? Smith WASN'T a criminal; He hadn't had a trial, even, let alone being convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers. He had been stripped of his right to keep and bear arms on the basis of an accusation, not a CONVICTION.
Now, is the NRA going to support Emerson, our best shot in ages of getting the Supreme court to uphold the Second amendment? Then Ben Smith is a really LOUSY example of Brady non-enforcement, because we're dedicated to the proposition that he SHOULDN'T have been denied that purchase. The last thing we should be doing is bringing up the Ben Smith case, with so many REAL criminals trying to buy guns.
On the other hand, if it was right to deny Smith that purchase, and he should have been locked away for decades for the crime of owning, handling, and attempting to purchase guns after merely being accused of some offense, but not being afforded a jury trial, then I suppose the NRA support's the GOVERNMENT'S position in Emerson. And I'm going to have to shred my life membership card, like I keep threatening to do.
Which is it? Can we settle on a postion, and stick with it consistently? Or is that too much to ask of the NRA?