Court Ruling could result in much smaller NRA

We shouyld all kneel an say a "BIG THANKS' to the NRA. Were it not for them, we would not be rejoicing today.
Mickey
Click to expand...

Although I support the NRA, and have been a member for a long while, I have to point out that this is absolutly not true.

The NRA initially tried to scuttle the Heller case because they were convinced it was going to be a loss. They tried to have it consolidated with a weaker case they had filed. They also tried to have the DC ban repealed legislatively which would have rendered moot the Heller case.

They did finally come around to supporting the Heller plaintiffs. However, the Cato Institute deserves any thanks for Heller.

From the ABA Journal:

If the tone of LaPierre’s letter didn’t sound urgent enough, he used plenty of underlined boldface type and capital letters to drive home his point. He told the faithful a top-notch brief may cost as much as $1.2 million.

“For gun owners and NRA members, this is the biggest legal battle that we have ever fought, or will ever fight—and its outcome will probably impact every law-abiding American gun owner,” LaPierre wrote in the five-page letter. “It is a battle we simply cannot afford to lose.”

Here’s where LaPierre heads into a wrong turn: It’s not an NRA case. In fact, the gun rights supporters who filed it complain that lawyers working for the NRA, concerned the case could backfire, spent considerable time and money trying to scuttle it. The association finally was dragged kicking and screaming before the Supreme Court after the prospect of review appeared more likely than it has in years.
Click to expand...

http://abajournal.com/magazine/a_shot_at_the_second_amendment/
 
Well, the NRA does deserve part of the credit for laying the groundwork for this win, but it's absolutely true that, if the NRA had gotten it's way, there'd have been no Heller case to cheer about.

And to be fair, it was a 5-4 decision, they were one vote away from being right.

That said, guess I'm going to have to start making contributions, to help pay for all this litigation. To the SAF, that is, until I see what the NRA's litigation strategy is going to look like... We've gotten the 2nd amendment back, it's time to use it. Hope the NRA can turn on a dime on that front.
 
I was never very impressed at the NRA's way of handling legal issues.:( There are better groups such as the Cato Institute. Where the NRA can really shine now is bringing firearm instruction and shooting activities to these new areas. Imagine NRA pistol range and training centers in these urban areas which will get their gun bans turned over in court.:)
 
The NRA's not going away. The Heller decision was just the first of many decisions needed to recapture the rights of a free people. The next battles that I see are overturning bans on assault weapons and preventing cities/states from denying gun ownership through permit denials or "slow rolling" permit processing.
By establishing once and for all that the 2nd is an individual right, the court has given us the traction we need to take on the oppressive laws of cities such as Chicago, New York, etc..
 
I am a life member....and I plan of contributing even more every year so that the NRA can forge ahead with stomping out stupid gun laws and ordinances all over this country.
 
As other posters noted, this is only the beginning. I was happy to see the decission in our favor, but, I was truly disappointed that 4 of the Justices don't feel it is an individual right. We BARELY won anything. I really don't know how these scholars of law don't understand the Constitution. It has always been about "We the People" and specifically limiting the power of the Gooberment. Read the 3rd Amendment..
I also wonder if Barak get the job as POTUS and appoints 1 or 2 new Justices, how long will it be before this current decission will be challenged and most likely be "reversed" It won't be the first time SCOTUS has reversed its decissions.
 
"I cant speak for the country as a whole, but my best friend and I have just bought our first NRA memberships, along with several family members as a result of the Heller ruling."

THANK YOU, Camartinez! You, your friends and your family are helping like crazy. I think your response will be the most common one to Heller as regards the NRA. For the first time in years we have solid pro-gun momentum in this country, and I think people will jump on it. I look for an *increase* in NRA membership as a result of Heller.

California shooters, please don't forget to also join the California Rifle and Pistol Association: http://www.crpa.org/

Tim
 
Yes, I agree the decision is the beginning of a new chapter and that there are real challenges going forward.

I am concerned that many people will believe that the fight is over; people who only see the big picture. If by the thousands people reduce their support of the NRA, our most important advocate could have less power and influence.
 
Legal battles are not the only area we should concentrate now. The Heller decision gives us a new stick to hit over the head of legislators that sneered at the RKBA. Time to start swatting in order to get laws overturned. DC's recalcitrance is a good reason to go back to Congress to have power to regulate firearms taken away from the buffoons that pretend to govern that town. Of course, we need to elect a friendly Congress, hint: Obama's fellow travelers ain't it.

The NRA is good at lobbying, and will be more relevant than ever before.
 
One of the first I did after the initial excitement had faded away was donate to nraila. You should too. I admit, $10 ain't much. But it's something. Or donate the local gun rights/ owners chapter, like VCDL.org

I can understand why the NRA didn't throw its support initially into DC v Heller/Parker. It was a risk they didn't want to take. I'm fairly certain that if they knew they could win DC v. Heller/Parker by a margin of 7-2 or 8-1, they would have sold the farm to fund the legal fees. I highly doubt they were trying to hinder the case just so they could keep their membership up.

Before Heller, much of the NRA's work was to stay above water. Now they can be proactive. Can't wait for all the lawsuits to start popping in Chicago, SF, etc. I think they will have more work to do post-Heller.

Also, I believe that the fence sitters will lose the perception that the NRA is just a bunch of redneck gun nuts, by witnessing something as landmark as Heller. As in, who doesn't want to join the winning bandwagon?

Ever go to a baseball game where the visiting team happens to be the Red Sox? Sometimes the PinkHatNation outnumber the home team fans. This crap didn't really start until 2004. Here's a clue: You're not from New England, you know nothing about the Red Sox except that Manny apparently likes to be himself, and you're clearly not suffering no more. In fact, you've replaced MFY as the evil empire. I hate Red Sox fans.

Note: if you've forgiven Bill Buckner a long, long time ago (as in - not 2 months ago), then you're a cool Red Sox fan.

Conclusion: you Americans love a bandwagon. The NRA is now the bandwagon. For the love of God I hope they don't start selling pink NRA hats.

Then again, hating the bandwagon is itself a bandwagon. I expect donations to "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" to rise as well.
 
Cheaper life memberships!

To keep the membership from getting smaller, I'd like to see the NRA take advantage of the excitement amongst gun owners and other pro RKBA'ers and offer a substantially discounted life membership. They could pull in a lump sum of money, say $300-$400 per member instead of their offer of $1000, which prevent a lot of people from joining because of the initial pay out, causing everyone to look for their $25 discounted annual memberships where they strive to obtain 'free' hats, tees or cheap keychains to justify payment. For these annual members, the NRA is sending out endless mailings of membership renewals, costing them additional money.
A large percentage of membership that are Lifers could send a powerful message to anti's.
There are always new members to be had in the future.
Additionally, annual members could drop out at anytime, despite the mailings, because they figure they aren't getting out of it what they are putting in, or because they are fed up with NRA policy. Also, a lifetime membership of $1000to someone in their 50's is not worth it.
Think of the budgetary income if even half of the annuals converted to lifers
 
I agree that this can only broaden the NRA's appeal. There are millions in metropolitan areas who will now have significantly greater access to the shooting sports. There will certainly be a few who step up.
 
Why all the support for the NRA as a result of Heller?

If anything, Heller demonstrates the need to support organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and the CATO Institute, which are not as cautious/mainstream as the NRA.

As coolhandluke noted, the NRA tried to scuttle the Heller (then Parker) case in a couple of different ways, and only joined in supporting the case when all other options were exhausted.

Please note that I'm not saying the NRA's cautious/mainstream approach to fighting gungrabbers is wrong, nor am I saying it is useless. I'm just saying that Heller proves that having some risk-takers in the mix is ESSENTIAL to success, and celebrating Heller by rewarding the other half of the mix seems odd to me.
 
"If anything, Heller demonstrates the need to support organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation and the CATO Institute, which are not as cautious/mainstream as the NRA."

As has been pointed out in the main Heller thread, proceding with this action all the way to the Supreme Court was so risky *for both sides* that it bordered on foolhardy. Look at the vote--4 to 5. ONE person got to decide what the 2A means. It could just as easily gone the wrong way, and if it had, it would have incomprehensibly disasterous.

Tim
 
This will actually expand the NRA as they'll be more willing to get off their butt and have less to say that they can't do because they don't have precedent. They've got all the material they need and plenty of laws and anti gunners to fight, so GET TO IT!
 
It could just as easily gone the wrong way, and if it had, it would have incomprehensibly disasterous.
Click to expand...
But it didn't. Was there some other, better way to get where we are today? Must we always let fear of making a situation worse block the path to making it better?

We were already living in a situation in which the majority of courts held to the collective rights interpretation, acting as if the Supreme Court had mandated that approach in the Miller case. If we lost, they would act the same way, but would have a real basis for it, making it harder to undo.
 
" Must we always let fear of making a situation worse block the path to making it better?"

Sometimes, yes. Would you be willing to give up your Second Amendment rights forever based on a coin toss?

Edit: Remember, DC bet the farm and lost. You can easily visualize Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, etc. sitting behind closed doors wondering why the pinheads in DC pushed this very risky case when a loss would give the pro-gunners an enormous advantage. It turned out well for us, but it was similar to winning at Russian roulette.

Tim
 
Everyone and their mother..........

Start donating $5, $10, $20, $25, $50, whatever you can afford to the NRA-ILA now!, so they can start suing SF, NYC, NJ, Chicago, MD govt's who deny gun rights to their "Citizens". Not many of us can afford a lot, but even $5 will help if we all pitch in. Heck, just $1 is great! Donate using their website to maximize every penny. Do it now! Please....................
 
TimRB, I'm not saying that pursuing the Heller case was not risky, I'm just saying that pursuing a risky strategy now and then can (rather obviously) result in greater gains, sooner. Was there some other, better way to get where we are today? I don't think so, and no one can deny that if the NRA were the only gun rights organization, we would never have seen the Heller case brought to the Supreme Court. For that reason, I think giving money to the organizations which actually sponsored the case makes more sense as a victory celebration than giving money to the one which was originally opposed to it.

I disagree that the case was as close as the final margin of 5-4 implies. I was among many who were surprised that Ginsburg did not vote with the majority, and it seemed pretty clear at oral arguments that Kennedy was in our camp as long as he got to say something bad about evil machine guns.

I also disagree that we were ever in danger of the SC redefining the 2nd forever. We can amend the Constitution and reverse anything they do, any time. It may be difficult, but it can be done, and gungrabbers have been on the run politically in recent years. Witness Obama's reaction to Heller, supporting a decision which overturned a gun ban he had previously supported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top