Court Ruling could result in much smaller NRA

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...
Click to expand...

You seriously misread Ginsburg if you thought she was ever on board. My law school Con Law prof was one of her former clerks. He was anti-gun and thought Michael Bellesiles was god (remember him?). He spoke of her thoughts on the 2nd, she would never have stood with us.
 
Publius, I understand what you are saying, but consider what would have happened if we had lost. Suppose the majority opinion held that the 2d Amendment only protects a right to keep and bear arms in connection with military service. The door would have been opened to allow the gun-grabbers literally to ban private firearm ownership, period. No militia, no gun. The vote of ONE Supreme Court justice kept this from happening. True, it is possible to amend the Constitution, but that process is very difficult. Also, the Supreme Court only rarely reverses itself.

On the other hand, we have a presidential election coming up. It looks like the next president will get to nominate one, or maybe two, SC justices. McCain, for all his drawbacks, would almost certainly appoint pro-2d-Amendment justices. Wouldn't you feel much more confident in that situation?

Anyway, this has been an enjoyable debate--thank you. (There's something perfect about discussing a Constitutional issue with someone who calls himself "Publius".) Getting back to the thread, I encourage everyone to join the NRA and/or some other pro-gun group and help take advantage of this big shot in the arm we've all gotten.

Tim
 
The NRA was right to be concerned about Heller not going our way. Back when it was filed, and they opposed it, two of the current judges hadn't yet been appointed. Those two were part of the 5 in the majority.
 
The good part it's much more likely that justices that were against "Heller" will be the next to retire or die, based on age of the justices. It would be great if anti-gun justices were replaced by pro-gun ones, but nothing really changes if anti-gun justices are replaced by anti-gun ones. Not to say something couldn't happen to a younger pro-gun justice, I'm just looking at averages.
 
TimRB said:
Publius, I understand what you are saying, but consider what would have happened if we had lost.
Click to expand...
TimRB and everyone else, please hear me.

We have considered what would/could happen ever since DC filed for certiorari. The discussions became even more intense when cert was granted. We've done this for months!

We Won. We no longer have to worry or even discuss the might-have-beens. Such a discussion is now a moot point.

Can this be made more clear?

If you have read the decision and the two dissents, you will understand that the 5-4 decision is on the scope of the right. On whether the right is an individual right, was a 9-0 decision.

Everyone should be praising the Court, not gnashing our teeth over what might have been.
 
There are still plenty of fights to be fought to keep the NRA in business - we've just started to see the lawyers get plenty of employment on issues now.

What I would really like to see - but don't expect - would be a shrinking of the BATFE - we really don't need just another federal police force to support while they attack our rights. Maybe they could go back to the original intent of their job being tax collectors.

:rolleyes::D
 
"We Won. We no longer have to worry or even discuss the might-have-beens. Such a discussion is now a moot point.

Can this be made more clear?"

Publius made a comment that I wanted to answer. We're just having a discussion here. If you don't want to participate, feel free not to.

Tim
 
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.
Click to expand...

this is right.

The NRA jumped on the bandwagon on this one....this big one.
There is a lesson for the NRA with this case. They played the odds with protecting our Rights and damnnear where left out because of it.
Fight for what you know is right. Push on Principle at all (yes all) costs and at every turn......The libs and dems do this and they dont let up.
Where as the NRA and the current GOP will do cost benefit guessing games with the protection of Gun Rights (and with the GOP on their platform)
stop doing this!!!!
Rights are Rights Principles are Principles......and push hard, never stop!!
(Lets say we push and loose big......change will happen faster....look at the Kelo case reaction)

Now will the NRA learn from this....or go pounding their collective chests telling everybody they made it happen?

The fight is hardy over.......I just hope the NRA starts getting more aggressive with this Civil Right rather than playing compromise games with it. That goes for the GOP as well....


If you need to thank...thank Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. Thank Clark Neily at http://www.ij.org/ and of course Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
 
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit


In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote:
“ To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[6]

sooo then the people in DC are not americans??? Dont have Bill of Rights Protections???? what??? States give "Rights" out at the courthouse corner????

To think this chick get six figures a year for this crap logic....wow
 
I really don't see it. There are going to be a lot MORE high-visibility fights over gun rights going on in the next few decades, not less. Scalia threw down a gauntlet.
 
I agree that there will be many more court battles in the future. But, they will be more perochial in nature.

The big call to action rallied big numbers of donors/members/money. We were all advocates of a person's right the own and use guns. That fight has been won and some people may now not prioritize/prize the NRA as highly, going forward.
 
Allenomics, I suspect we just don't see eye-to-eye.

There are several very key battles that must be won, in order to really stake the claim.

I respectfully, disagree.
 
Does the average person in Wyoming really care what happens in Chicago or San Francisco, now that their own right has been affirmed? Probably not. I do, and it seem like you, Antipitas, do as well.

My initial comment relates to how the average prospective or current NRA member/donor might view the court victory and how a reduction in support could adversly impact NRA funding, membership and influence in the future.

The NRA's legal arm will face mega bills as it fights for gun rights in one community after another. The NRA's need for funding, members and support has not been reduced because of the court ruling, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I'm seriously considering upgrading to "Life" in spite of my past criticisms of the NRA.

I'm highly impressed with the way they seized the initative after the Heller decision and started filing lawsuits against Chitcago and San Fransicko :cool:.............even though they tried to derail Heller in the begining. :mad:
 
When the NRA was attempting to "scuttle" (as some of you put it) the Heller case, Rehnquist and O'Connor were still justices. There's a good chance we could have lost. The only thing that brought Alito and Roberts to the Court was Rehnquist's medical issues, and O'Connor's HUSBAND'S medical issues.

We are now going to see a change in the way the NRA works. They have spent the last few decades functioning as a POLITICAL organization. They will now have to function not only as a political organization, but also as a LEGAL organization. They have been involved in many legal battles before, but the number of lawsuits are about to increase exponentially. Don't be surprised if you get fund-raising letters from their civil rights defense fund (in addition to the ones you've been getting from ILA and PVF). They'll need the money!!!
 
As long as a local gun range (membership) and NRA membership remain a priority for us, then the options, and our rights will be exercised in some ways!!!

Leave the tv more, and enjoy life outdoors!
 
It never ceases to amaze, the complete total lack of understanding of what the NRA does even among members.

The NRA promotes the shooting sports, the NRA makes new gun owners and enthusiasts by promoting the shooting sports, by sanctioning matches, by providing firearms training.

The NRA helps keep gunclubs in business, it helps make new shooters so our sport never dies.

Thae NRA is not a political lobbying operation, the NRA is a non profit that promotes the shooting sports.


THE ILA Institute for Legislative Action lobbies, and files suits.
The NRA, and the ILA are sperate entities by law.

Join the NRA and support the shooting sports.:)

If you dont like the politics dont join or contribute to the ILA:cool:
 
As Master Blaster already noted, the main purpose of the NRA since 1873 hasn't been lobbying or litigation; but promoting the shooting sports. The NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, and NRA Civil Defense Funds were created to do lobbying and litigation. Despite that, the NRA seems to be growing (though it can certainly be argued that there are a lot of gunowners taking the NRA for granted).

As for Heller making the NRA smaller? I just don't see it. In fact, historically it is the opposite - look at the NAACP, NOW, NARAL, or any number of special interest groups. Brown v. Board of Education was in 1954 IIRC - Has the NAACP disappeared or grown smaller despite a long string of follow-up victories? Roe v. Wade was in 1973 and the groups that were victorious in that decision actually have more members and money today then they ever have before (over 35 years later).

If the NRA grows smaller or shrinks it will be because they have stopped being effective advocates for RKBA and the shooting sports; but some other organization will fill the need that will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top