I think this settles nra's anti 2nd amendment attitude about full autos

I would like to have some of that kool aid the GOA is drinking.
Click to expand...

But those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or to others have a constitutional right to possess guns! Crazy people should own full-autos! The NRA hates guns! More GOA kool-aid, please! :rolleyes:

:barf:
 
On the background check bill, the NRA ILA says:

H.R. 2640 would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments (such as the VA) to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” The bill allows de novo judicial review when an agency denies relief--that is, the court would look at the application on its merits, rather than deferring to the agency's earlier decision.
As a practical matter, the mental health disability is the only firearm disqualifier that can never be removed. Criminal records can be expunged or pardoned, but mental records cannot.
While BATFE used to have the ability to accept applications to remove individuals' prohibited status, appropriations riders every year since 1992 have barred it from doing so. Allowing this process through H.R. 2640 would be an improvement over the current law.
Under H.R. 2640, even if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency, the person would have an opportunity to correct the error--either through the agency or in court.
Click to expand...

What will stop these same kinds of appropriations riders from being used each year to block attempts to remove wrongful disqualifications?
 
"The NRA, OTOH, is content with letting the ILA do all the lobbying (obviously the members are to stupid to do anything like that.)"

You must not be getting the same mailings I do. They certainly do request that members contact elected representatives.

John
NRA Patron
Member www.vcdl.org
 
John, the only things I get from the NRA are the monthly magazine and countless ads for insurance, credit cards and books... and of course, the usual pleas for more money.
I'm really undecided about them. They have done some good work in the past even as they've occasioanlly stubbed their toe. In recent years I've had the distinct impression they've become a smaller version of congress, more concerned with maintaining the status quo than shaking the tree of liberty and never, never going out on a limb of that tree.
When "Eric" made such a point of how the NRA needed to "educate" the members I had to wonder who was going to represent the members. In the end I'll probably stay a member but I'll do it with all the enthusiasm I had when I voted for Bush II. Another "hold-my-nose-and-just-do-it" moment.
 
Antipitas, the fact of the matter is that the "tax" imposed by the NFA of 1934 was nothing less that prohibitive. There is no other way to explain away a $200 tax on weapons that had a value of $10.

The government realized that it couldn't outright ban such weapons so they taxed them at a rate so high that the average man could not justify the cost of owning them.

Interestingly, the Miller decision upheld the constitutionality of the NFA of 1934 because the weapon in question, a sawed of shotgun, was deemed to be NOT a weapon used by the military. The converse of such a ruling would be that all military weapons are NOT subject to the NFA.
 
The way I see the whole thing, the NRA, while not perfect, is the best solution for now.

I don't see any alternatives. The GOA's Larry Pratt showed himself to be a moonbat one blog post short of a "troofer" with his unhinged ranting and misinformation about the NICS-strengthening bill. I'd expect him to start with the "Fire can't melt steel!" stuff next.
 
The issue really is that some of us don't see the NRA as "the best solution for now". We see the them as part of the problem..not any kind of solution.

Our rights are no more secure with them than they are with the Brady Bunch. Heck...I prefer the Brady Bunch because at least we know exactly where they stand. With the NRA we still suffer a loss of rights...it's just a death by a thousand cuts as opposed to something much quicker.
 
So it's better to have total bans - and have a tantrum like a baby vs. having the improvement in laws that NRA lobbying has helped pass?

Ridiculous thread.
 
Danzig, I'm real familiar with this stuff.

Needless to say, that no one has challenged the NFA as being an exorbitant tax, AKA banning by taxation. Up until the ratification of the 34th amendment, you wouldn't have had much legal groundwork to stand upon.

Since the passage of the '86 FOPA, such a point may be harder yet to justify - A $200 tax on a $15,000 item is hardly exorbitant. So one would have to attack on the angle that if not for the inflated pricing of the '86 ban, then the tax would become prohibitive.

This may all be mooted if the SCOTUS upholds Heller.
Danzig said:
Interestingly, the Miller decision upheld the constitutionality of the NFA of 1934 because the weapon in question, a sawed of shotgun, was deemed to be NOT a weapon used by the military.
Click to expand...
Not exactly... The Court said it had no evidence (from the trial court) that the firearm in question was a military firearm and remanded the case back to the trial court to make that determination.

Miller was dead by this time and no trial was held to make such a determination.
 
Needless to say, that no one has challenged the NFA as being an exorbitant tax, AKA banning by taxation.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Exactly that kind of challenge was made in 1937, and it was lost. Similar challenges had been made to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, both of which were also regulatory power grabs wearing a "tax" veneer. Those rulings were mentioned in the famous Miller decision, because Miller also raised the (by then untenable) objection that Congress was obviously using the power to tax as a power to prohibit.


SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES
Petitioner does not deny that Congress may tax his business as a dealer in firearms. He insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government. To establish its penal and prohibitive character, he relies on the amounts of the tax imposed by section 2 on dealers, manufacturers, and importers, and of the tax imposed by section 3 on each transfer of a 'firearm,' payable by the transferor. The cumulative effect on the distribution of a limited class of firearms, of relatively small value, by the successive imposition of different taxes, one on the business of the importer or manufacturer, another on that of the dealer, and a third on the transfer to a buyer, is said to be prohibitive in effect and to disclose unmistakably the legislative purpose to regulate rather than to tax.
Click to expand...

The Court said that every tax is somewhat burdensome and has a regulatory component, they pointed out that this "tax" did produce a tiny revenue stream, and they said that it is not the job of the courts to determine whether the Congress meant to regulate or to tax, as long as a law can be reasonably defended as a tax.

The Court is not too shy about identifying something as "interstate commerce" or as "public use" when the need for government power demands such a ruling, but they sure were reticent about identifying what is or is not a tax. The idea seems to be, if Congress says it's a tax, then it's a tax, despite the appearance of a prohibition. This was especially true in the case of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. No one ever paid that tax, because paying it was not allowed, yet it was still a "tax." :rolleyes:
 
I see your point Antipitas but as you pointed out..the issue was whether or not Miller's weapon was a military weapon. If it was found to be a military weapon then the NFA could NOT have applied to it.

That was what was at issue. The question was worded badly of course. The question should never have been "Is Miller's weapon a military weapon?" it should have been "Is Miller's weapon a type of weapon that is used by the military?"

If the answer to that question had been "yes" then the NFA would have been misapplied in the Miller case. The NFA would have been found to be constitutional ONLY when applied to weapons of a type not used by the military.

Miller's weapon as I recall, was a short barreled shotgun. Such weapons were (and still are) used by the military.
 
The issue really is that some of us don't see the NRA as "the best solution for now". We see the them as part of the problem..not any kind of solution.

Our rights are no more secure with them than they are with the Brady Bunch.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. :barf:

See, its statements like that which confirm that this is a troll thread that is designed to stir things up and simply bash the NRA. Boring. Absurd. The sky is green because the GOA says so, and the NRA hates guns. :rolleyes:
 
Thanks Publius. I stand corrected and further educated... Now I have to read that decision in its entirety. :D

Offhand, I wonder how much of those rulings were part and parcel of the Roosevelt era and the rampant socialism being spread.

And remember, this was before the 24th amendment which ended Poll Taxes. And a slew of cases that delt with such, as an infringement on a right. Just might be an angle to deal wiht the NFA, right after 922(o) is dealt with (assuming a positive in Heller).
 
^ And that doesn't make that statement even 1% right. It is sad to say, but there are too many people in the NRA that don't take the right stand on things. Anyone who doesn't support Class III ownership and any form of firearm less than that to anyone without legal impediments doesn't belong in that position, period. It sickens me, really, that they aren't absolute and unconditional proactive gun rights aggressive instead of being merely concession giving compromisers who skate by on damage control. Sure what they do is good but only in as much as that it's better than the virtual zero that anyone else does. But still I am far from happy. I think we as a group need to reform the NRA. It needs it, badly.
 
Sure what they do is good but only in as much as that it's better than the virtual zero that anyone else does.
Click to expand...
I think we as a group need to reform the NRA.
Click to expand...
Let's DO it!

I think that with a lot of work we can reform the NRA to be like the gun rights groups that are completely ineffectual because their stance is considered radical by virtually everyone including a huge majority of gun owners...

Is that what you meant? ;)

I know, I know, it's a real bummer when practical reality intrudes into the world of idealism. BTDT.

The bottom line is that the NRA is effective because it does not take radical stances and is therefore perceived as being reasonable. Like it or not, "reform" of the NRA (as it's being discussed here) would have the predictable side effect of destroying it as an effective gun rights organization.

Progress is being made, and that progress will breed progress. Continued progress will allow the NRA to slowly strengthen its stance on gun rights and therefore make even more progress. Taking a look back at what's happened over the last decade or two will confirm what I'm saying. Imagine telling someone in 1980 that it would be possible to get a license in the majority of states that would allow one to carry a concealed handgun. Now, in TX, it's even explicitly legal to carry a handgun in a vehicle concealed WITHOUT a license--something that hasn't been true since the late 1800s. In addition, the restrictions on TX CHL holders have loosened since the inception of the program about 12 years ago and the deadly force laws in my state have been revised to be much more pro-victim. I expect that trend to continue.

Some of the stances the NRA is able to take today would have been considered radical just 20 years ago. But the progress over those years have changed public perception positively. We can talk about federal gun bans expiring, states passing Castle Doctrines and loosening carry restrictions. Those things were virtually unthinkable in the early 1980s. Disappointment now means not getting all the positive gun laws passed we desire--before it was impotently watching one negative gun law after another passed.

Of course, we could always reform things, marginalize the groups that have been largely responsible for that progress and see how long it takes our enemies to capitalize...

Before anyone starts calling me anti-gun, I'm talking about practicalities here, I'm not stating the way I believe things should be in an ideal world.
 
Offhand, I wonder how much of those rulings were part and parcel of the Roosevelt era and the rampant socialism being spread.
Click to expand...

Roosevelt came later, actually. The real beginning of the use of the power to tax as a regulatory power grab was the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. By the time Roosevelt was doing his thing 3 decades later, there were several precedents they could use. A nice list can be found at the very beginning of the Miller decision.

Of course, the power to tax does have its limitations. "Let's tax and regulate the farmers" is not as good a political rallying cry as "let's tax and regulate the gun owners or drug users." So how could our government regulate homegrown wheat for personal consumption, if some New Deal leftists took a notion to do so?

Expand the interpretation of the commerce clause. Roosevelt let the Supreme Court know that they would go along with this, or else he would use his massive political capital to either pack the court or otherwise go around them. In an effort to remain somewhat relevant, they complied, and the most famous case was Wickard vs Filburn.

That one plagues us to this day. In the majority opinion in the Raich case, Stevens references Wickard dozens of times, and the whole opinion is one long treatise on the fact that Wickard and Raich are about essentially the same issue. I think Scalia wrote separately so that there would be a Raich opinion which didn't mention Wickard so much.
 
The bottom line is that the NRA is effective because it does not take radical stances and is therefore perceived as being reasonable. Like it or not, "reform" of the NRA (as it's being discussed here) would have the predictable side effect of destroying it as an effective gun rights organization.

Progress is being made, and that progress will breed progress. Continued progress will allow the NRA to slowly strengthen its stance on gun rights and therefore make even more progress. Taking a look back at what's happened over the last decade or two will confirm what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it's made our enemies strong too in that they feel that they can set the agenda and then see if it's approved, rather than the NRA being able to beat down anything and everything they attempt. The NRA's gains in strength through compromise are offset by the gains made by the other side because they compromised. It's like having a faster megahertz laptop but the new operating system gobbles up more memory so there's little net gain. I am 100% glad that CHL exists-----BUT we shouldn't be begging to have our rights back. It is unacceptable to me that we are in the position of having to ask to be returned to us what is rightfully ours. The 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights is written to say that our rights belong to us and that WE own control, and it's not the government's to give and take as they please--the ability to carry concealed, own whatever configuration of rifle I want, etc. is MINE and not theirs. They should be asking me what they can do, not the other way around.

What you see as practicality is why they are behind, not why they're ahead. If they were ahead, they'd be going for term limits and automatic ejection from office for authoring bills attempting to infringe upon the rights of the people, and total eradication of specification restrictions (repeal NFA, etc.) and impediments to CCW anywhere and everywhere. Capitulation is what turned 1939 into 1941. Tell the Britons and the Poles how good appeasing Hitler was. Or how about get a case of frostbite on your feet and have 3 toes amputated and tell me how glad you are to have the remaining two. How much gun control is acceptable is how many of your children can you stand to see killed in front of you.

It doesn't matter what is considered "radical." The whole premise of our country's existance was and is "radical" for its time or even today. What is and should be considered out of the norm is views apart from this, not the other way around.
 
So progress as John points out is irrelevant. It is better to have an unsuccesful but righteous tantrum and have no changes in laws.

The analogy with Poland and Hitler is specious. Nice tantrum but irrelevant. Hard work on the state and national level by the NRA and various state organizations like the TSRA have made the situation much better.

From very restrictive laws, they are loosing up.

But no, it should happen all at once and I should be able to mount a Browning 50 BMG on the roof of my pickup. Stamping my feet, now !!!!!

I still remember the GOA trying to sink the TX CHL law. In MO, the first CHL attempt was sunk by absolutists who PO'ed the state legislature with some raving - of course, this was reported in the 'defeatist' gun press.

Get this straight - most folks benefit by caring a concealed handgun or being able to even buy a gun. Most folks aren't going to carry illegally and I'm willing to bet the tantrum crowd doesn't do that either.

You certainly can mount a gun on your roof and be the Rosa Parks of the gun world. The African-American civil rights movement had more guts than the absolutist gun crowd whose main tactic is too denounce the NRA on the Internet.

We are leagues better off through working through the legislative system with clever incrementalism and necessary compromises. Then more progress.

Or one can make phoney analogies to Hitler. Godwin's law strikes - don't you think?

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
 
FDR was elected in 1932 and took office in 1933. From March of 1933 to June, FDR had sent to the Congress bills that established the Emergency Banking Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), The Economy Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the National Youth Administration (NYA),
and the Works Progress Administration (WPA).

And that was just the first wave of New Deal stuff. The NIRA was found to be unconstitutional by unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27, 1935. Then the Supreme Court declared the AAA to be unconstitutional. FDR responded with the Court packing scheme and the Court, in order to maintain some semblance of relevancy, acquiesced.

The NFA can be considered as part of the New Deal, as it was enacted with the slew of other Acts. submitted by the FDR administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top