They are not perfect. If someone has a sound case, with good arguments, they should present it. I seem to remember that happening with a security guard in D.C., and the NRA initially didn't want to press the case.
They are not perfect. If someone has a sound case, with good arguments, they should present it. I seem to remember that happening with a security guard in D.C., and the NRA initially didn't want to press the case.
Wasn't that the Heller case that ended up getting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms an individual right, that the NRA didn't want to lead us to?
And gave us In the Common Use For Lawful Purposes used as part of the floor argument against the AWB amendment to S.649?
The SAF and the NRA approach the "problem" from two different ends. Neither is perfect, neither should be the sole avenue for redress. Both will have victories and losses. Both can nullify the other's loss- either through legislative mooting of a judicial case, or judicial challenge to a legislative misstep.
We need them both, and we need them to work together.
