NRA Finally On Right Track

I did not get the opportunity to vote for the one I wanted, he'd already dropped out by the time his home state got to vote.

Speaking of which, he's the only politician I ever gave money to. Guess who called wanting "more" money a few months later? That's right, the money I gave to Fred went to McCain. Think I'll ever give money to another politician?

I DO agree joining the NRA and making it right is the right thing to do, and I DO agree if there is to be a better candidate who can win, he (or she) WILL be a republican. But the system as it stands is rigged to fail, we have to restore states' representation in DC to rig it to succeed (the way the founders designed it) by repealing the 17th amendment. There is no fixing it until then.
 
I wonder how many people who whine about what a poor candidate John McCain was actually bothered to go vote for someone else in the primary.
Click to expand...
It should be mentioned that Republican turnout in the 2008 election was 28.7%. That means 71.3% of the people who screeched their politics at me in the weeks following couldn't even be troubled to peel themselves off the couch and take the time to vote, unsavory candidate or not.

We got what we got because most gun owners didn't show up when the chips were down.

Neal Knox once estimated that less than 6% of gun owners were even marginally politically active. From what I've seen the last few years, I believe it.
 
That reminds me of a series of threads and posts on this site about ten years ago. A young guy, early 20s, was outraged over and lamenting the state of laws regarding RKBA in this country. "How could this have happened?"

A month later there's a new thread about registering to vote in the upcoming election. The young guy posted that he wasn't sure he could be bothered. :rolleyes:

I see similarities with the couch potatoes who complain about what the NRA isn't doing enough for them right now, but can't be bothered to join and contribute.
 
Now at the expense of perhaps getting members riled up, I must confess that I know very little about the NRA other than it is a powerful gun lobby organization. How does one benefit from being a member of the NRA? What exactly is its aim and status? An innocent question open to responses.
 
We got what we got because most gun owners didn't show up when the chips were down.
Click to expand...
I surely don't speak for anybody but me, and I did vote. But it was damned hard and I think Sarah was the thing that put me over the edge.

I'm glad we lost that election, though, once it was down to the final candidates.

We would have exactly the same policies from a McClown White House and Dem congress, as we have now; only it would all be our fault.

Then, instead of a groundswell of conservative anger throwing out the dems, we'd have bigger margins of dems to counter the 'awful' stuff that nasty old Republican did to us.
 
Last edited:
I might have been one of the folks who steered this towards straight politics, and I may have been remiss in that.

My point was that, for all the sturm und drang, most of those who vent their anger on an issue rarely do anything about it. Then they castigate those who do, claiming they didn't do enough.

It's easy to talk about how things should be, until you've actually been stood up for a lunch appointment you spent weeks arranging with your Senator. Or, you can try sitting on a televised debate panel while the other side is given twice as much time, and the moderator cuts you off every time you try to present facts. I don't remember any of the "no compromise" folks backing me up back then.

Jeff Knox's essay is a good read, and from my experience, quite true. There are plenty of people talking the talk, but very few actually rolling up their sleeves and trying.

So, where do you start changing things? For starters, you learn who your local elected officials are, and you make friends. That means putting on a tie and presenting yourself professionally. You vote in every election you can, even if that means picking the "lesser of two evils." Nothing is decided in one cycle, but over several terms, it is possible to steer policy.

You spend what time and money you can supporting organizations that protect not only the 2nd Amendment, but the shooting culture as a whole. The SAF is worthy, very worthy, of my money, but so is the NSSF, even if their wins don't make the headlines.
 
Last edited:
Good summation, Tom.

The bottom line to me, at this point in time:
  • If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest lobbying organization on your side (regardless of any perceived faults), then you will support the NRA by being a member (at the very least).
  • If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest litigation organization on your side (regardless of any perceived faults), then you will support the SAF by being a member (at the very least).
  • If you work in the (gun) industry, then the same can be said of the NSSF.
If you have more money to spend, then and only then, give it to any of the many other 2A groups out there.

But the first two, above (or three depending upon your situation) are a "must have" minimum.

This is just my opinion and it is certainly a strong opinion. Anyone is free to disagree.
 
Is there another gun organization that has as much clout?
Click to expand...

I'd say the Second Amendment Foundation, because when the NRA tried to get the DC gun ban taken out in Congress in order to moot the Parker/Heller case, they failed and SAF won the most important 2A case in history.

Yes, the NRA came along eventually, when their efforts to scuttle or moot the case failed, but without the NRA, the case would have been won anyway. Without the SAF, it would never have happened.
 
SAF does great litigation work; but they did not fund Parker/Heller. That was funded by Robert Levy out of his own pocket. SAF did not team up with Alan Gura until after that case. In fact at the time of Parker, SAF was using Bill Gameros of Fish & Richardson (formerly the prosecuting attorney in Emerson) to bring 2nd Amendment cases.

And I would disagree that Parker would have been won without the NRA. Go back and read the authors cited in the Heller majority opinion. The legal scholarship to lay the foundation for Heller took place over 15 years or so and the NRA was a key player in that effort.
 
Yes, the NRA came along eventually, when their efforts to scuttle or moot the case failed
Click to expand...
Actually, the NRA was concerned that the case wasn't a surefire, guaranteed winner. It wasn't sabotage so much as reticence. Trying and losing in the legislature isn't nearly as destructive as trying and losing before the Supreme Court.

Imagine what a loss in Heller would have meant for the 2nd Amendment:

We find that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to possess a firearm. The language clearly states that it is reserved to arming 'a well-regulated militia,' a body whose purpose this court finds to be aptly fulfilled by the National Guard. Furthermore, we reject respondents' claims that the handgun is uniquely suited for self-defense.
Click to expand...

Consider the political landscape at the time. The bans would have come quickly on the heels of such a decision, and we'd have been left without a leg to stand on.

Now, did the NRA call it wrong? I think so, and I made my displeasure known. Still, I can understand their caution. As my local rep pointed out, we barely won.
 
Tom Servo said:
...My point was that, for all the sturm und drang, most of those who vent their anger on an issue rarely do anything about it. Then they castigate those who do, claiming they didn't do enough.

It's easy to talk about how things should be, until you've actually been stood up for a lunch appointment you spent weeks arranging with your Senator. Or, you can try sitting on a televised debate panel while the other side is given twice as much time, and the moderator cuts you off every time you try to present facts. I don't remember any of the "no compromise" folks backing me up back then...
Click to expand...
Well said, Tom.

The world is full of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who haven't even ever seen a whole game (just maybe a few "highlight"), let alone actually played.
 
publius42 said:
Why work 15 years on something and then try to sabotage it just as it begins to happen?
Click to expand...

Because when you are engaged in a long-term effort to shift legal opinion, you don't want to create bad precedent that will make it harder to argue your point. You have to remember that at the time of Parker, there were only two Circuit Court of Appeals that had not declared the Second Amendment protected only a collective right. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals at that time was the ONLY circuit not to rule on the Second Amendment. Naturally, you don't want that door closed to you.

You must also remember how the NRA got introduced to Second Amendment litigation - they mistakenly thought they would be able to overturn 922(o) and filed a challenge to the law in Farmer vs. Higgins, only to lose that and several other 2A cases. So they tended to be fairly conservative on litigation. As a result, they were concerned about the effect of bad precedent.

Alan Gura and Robert Levy took the view that it was better to have a 2A case with a good plaintiff now with a narrow case and that the greater risk was delaying the case until inevitably a criminal defendant came along who was a bad plaintiff with a messy legal case.

Both arguments had very sound reasoning behind them, and as it turns out, the NRA wasn't too far from wrong. Heller was a 5-4 decision and two of the Justices in the majority (Roberts and Alito) were not even sitting on the Court when Parker was filed. In fact, if not for the NRA efforts to forcibly combine the case, Heller would have been heard by a Court with Rehnquist and O'Connor instead of Roberts and Alito. Maybe that would have given us the same outcome; but maybe not. Let's just say that if I got to choose, I'd pick Alito over O'Connor.

But in any case, just because NRA and Gura differed on when was the right time to try and make the case doesn't detract from NRA's long effort in helping to lay the groundwork for the case.
 
If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest lobbying organization on your side ... then you will support the NRA by being a member ... .
If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest litigation organization on your side ..., then you will support the SAF by being a member ... .
Click to expand...

I like the fact that the two most effective national organizations are specializing in different "arenas." Seems like they're less likely to run into each other, and less likely to duplicate effort.

Alan Gura and Robert Levy took the view that it was better to have a 2A case with a good plaintiff now with a narrow case and that the greater risk was delaying the case until inevitably a criminal defendant came along who was a bad plaintiff with a messy legal case.

Both arguments had very sound reasoning behind them, and as it turns out, the NRA wasn't too far from wrong. Heller was a 5-4 decision and two of the Justices in the majority (Roberts and Alito) were not even sitting on the Court when Parker was filed. In fact, if not for the NRA efforts to forcibly combine the case, Heller would have been heard by a Court with Rehnquist and O'Connor instead of Roberts and Alito. Maybe that would have given us the same outcome; but maybe not. Let's just say that if I got to choose, I'd pick Alito over O'Connor.

But in any case, just because NRA and Gura differed on when was the right time to try and make the case doesn't detract from NRA's long effort in helping to lay the groundwork for the case.
Click to expand...

Excellent summation, Bart. Big picture view with clarity. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top