NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Confiscations

Looks like the cockroaches are beginning to scatter.
Click to expand...


Thats when we need to stomp on each and ever roach.

What can we do to bring more national attention to this? If this is left to LA government, it can and will be swept under the rug. Officers involved, issuing or carrying out the orders need to be charged, fined and fired. It wont happen, but its a dream.......
 
Microbalrog,

"The NRA headquarters is rather expensive."

It still just slays me when people pop this kind of crap out without having any concept of:

1. What it would have cost to renovate the old NRA HQ building in DC.

2. How much NRA actually paid for the new HQ building.

3. How great a value that purchase was given how badly depressed real business estate was in DC at the time.

4. How much equity value has earned in that building since the purchase.

5. How much rental income NRA accrued from offices occupied by tenants (that's right, NRA is a landlord).

6. How much NRA realized from the sale of the old building downtown.

7. Savings in taxes based on Virginia's much lower business and real estate tax rates as compared to DC.

8. How much more amenable the new facility is to tourists coming in.

9. How much income the NRA Range generates.



Get a clue, son, and then we can talk about that particular aspect.

If you want to do a little searching, I ran down the costs for the new building as compared to what it would have cost to keep the old building and bring it up to code. Those message are either here, over on THR, or perhaps both.

Here, I'll start you off with some figures...

In 1993 NRA purchased the new HQ building for roughly 35 cents on the dollar. The developer had gone belly up in the business real estate glut.

IIRC the building cost roughly 25 million dollars, and with furnishing and build out to make it suitable for use, say $35 million.

The physical structure is, given the real estate situation in the DC metro area these days, worth in the vicinity of $100 million.

Plus, as I noted, it's generating tenant-based rental income for NRA.

I have a lot more figures like that.

You really want to continue this particular point of the discussion?

It's just amazing to me that people expect an organization of NRA's clout, visibility, and scope to conduct their operations out of a cardboard box at the corner of Smack Junkie Avenue and Streetwalking 'Ho Boulevard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Irwin,

A question: If the NRA, GOA and the SAF were to sit down and decide to join forces in this fight to preserve our RKBA, what do you think the chances are that the NRA would seriously entertain adopting or, integrating into their platform, the ever-so-slightly divergent views of the other two?

For several years now I have held an analogy between the Liberal Socialists that say they represent the "mainstream" of American voters and the NRA that says they represent the "mainstream" of American gunowners. I'm not equating the two politically, but some may consider that mindset more than a tad arrogant. The "I'm the 600 lb gorilla and we'll do it my way" position re-enforces the opinion that the NRA is carving its own way in this fight. That's a good way to lose "support" from your "supporters".

I believe we'll never see things like unlicensed ownership of full auto weapons again, but where do you draw a line in the sand? Is EVERYTHING negotiable? Does your opening position in these political dealings have to be "Let's see what they have to offer for concessions on our part?" and "Let's see what we can afford to give up?"
 
sensop,

That is the reason that I became a life member. I was like you and others, complaining, pulling my support, and just fed up with the politics until I thought about it... I can't change it from the outside in, but I can from the inside out.

I became a voting member. I can now vote for who I think will lead the NRA in the direction that it needs to go.

And they are starting to move in that direction.

Like our country, we can make a difference from the inside, we can't from the outside.

Wayne
 
Aren't we repeatedly told two things?

1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
2. No one is above the law.

So why aren't the police who forcibly took the weapons while wearing their sidearms under arrest for felony armed robbery?

And the police chief should supposedly be sworn to uphold the laws of the United States (including the Second Amendment), The State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. The second two cannot supercede the Second Amendment. And I can't remember when a Sherrif is allowed to declare law, out of hand, in any case. He needs to be fired for usurping the laws he is employed to defend.
 
Aren't we repeatedly told two things?

1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
2. No one is above the law.

So why aren't the police who forcibly took the weapons while wearing their sidearms under arrest for felony armed robbery?
Click to expand...

It just ain't gonna happen. See, the folks in office have this little thing called "immunity from prosecution" in most States. In La they DO have a little law that allows prosecution for "malfeasance in office" but when was the last time you saw ANYONE in elected office prosecuted for tyranny or lawbreaking?

We really need to get rid of the public servant immunity laws. As it stands, public servants can get away with lying, cheating, stealing and just about anything else you can think of (yes Mr. Kennedy, even homicide) and have no fear of being held accountable. One of these days, some public servant is going to literally overthrow the government in their area in complete disregard for the law and the rights of the citizens. When that happens, he will be removed from office and then let go free because he has "immunity from prosecution" no matter the extent of the harm he causes.

When official representatives of the people have no fear of being punished they have no reason to obey the law.
 
Police have been prosecuted for murder when they made the mistake of shooting someone who didn't need shooting or for shooting first and checking for a gun later.

So I think that its at least worthwhile to demand it publicly. The power of the people erodes when the power of the government isn't questioned.

Jim
 
If attempts are made to prosecute those who actually carried out these orders (and I support such attempts), this is gonna get real sticky:

1) Find a couple of CHP's officers guilty of not knowing Louisiana Law and you will never again see states loan LEO's to other states in time of emergency. Never.

2) While I agree that ignorance of the law is not a defense, it would seem that those out of state officers who acted on Compass' order have one helluva a suit against the City, should they be brought up on charges. Emergency Powers to disarm exist in some states (whether they are Constitutional or not is not the point in this case). But they do exist and nobody would expect a Boston cop to learn NOLA laws overnight. Therefore, these cops were acting on good faith that they'd been handed lawful orders by Compass. And neither Nagin nor Blanco stepped in to correct that mis perception.

So, we might see prosecutions of LEO's....for what? Obeying an unlawful order from their superior officer....as much as I hate to see these guys take a fall, they took an action that should be anathema to any citizen of this country. The ramifications of such actions are enormous.

Get Compass? Well, he admits he ordered actions outside of his authority; he's far more culpable than anyone else (other than, perhaps, Nagin). As much as I'd like to see Compass burn for it, that would be a pretty puerile victory as it would speak zero to the issue of whether such laws are Constitutional or to the issue of whether those actually engaged in laying hands on citizens have any liability when following such orders.
Rich
 
First of all, I think that police lent to other jurisdictions should be about as powerful authority-wise as typical police auxilliary. No arrest powers, just common citizen powers. As you said, how can they possibly know all the laws of LA/NO?

Second, putting them on trial would lead to the truth coming out. Maybe THEY were actually the ones making law up on their own? We won't know until we kill the snake from the tail to the head. Generally in legal actions it is almost always a case of prosecuting the minnows to flush out the big fish.

Going after the cops first will quickly lead to the complete train of culpability. Just arresting the C of P will probably not discover what part, if any, these loaner cops had in the whole thing.

And I for one know perfectly well that its not legal to take a firearm away from a citizen if they aren't breaking any known law by the act of their posession of it. I think its disingenuous to give these cops cover for their actions because they crossed a state line and violated a FEDERAL law which is obviously in effect at the federal level in their home states.

I don't know if its a requirement, but most CA cops have at least an Associates Degree in Law Enforcement. I've never taken that course of study. But I would hope they would mention the Constitution in there somewhere.

Off with their heads.
 
Sensop,

Find me an organization, ANY organization, in the United States that has more than 3 members where two of them aren't bitching about the stand that the organization takes.

Your view of firearms rights, ownership, etc., are very likely different that my view of firearms rights, owernship, etc., and our combined view is very likely different from just about every other member on this board.

GOA and SAF are one-note organizations with a membership base that is much more narrowly focused than NRA.

Whether you like it or not, the National Rifle Association IS the 600 pound gorilla in this fight.

That's what you get when you've been around for 120 years, have 4.something million members, and have been working on issues such as these since before most of our parents were born.

Those 4.something million members also give NRA every right to state that they represent the mainstream of the American gunowning public, at least the public that's willing to stand up for something, anything.

I also adamantly disagree with your characterization that NRA's position is that EVERYTHING is open for being negotiated away.

Perhaps, though, there's another way of viewing this...

Maybe it's NRA that has the only realistic position? One that recognizes (based on dealing with Congress for over 100 years) that if you go in as an adamant hardliner all the time, fire in your eyes, rifle in your hand, quoting scripture, that you're quickly going to get locked out of every formerly friendly office in town?


Nah.
 
But they didnt violate a federal law specifically, and there are culpability and intent issues in 1983 actions. If the cops thought that the orders they had been given were lawful they have a defense.

I still havent seen anything to indicate the scope of this problem. The NRA says 40 incidents, but they dont provide any corroboration, nor were the context of the alleged confiscations given. For example, were they found in houses without occupants? Were they abandoned? How can you tell? If they were taken from people, were they requested, and voluntarily surrendered? One example of an officer tackling a LOL does not a Constitutional conspiracy make.
 
Nobody actually wants the cops going to prison. I don't. I just want it ruled on in court. Nothing gets determined on common sense in this country anymore. Everything has to go to the SCOUSA.
 
sendec said:
I still havent seen anything to indicate the scope of this problem.
Click to expand...
I supported you when this was a Media Issue....it needed to be placed in perspective.

It is now a Court issue; and there is no defense occasioned by the question., "How many times did you engage in thise illegal and clearly Unconstitutional act?". It's either illegal or it's not and ALL guilty parties need to be punished; whether you or I like it or not. 1X, 3X 40X matters not one whit.

Go NRA. Take it over the Goal Line.
Rich
 
But they didnt violate a federal law specifically, and there are culpability and intent issues in 1983 actions. If the cops thought that the orders they had been given were lawful they have a defense.
Click to expand...

aINT THE COPS THAT get necessarily hit on a 1983...its the guys who told em to do it:)

WildimdyingtoseethepaperworkAlaska
 
If the cops thought that the orders they had been given were lawful they have a defense.

I still havent seen anything to indicate the scope of this problem.
Click to expand...

Are you blind? If the cops thought the order was legal, it still is violations of civil rights. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, remember, or does that only apply to citizens?

There is NO, NO way you can justify this. It is out in open now, and hopefully will grow national legs in the media. All parties involved are giving LE a black eye, and you attempting justify these actions, defend the LEO's that are involved, are putting a shiner on the other eye of LE.
 
Uh, excuse me guys but a restraining order it temporary and can be over turned at any time or court level. Look to see the order challanged and what happens after that up to the Federal appeals court is what in the long run is important. This was a good first step but the battle of Orleans if far from over!!

And keep those checks to the NRA and 2nd Amend Foundation flowing. :D
 
Maybe it's NRA that has the only realistic position? One that recognizes (based on dealing with Congress for over 100 years) that if you go in as an adamant hardliner all the time, fire in your eyes, rifle in your hand, quoting scripture, that you're quickly going to get locked out of every formerly friendly office in town?
Click to expand...

Maybe. And maybe not.


I mean, I am sure nobody like Samuel Adams ever did anything, you know, radical to change things.

Never would it be seen fit by someone like Abraham Lincoln to appear totally uncomrpomising.

I am perfectly sure nobody like Martin Luther King ever sounded like a total, complete, and abject hardliner.

Remember that old quote? A country can’t remain half-slave and half free.
 
"Maybe. And maybe not.


I mean, I am sure nobody like Samuel Adams ever did anything, you know, radical to change things."

Oh yes, you're right. Sam Adams certainly did do something "radical" to change things.

He got his ass elected to Congress.

Not to mention he was also the quasi leader of a group of thugs and brutes... er... patriots... who had a lot in common with Mussolini's Black Shirts.

So, you're saying that you're ready to go forth and create a new chapter for Schoolhouse Rock?

To the trenches, young Balrog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top