OK, enough on the NRA: what's the GOA's gameplan?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim March

New member
Seriously now: does the GOA have a plan over the next 1/2/3/5 or however many years for radically improving our *functional* self defense ability?

Do they have a PLAN beyond "don't compromise, and rip into the NRA at every opportunity"?

What lawsuits are they backing/fighting? If they don't have their own legal team, are they allied with some other group like the Institute of Justice (sort of a "Libertarian ACLU") or the Lawyer's Second Amendment Society?

I mean this in all honesty, all sincerity.

Jim
 
Don't know.

Its always easy to criticize the NRA, its a whole other ballgame to "step into the arena" yourself. The NRA plays a fairly safe strategy. They go after their goals through the legislative branch. Its really not a bad tactic, but its slow and of course on Columbine can totally reverse years of effort. The lawsuit/litigation route is more risky. One bad decision could set an ugly precedent.
 
That is a good question jim, I was also wondering such.

One other thing I would like to mention, and I dont mean this to be taken as a flame to all the no compormise people from the previous thread. I was thinking since disobedience and taking a stand ect, ect... is pouring forth so vehemently all of you should put you own foot out there and stop paying federal income tax and take on the IRS. This might give you a feeling as to what the NRA is up againts as it would be just you against the tax collectors. Kinda like it is the huge NRA against the whole goverment,media,hollywood, and pop culture.
I make this statement because income tax is voluntary, and you should definitly win in court. Just as the NRA should win with the protection of the Shall no be Infringed portion of the law.
This is the only way I could think of to imagine what the nra has to deal with on a more personal level. Again this is not meant as an insult or cheap shot taken but as an example of what I see the NRA facing.
 
I have to disagree with your statements regarding the NRA's tactic being "not a bad tactic".

Notice the following graphic I have included. (Yes it's crude)
fubar.gif



Bills are written, and voted on. If they pass, we are screwed. If they lose, they just reword it a bit and start over. Eventualy it passes and we are sent to the courts... If it's overturned in court (after eons of appeals) it's reworded again and back to step one. Keep in mind while we wait for SCOTUS to do something, the law will prolly still be enforced and again we are disarmed.


This is the NRA's plan in a nutshell.

There is only one way to end this. FORCE SCOTUS to hear it and make a ruling. Either way we then know where we stand. They rule for us = Brady goes home and MMM has nothing to say. They rule against us = Revolution V2.0 starts.

There is NO other way to end this debate.
 
<<There is NO other way to end this debate. >>

Constitutional Amendment just stating the '...shall not be infringed part', although that would be a redundant amendment and a repeat of the 2nd.

To win this, you need some strict constitutionalist on the SCOTUS and a man that will appt them AND just as importantly, appt them to the lower courts as well. This is why Willy has been so bad for us and Gore will put the rest of the nails in the coffin if he wins.

Right now, a prime startegy and a historic moment is with us. A SCOTUS that may be favorable to us at least 3-4 sure (Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquist) Have to convince 2 others. Get Bush in, and great chance. Emerson is the other historic ruling. All the pieces are there for us all at one time.

Time to sieze the day. Work your butt off for Bush - otherwise- don't bitch at NRA, GOA - bitch at ourselves.

madison

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JimDiver:

There is only one way to end this. FORCE SCOTUS to hear it and make a ruling. Either way we then know where we stand. They rule for us = Brady goes home and MMM has nothing to say. They rule against us = Revolution V2.0 starts.

There is NO other way to end this debate. [/quote]
 
Jim you forgot the committees or is that commies.

ACTION: Please urge your Senators to support any Smith amendment (to H.R. 4690) that protects the privacy of American gun owners. The Smith amendment would require the FBI to immediately destroy gun owners' records. Remind your Senators that this very same Smith language passed the Senate with 69 votes in July of 1998. (Unfortunately, the word "immediately" was subsequently stripped out in a conference COMMITTEE.)

What is this crap about people changing versions of laws written by some one else. Kinda like changing a book you didnt write?
 
Let me make a point about the Supreme court and the NRA's strategy: If you've read Scalia's "A Matter of Interpretation", you must realize he thinks nobody really cares about the 2nd amendment. And if HE thinks that, what do the other justices believe, particularly the ones who start out biased against us? WE think that it's obvious that a lot of people treasure the 2nd, but that's not true in the circles Supreme court justices travel in.

The NRA is very down on the idea of massive marches, and I understand why. But we have GOT to have a massive march in Washington, one so big that even the most oblivious Justice will have no doubt that ruling against the 2nd will enrage an enormous number of people.

If we allow them to persist in this idea that everyone is as indiferent to this right as their legal collegues, they might rule against us, if the court below them upholds the Emerson ruling. They'd surely refuse certiori if that court ruled against us, as they have for 60 years. Changing their minds about this is a MUST!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Brett, do you think that the pro RKBA justices would turn down a appeal of emerson if the 5th circuit held the lower courts decision? Of would it be the liberal judges that would want to hear it to impose their liberal spin on the Second? And finally how many have to decide to hear an appeal before it is accepted, majority or just one or all?

Also from what I have read recently a lot of constitutional scolars have been giving the second amendment some serious study and quite a few liberal scholars have sided with the "standard model" intrepretation. And a lot of historians are trying their best to discredit them. FWIW.
This is article, quite long or would have posted here. On SAF site.
http://www.linguafranca.com/0002/showdown.html



[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 28, 2000).]
 
OK, JimDiver, you've got a point. I should have said its a safer, more pragmatic approach. You can have a lot of influence with legislators, especially if you've got enough $$$$ and a block of committed voters, whereas your influence with the court system is about zero.

We really need to attack from ALL angles.
 
GOA helped us in Arizona to draft a clean preemption bill. Then NRA came with their lobbyist, Darren LaSorte, and turned the simple, two-sentence bill, into a dozen paragraphs that nobody can follow. It was the first step to making Arizona's traditional open carry as second tier to CCW.

GOA helps to educate those who those who should be aware that NRA's repeated compromising is getting us to gun registration (Brady's NRA-backed insta-check), gun banning, and gun confiscation.

Imagine if instead of 3.5 million NRA members there were 3.5 million GOA members. An M16 would cost $800, not $6,000.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Oberkommando: The left-wing judges hate the 2nd amendment, the right-wing judges hate overturning precident, and striking down long established laws. In this case, upholding the 2nd amendment would involve striking down a LOT of laws! So they're both biased against us to some extent, for different reasons.

If Emerson is upheld, the Court will more or less have to take the case to resolve the clash between circuits, but if the justices who might otherwise uphold the 2nd think nobody cares, they might rule against us anyway, just to avoid unnecessarilly opening a can of worms. Or rule in favor of Emerson simply on the 5th amendment grounds, ruling that the case doesn't require that the 2nd amendment issue be examined.

If Emerson loses at the circuit level, the easiest thing for them to do would be to simply refuse certiori. Less work for them, and why should they exert themselves to preserve a right nobody cares about?

Either way, we're better positioned if the justices know that this is NOT an issue the public is indiferent to. Heck, we might even frighten one or two of the anti-justices into ruling honestly!

I believe that it takes 5 justices to get a case to the Supreme court, not that they have to agree HOW it ought to be decided, just agreeing that the court ought to take the case.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
You know, if Emerson wins really big in the 5th or some other case makes it to the SCOTUS, I can see the appeal in a REALLY massive march on WashDC. Make the "million mommies" look like a church picnic.

The only danger is that somebody high up might be REALLY tempted to provoke/create a riot complete with shootings, just to make us look bad. Gore would do it in a heartbeat.

Jim
 
Rick, I've heard the other side of that AZ situation. Basically, in it's original "simple form" it wasn't gonna pass noway nohow.

Sandy Froman, 2nd VP in the NRA is an AZ resident and was a key part of that affair. Her side to the story is that they were facing an emergency; some local cities were about to try and do total handgun bans. She didn't mention this part, but I've heard elsewhere that Tuscon was planning on using state CCW data tied to car registration databases to try and spot permitholder cars while they're just driving around, and use that as probable cause to pull people over, search 'em, disarm 'em, and try and convict them for breaking the local no-guns-in-town ordinance.

Reading between the lines, I'd be willing to bet the NRA figured somebody was liable to shoot back over abuse that horrendous. Hell, *I'd* be tempted at that point...here I am going through all sorts of crap to be legal and score CCW, and it's brought the cops down on my head. BUT that in turn would have set the overall cause back decades if not generations.

In any case, the NRA took desperate efforts to make sure *something* mostly functional passed. Yes, there was a small hit to open-carry-sans-permit rights (in parks) and I agree, that's not good.

But then again, why does a state as pro-gun as AZ have a committed grabber in the Governor's office and wishy-washy legicritters? THAT is what made the compromize necessary, not "backstabbing" on the NRA's part.

But the GOA screamed bloody murder about "NRA traitors" the moment it passed...sigh.

Jim
 
Wishwashy legiscritter Ed Bryant(R-TN)
NRA rating A+
GOA rating C
After voting for the many anti-gun measures in the so called juvenile justice bill.
What were you asking about the legislaters in office again JIM?
This is not my reply to the overall question will do that later when have time to enjoy it more,just saw the post.
www.gunowners.org
dont sacrifice your freedoms to be PC www.jpfo.org
guncontrol is racist www.jbs.org
leave the UN bring our troops home

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
I can tell all of you what their step #1 is: more members.

Until they (we!) do that, they just won't have the clout to do what they want to do.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
CMOS,

I will join GOA today or later tonight. They do need the members.

Question: If NRA has 3.8 million members, how many does GOA have and how many do we think are in both orgs. IOW, I wonder how many gunowners we have, TOTAL, in various orgs.?

madison

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMOS:
I can tell all of you what their step #1 is: more members.

Until they (we!) do that, they just won't have the clout to do what they want to do.

CMOS

[/quote]
 
--I believe that it takes 5 justices to get a case to the Supreme court, not that they have to agree HOW it ought to be decided, just agreeing that the court ought to take the case.--

Brett, it takes 4 of the justices' concurrence to hear a case. It's called the rule of four.
 
Brett,Incursion, thanks for the input. Hopefully they will examine it with a pure heart and to hell with the repercussions, that is if it gets to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top