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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with Jim March's assessment of the preemption situation in AZ.

If the GOA had had their way, they would be crowing about how they never compromise ... from Virginia. Meanwhile, Arizonan's would be dealing with leftist cities like Tucson that would have added more anti-self defense laws.

A lack of preemption is intolerable. I'm told the situation in California is so bad, it is essentially impossible to write a book about their firearms laws. Besides overwhelming state statutes, they now have so many local laws that simple knowledge of state law does you little good.

Arizona needed a solid preemption statute, and the political climate made GOA's simple approach unpassable. We need a new Governor, that is for sure.


I'm a member of GOA, but I have to admit ... telling me they need more members before they can advance a strategy sounds a little weak.

Regards from AZ
 
Actually, the preemption situation in CA isn't all that bad :). We have a strong preemption law. The only four places it's been systematically violated are:

1) Some cities/counties ban the *sales* (not ownership) of "junk guns". The courts supported that.

2) Some localities impose extra taxes on gun/ammo sales. This hasn't been tested in court yet.

3) San Francisco tried a WashDC style handgun ban, and got slapped down in the courts on preemption.

4) Many PD Chiefs and Sheriffs illegally charge CCW fees in excess of the new 1/1/99 limits, using an outdated AG Dan Lungren legal advise memo that's been usable purely as bathroom tissue since 1/1/99. My next case will be the first one attacking that, and they don't stand a chance.

On the brighter side, there's no local ordinances on possession, and once you score a CCW in one jurisdiction it's a state license good statewide.

The same year the all-Dem Governor/Senate/Assembly passed AB15 and SB23, they tried to repeal CA preemption (stronger language than AZ had before the recent NRA-tweaked version). The NRA managed to block one of these three "really bad bills" but ending preemption was by far the worst proposal.

With preemption gone, SF, LA and God knows how many other towns would have gone "handgun free" :(.

Oh ya: guess who fought the SF preemption violation (attempted handgun ban) back in the '80s? Attorney Don Kates, with the NRA picking up the bill. Then as now, he's affiliated with the offices of Chuck Michel in LA, who's on permanent retainer to the NRA.

Does the GOA have any permanent legal staff on retainer in any state? Failing that, do they have "alliances" with other legal-specialty small groups?

Jim
 
Yes the thought of going back in time when americans beleived in fighting for what they beleived in and not compromising is amusing to say the least.
Lets talk about current day.
As far as fighting the 'assault weapons ban'
which the NRA's boy has no problem continuing I have information showing that SAF is fighting that in CA. but havent seen anything in the past year referring to the NRA doing so pherphaps you can highlight the issues that that is in.
Theyve fought a long list of glorious lawsuits in the past and they do have a nice past when their not supporting different guncontrol measures that 'we must compromise on or Ill guns will be taken'
really get sick of hearing that from NRA table workers.
But what I find really amusing is if you want to talk lawsuits is how SAF is suing over 30 cities and mayors and the NRA is suing one city and has over 3 times the members of SAF.
Hmmm getting your money's worth.I agree SAF's lawsuit was bold and I sent money to them on that one that normally would have gone to GOA.
As far as the comparison of lawsuits between NRA and GOA.Thats pretty simple.It may seem like a cop out but I support GOA as a lobby not a prosecuting lawyer and the way they lobby and what they do attack represents my interests not the way the NRA does.
Ive supported and will continue to support SAF's agressive lawsuits which seem to be in the past 4 years a lot more agressive than the NRA's.
Your choice is obvious JIM,I see what pro-gun
actions the NRA does take but their compromises are too often and to my view of what freedom should be too deadly.
I will continue to show people why I disagree with them and who I think they should support and obviously they get to make their own choice.
I didnt just hop on and say the NRA are wimps or sell outs although you will hear me say the latter where Lapierre's concerned.
I refer to and continue to refer to actions theyve under taken which are obviously not
all PRO-GUN or in the interests of soundly defeding our gunrights.
www.saf.org www.jpfo.org
guncontrol is racist www.citizensofamerica.org
get the word out

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Here are actions GOA undertakes that get me supporting them things I havent seen the NRA doing because they are not so agressive more word than deed as far as lobbying.Things pass they say they lost because they dont have enough members and leave it alone and hardly ever attack a bill after its passed usually I guess because they didnt lobby against it when it was being voted on because to the leadership it was 'sensible gun legislatin'
OH and JEFF Ive never heard GOA say they need more members before they can take action
in fact Ive often been surpried how seldom they do call for more members.
NO JIM they dont think blasting the NRA will get them those memebers they think and correctly know that no compromising where my freedom is concerned will get them more members.That lack of backbone lost me as a member to the NRA.Ofcourse where they do take a stand I defend the NRA to anti's and the liberal media but to others interested in defeding our freedom's Im going to give the hard truth to.
AS far as blasting NRA you can thank people like me who are sick of the way the NRA compromises for that.
Except for plainly stating their actions you cant count on both hands the number of times GOA has simply insulted the NRA just to be doing so.


GOA Denounces Clinton import Ban

GOA Denounces Clinton Gun Ban
Calls for Repeal of "Sporting Purposes" Test
For Immediate Release Contact: Kathleen Gennaro (703) 321-8585 April 6, 1998
(Springfield, VA) -- Gun Owners of America, a Virginia-based grassroots lobbying organization of 200,000 members, condemned President Clinton's move today to ban the importation of many semi-automatic firearms.

"President Clinton has simply affirmed what he has believed all along, that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting," said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America.

The President is capitalizing on provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, stipulating that imported firearms must be "particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

"This isn't all Clinton's fault. It's up to the Congress to repeal the unconstitutional sporting purposes test," said Pratt, referring to H.R. 2721, a bill in Congress that would repeal the sporting purposes provisions of the 1968 Act.

"If Congress were to repeal that aspect of the ? Act, the President would not be empowered to circumvent the Constitution by enforcing unconstitutional regulations," Pratt said.

Mr. Pratt also noted that the newly banned firearms "are `particularly suited' to the Second Amendment. The framers of the Constitution made clear that they did not want a situation where only those with firearms are the government and criminals. The founders believed that firearms in the hands of decent citizens is the greatest safeguard to individual safety and freedom.

"Recent history betrays the gun control theory. If gun control laws reduced crime, we should be a much safer society toady than we were prior to 1968. But that is simply not the case. In spite of literally thousands of gun control laws that have passed since ?, in actuality, we have become a more violent society. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that gun control laws are actually a diversion to real crime fighting.

"Instead of thoughtlessly going along with this latest Clinton gun-grab, Congress should move quickly to pass H.R. 2721, freeing up law enforcement to go after real criminals," Pratt said.

BRADY PART II LAUNCHES GUN REGISTRATION SCHEME

FBI plans to record every gun buyer starting December 1
Gun Owners of America today announced the release of its new study exposing a massive scheme to register law-abiding gun owners. GOA has learned that the FBI will be maintaining a registry of gun buyers and gun sales for at least 18 months, in violation of law. This is being done with funding from the National Instant Criminal Background Check (dubbed NICS), authorized under Part II of the Brady law. GOA will be filing a formal protest with the agencies involved and members of Congress. The FBI hopes to have the scheme running by Dec. 1 of this year.

"They apparently plan to suggest, that because they may destroy some records in the future, that this is not registration," said Larry Pratt, Exec. Dir. of GOA. "That's nonsense. What they're planning to do is register gun owners and that is strictly illegal."

At least three separate registries are apparently planned, according to the GOA study. The NICS will keep one, listing every gun buyer and sale in fine detail. The National Police Computer, known as NCIC, will also get and keep a record of all firearm transactions. Any backup systems that these large scale computer installations use will also create one or more permanent or quasi-permanent registration lists of law-abiding Americans.

"There aren't any safeguards on the system because they don't need any-the scheme calls for registration by its very design." The NRA has been surprisingly quiet about the whole thing, Pratt notes. "Why aren't they up in arms over this?" he asks. The NRA has fought gun owner registration in the past.

When the FBI turns on their national citizen checking scheme under Brady Part II this year, every gun dealer sale in America will be controlled by them from a single office in Clarksburg. "We can no longer warn you that it's coming," says Pratt. "Brady II is here."

"The shameless willingness of the FBI to openly break the law shows the law must be repealed. The government cannot be trusted with the names and addresses of gun buyers. That's why we have a Second Amendment," Pratt added.

Interested parties can obtain a copy of the new GOA study by contacting Gun Owners of America at the above number.


------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
"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."

The original simple form is what needed to pass. The bill that passed is so convoluted as to allow anti-gun judges way too much leeway. That is why we wanted a short, clear law. Now the City of Tucson is saying that they will ignore parts of the law and have imposed $500 fines and 4 months in jail as the hurdle for anyone who wants to challenge it.

"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."

Yes, they told the Governor that to her face. There was no "emergency" just yet. None of the cities had the votes, or gumption to do a city-wide ban that would clearly have been a violation of the old preemption, even with some anti-gun judges.

What the current law gives us is the protection of 60,000 CCW permitees while selling out the other 6 million citizens of the State of Arizona. Yes, we gained some, supposedly (we see in Tucson that such is not the case, we wonder where the other shoe will fall), but we lost 99%. And we gave them a wedge that they will use to divide us.

Let me tell you something about GOA. When Columbine happened, Wayne and Chuck were AWOL while Larry Pratt fought for us on CNN. The GOA's plan is "No Compromise" because compromise got us where we are today. Certain firearms banned to us, and others greatly inflated in price. When these laws pass, it is because NRA gives its okay. GOA will never give its okay and will forever be buzzing about the heads of anti-gunners, not compromising to make themselves look "reasonable" in the eyes of those who would disarm us.

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
 
Well since were nearing a heated discussion I imagine this thread will shut down soon,kindve like trying to get one of the gun magazines to print an article that favors GOA instead of NRA for once.
But in the meantime I think more of us can agree on this one and he's far more polite than I would be but still makes the point.
Enjoy Rick.
We have a slightly similar situation as far as the permits go here in TN every lobby supported it except GOA.Why?
If Im arrested for anything my permit can be revoked demonstrating you name it, not much of a right.Solve the Problem

by Bryan S. Sampsel
7/26/2000

The biggest problem facing the gun rights movement today is the political landscape. Regardless of party affiliation, we see NRA backed politicians betraying us as soon as they feel a little heat. The NRA is a venerable organization that has been around a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the full backing of its membership, nor does its management play hardball anymore.

The solution to the "NRA problem" is simple. Get involved on your own. Get involved with other organizations with a little more vigor: JPFO, GOA, SAF. Don't drop the NRA like last year's prom date. But expect a more cautious course from them. The NRA is the press's whipping boy.

Don't rely on the NRA to speak for you. Call the politicians when asked. Get irate. Get mad. Be polite. It doesn't matter, just let your representatives know that you are watching and WILL vote based on their actions.

Above all, vote. If you don't vote, don't bitch. You haven't done your duty as an American citizen. Excuses? Hogwash. None of them are worth a tinker's you-know-what. There is NO EXCUSE for not VOTING.

Voting. To expand on this topic, let me say, "Stop voting on party lines." Vote for the candidate, their actions, and what they stand for. Don't vote Republican or Democrat just because your grandaddy said so, or the Union said so, or whatever prompts you to elect based on party. For those who don't consider 3rd parties to be viable national options, vote for them at the local level. The Libertarians would be one honorable political party to elect to your city council, county commissioner, or School Board seats. There are many others, but make sure that the candidate stands for what you believe in.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms will become something we will have to become violent over unless we act peacefully NOW, by VOTING. I don't want the violence. I just want to keep my rights. I'll vote. I'll vote what my heart tells me to.

Many of us don't have the cash to donate to the RKBA organizations, such as NRA, JPFO, etc. For those short on cash, find out how to donate time instead. Teach. Get others hooked on guns. Many people are indifferent till they shoot a gun the first time. Get involved in some fashion.

The point of this rambling mess is simple. Get involved. Vote. And quit sticking your head in the sand.>>

The article was copied off of www.eaglesup.com check it out sometime.






------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
"The NRA is the press's whipping boy."

Which is why the press (and the anti-gunners) only mention NRA and not GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, SAF, etc.

Far to complicated to have more than one bogeyman to have to explain away.

Rick
 
If you think shall-issue is bad, take it from this Californian: no carry at all is worse.

Much worse.

Shall-issue is a political necessity in most areas. Sorry, but that's my view from deep in the trenches fighting a near-absolute carry ban. You wanna blame the NRA for supporting shall-issue, you might as well blame the sky for being blue.

And regardless of how long this thread has grown, or how much NRA-bashing continues, I don't see the makings of a practical alternative gameplan yet.

I'd love to see one.

Jim
 
Here are 2 definition for y'all:

com·pro·mise n.
1. a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

ap·pease v.
3.To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.

Which do you think has been going on all of these years with the gun control laws? I haven't seen the HCI crowd give up anything except agree to not take away all of the guns, UNTIL the next time. So call it like it truly is: APPEASMENT.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim March:
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[/quote]


I am sorry to inform you, Jim, but if you or anyone else here on TFL thinks we are going to fill the Washington D.C. mall with millions of gun owners, you are deluding yourselves.

I myself spent money I couldnt really afford to spend to go 3000 miles to the so-called Second Amendment Rally in August 1994.

There were not more then 2500 people at that event, and it wont get much better if we held another in 2001, IHMO.

Think about it, Jim.

There must be millions of gun owners within a two or three hour drive-time distance of Washington D.C. and only 2500 showed up, many like myself, from across the country.

Where the H**L were you people when we needed you there? (not you personally, Mr. March)

Keep your powder dry, people. Its' gonna be one hell of a fight!

Civil Defense=Civil Disobediance

RKBA Forever!!!
 
"Shall-issue is a political necessity in most areas."

Yes, it is a bureaucrat's solution. It is necessary for them to keep track of us; to know where the guns are.

You will say, "Heck, a CCW permit doesn't mean I have a gun."

Remember the 1940 Census and its use against the Japanese. Once they turn tyrant, the 4th and 5th won't mean anything to them. The court will decree something like, "for officer safety..."

Rick
 
Before I start let me say I am a member of both GOA and NRA although the latter was more of a symbolic act.

I get GOA e-mails of legislative action and voting records. From NRA I get nothing. The hostletter bill was introduced 2x and did not pass. The turncoat republicans were exposed with GOA, again, NRA nothing. Sometimes I think the NRA is just another political group. Why they continue to support anti-gun right republicants is beyond me. Then we wonder why we have gun laws. Well every vote for an anti-gun republicant is saying you are for gun laws. It's also a slap in the face to the few congressmen who are working in our favor. Oh, some of the republicants don't come right out and say they support gun legislation, they either don't vote at all or support the gun legislation behind our backs. We are like the frog in the water, it's coming to a boil but so slow we don't know it. Only we give support to the ones turning up the heat. Doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Jim I will agree that your point of having a shall issue is better than no issue. I dont believe that a shall issue is neccessary as the U.S Con. doesnt mention it. But if shall issue laws are passed then it is the first step to allowing us to exercise our rights without permits (we then try to ban the whole permit requirement) . I live in this commie state and it is easier to bash shall issue laws after you have them, as I see other members here doing. Jim I think opinions vary by state as our state has already banned "assault weapons" "junk guns" "hi-cap mags" and hand guns and whatever they want to add to roberti-roos 89 ban will be next this year. I offten wonder how high the non-compliance of SB23 will be, 01\01\01 BTW I thought the 89 ban was going to solve all the crime problems in kali? Must be those pesky colt H-Bars that all the gang bangers are carrying that are causing all the problems. Surley by the first, Gov Gray's (Moonbeam's underling) signature on SB 23 will ensure the safety of the california citizens and mexican nationals.

Wish I could comply but I seem to have lost all mine in a mountain fire years ago that the "Shooters started."

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited August 02, 2000).]
 
Excellent comment Imbroglio.
JIm keeps asking for a gameplan or a detailed strategy.
Besides the fact that this is not a game GOA's strategy I guess for some is too simple
'represent the interests of their members and do not support any so called 'regulations' which only amount to the red taping of and infringing of our rights but instead blast the rep's who do support such attacks on our rights.
Gitarmac--also loved your comments its so true that its always been the gunrights advocates who have given and compromised.
But you will never hear in an NRA mag 'we have already lost guns because of our compromise' or area's to care them or added exspenses to be able to own certain ones.
You will never hear the NRA say its time for the liberals to compromise.
In fact have we ever even heard them suggest
repealing a gunlaw?
DOH! What am I thinking if we repeal them we cant exile gunowners with the criminals as we enforce them.
Oh well Im learning slowly but surely.
Should I apologize to anyone in particular if stating the facts to some amounts to NRA bashing.
When you answer that one you can go tell me that Im defending american rights by fighting for the UN while your at it.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Someday my own writing skills my develope.....Problems With Enforcing Existing Anti-gun Laws Miscellaneous

Ask your Congressmen to oppose Clinton's latest anti-gun proposal!

(Thursday, January 27, 2000) -- Well, the President is the latest one to jump on the "let's-just-enforce-the-existing-gun-laws" bandwagon. Last week, he asked Congress to give him 500 new BATF agents and inspectors (!), plus 1,000 more prosecutors focusing on gun crime at all levels. And it is expected that he will renew that call tonight during his State of the Union address.

Gun owners should be the first people to object to this horror. After all, hasn't the gun rights community as a whole OPPOSED every federal gun law that has been passed in the last century as an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment? Haven't we asked the anti-gun Schumers and Clintons of the world "What part of infringed don't you understand?"

So why do some gun owners think it's great that Clinton is now going to enforce these infringements with 500 new BATF agents -- the very agency that is notorious for violating the rights of American gun owners? Consider the BATF's track record over the last 25 years:

* Shredding The Constitution. The BATF "has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. It has offended the fourth amendment . . . [and] ignored the Fifth Amendment." (Source: Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 1982, pp. 22-23.)
* Going After Mom And Pop. "Approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by [BATF] agents into unknowing technical violations." (Ibid., p. 23.)
* Called "Jackbooted American Fascists" By Congressman. "I have described [the BATF] properly as jackbooted American fascists. They have shown no concern over the rights of ordinary citizens or their property. They intrude without the slightest regard or concern." (Source: Rep. John Dingell, Congressional Record, February 8, 1995, p. H1382.)
Let's put the Clinton proposal in perspective. Enforcing the existing anti-gun laws means that average citizens could face the horrors of:

* More Ruby Ridges. Ordinary citizens who make technical (non-violent) infractions-like Randy Weaver did -- can be viciously assaulted and fired upon by federal agents.
* More Wacos. Gun owners who use firearms in self-defense can still be prosecuted in federal court for technical possession charges. That was the lesson of the Waco trial, where the jury effectively ruled the Davidians acted in self-defense -- but then sent many to prison on firearms possession charges!
* Fewer Heroes Like Joel Myrick Of Mississippi. Remember assistant principal Joel Myrick who used his gun to save the lives of several students from a gun-wielding teenager in 1997? Well, more BATF agents means that teachers or assistant principals who keep firearms at school, like Joel Myrick did, could be hauled out of their classrooms and sent to prison for 5 years for the terrible "crime" of simply possessing a firearm. Some teachers have already been dragged out of their classrooms when it was discovered that they possessed a firearm on school property -- even though they only possessed the firearm for self-defense and no violent crime was ever committed.
* More Harassment Of Gun Owners. Del Knudson of Colville, Washington was at work when BATF agents raided his home. Del's wife, Malisa, was bathing their 21-month-old daughter when 30 agents piled out of a van and swarmed over their property. Malisa was forced to come outside in spite of her repeated requests to first get her baby out of the bathtub. For three hours the house was searched and Malisa was interrogated about the family's religious and political views. Agents seized all of Del's firearms, but after finding them all legally owned, they were eventually returned.
* More Entrapments Of Gun Owners. Gun Owners Foundation defended Wayne Scott of Florida, who was arrested on three felony counts under the National Firearms Act. The jury acquitted Scott of all charges and determined that the BATF had employed tactics of entrapment on a law-abiding citizen. The BATF informant was subsequently jailed for attempting to extort money from Scott.
* More Lies, Lies, Lies. The BATF was instrumental in charging Sgt. James Corcoran of the Pennsylvania State Police with "machine gun" offenses. The firearms involved were semi-automatic AR-15 rifles sold by Corcoran. The judge threw the case out after learning that the BATF, not Corcoran, tampered with the rifles, making some of them double fire.
ACTION: Ask your Congressmen to oppose this latest assault on the Second Amendment. Violent crime -- and that includes violent gun crime -- is a state issue. It's not a job for the federal government, at least not constitutionally.

Passing technical gun possession laws only criminalizes good, decent gun owners. That's a problem that we should be working to correct. We should NOT be asking the President to now enforce those unconstitutional laws which, if recent history is any indication, the BATF will spend a good amount of time enforcing against non-violent, decent Americans.

You can reach your Congressmen toll-free at 1-888-449-3511; or at 202-225-3121. Fax and e-mail contact information can be found on the GOA website.

Get Armed With The Facts!
For more examples of BATF abuse -- like the ones mentioned above -- you can order Breaking the Law in the Name of the Law: The BATF Story from Gun Owners Foundation.

This video presentation documents the harassment and intimidation tactics employed by this agency. Live interviews with victims of the persecution reveal the shocking truth about the obvious anti-gun mentality of the bureaucrats, their arrogant disregard of the law, and how they have destroyed the lives of many innocent law-abiding citizens. David Koresh had a copy of this video. He showed it to, among others, the undercover BATF agent in Mt. Carmel. When the BATF went for their search warrant, the affidavit gave as a reason to raid Mt. Carmel that Koresh had this tape!



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top