keep up the good work NRA

[Mad_Squirrell]

NRA Delivers Twelve Big Wins in Congress for America's gun owners--Law prevents the Dept. of Justice from establish a national registry of gun owners or their firearms

[LagerHead]

I know a lot of people out there dislike the NRA but politicians are very wary of voting against them. There's no bigger protector of our 2nd Amendment rights.

[RobertNashville]

I would suggest, respectfully, that there is no "bigger" protector of our second amendment rights but I do think there are better ones which is why I am a member of several pro gun rights groups and suggest others do the same.

When I say "better" I mean organizations that are more consistent in their view of precisely what the second amendment means and more active in trying to restore it that meaning. The NRA has a lot of power/political clout but I think they are often a lot more "accepting" of the status quo than they should be.

[mikegideon]

I would suggest, respectfully, that there is no "bigger" protector of our second amendment rights but I do think there are better ones which is why I am a member of several pro gun rights groups and suggest others do the same.

When I say "better" I mean organizations that are more consistent in their view of precisely what the second amendment means and more active in trying to restore it that meaning. The NRA has a lot of power/political clout but I think they are often a lot more "accepting" of the status quo than they should be.

You gain Power/Political clout by picking your battles and winning consistently. Nothing wrong with supporting other organizations. I guess the NRA could stand their ground on every little issue. Would that make them the Super NRA?

[Guest pfries]

You gain Power/Political clout by picking your battles and winning consistently. Nothing wrong with supporting other organizations. I guess the NRA could stand their ground on every little issue. Would that make them the Super NRA?

Nope,

that would take resources from battles that they can win and make for a less successful record of accomplishment.

[RobertNashville]

You gain Power/Political clout by picking your battles and winning consistently. Nothing wrong with supporting other organizations. I guess the NRA could stand their ground on every little issue. Would that make them the Super NRA?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NRA had nothing to do with bringing the two recent firearms cases to the Supreme Court...they DID jumped on board once the cases got going and they certainly tried to take credit for them but I think they would have been more than happy to have never taken on/supported those cases themselves; they waited for (I think) the GOA to step up to the plate.

I don't consider either of those cases to be a "little issue" and while not "perfect" decisions, they moved the pendulum back at least somewhat to where it belongs.

[mikegideon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NRA had nothing to do with bringing the two recent firearms cases to the Supreme Court...they DID jumped on board once the cases got going and they certainly tried to take credit for them but I think they would have been more than happy to have never taken on/supported those cases themselves; they waited for (I think) the GOA to step up to the plate.

I don't consider either of those cases to be a "little issue" and while not "perfect" decisions, they moved the pendulum back at least somewhat to where it belongs.

I don't know. They seem to be on every significant issue, so I send them money. I don't send them a lot of money, at least not compared to what I send those sorry ass pieces of in Washington.

[Schadenfreude]

If you keep up with all this stuff the nra is always late to the party or actually pushing a bad bill, & yeah they will take credit for something that someone else did. They have become a money organization & they get none of mine.

[mikegideon]

Yeah. This woman hates 'em too...

Take Action - Carolyn McCarthy for Congress

[DRM]

I would suggest, respectfully, that there is no "bigger" protector of our second amendment rights but I do think there are better ones which is why I am a member of several pro gun rights groups and suggest others do the same.

When I say "better" I mean organizations that are more consistent in their view of precisely what the second amendment means and more active in trying to restore it that meaning. The NRA has a lot of power/political clout but I think they are often a lot more "accepting" of the status quo than they should be.

I had hoped that one day, eventually, I would find something you write to be insightful and in full agreement with my own position.

It looks like that day has come.

[Guest PapaB]

... or actually pushing a bad bill, ...

I'm reminded of Tennessee's Castle Doctrine (TCA 39-11-611. Self-defense.) which is a complete mess and isn't much of a true Castle Doctrine.

mikegideon is right when he says

You gain Power/Political clout by picking your battles and winning consistently.

Unfortunately, the NRA seems to get itself into battles it sometimes has to win by allowing garbage to pass. Read TCA 39-11-611. Self-defense as an example. We would have been just as well off to not have their "support" in pushing that through. I've read too many posts on several forums with even more examples of the NRA pushing legislation that looks like it was written with the help of legislators from MA, IL and CA.

In support of the NRA, I can honestly say they are one of the best organizations when it comes to blowing their own horn, as evidenced by the link included in the OP.

[Oh Shoot]

...Unfortunately, the NRA seems to get itself into battles it sometimes has to win by allowing garbage to pass. Read TCA 39-11-611. ....

What sticks in your craw regarding that statute?

- OS

[Makiaveli]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NRA had nothing to do with bringing the two recent firearms cases to the Supreme Court...they DID jumped on board once the cases got going and they certainly tried to take credit for them but I think they would have been more than happy to have never taken on/supported those cases themselves; they waited for (I think) the GOA to step up to the plate.

I don't consider either of those cases to be a "little issue" and while not "perfect" decisions, they moved the pendulum back at least somewhat to where it belongs.

To be fair, do we know if anyone contacted them prior to the cases being filed etc? It's not like they can check every court filing in the US to see if any involve gun rights. Even if they did, they would then have to pay someone to head down there to find out if it was worth getting involved in etc etc.

Not saying they are perfect, just that they aren't omniscient.

What sticks in your craw regarding that statute?

- OS

Seconded, I would like to know as well.

[Warbird]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the NRA had nothing to do with bringing the two recent firearms cases to the Supreme Court...they DID jumped on board once the cases got going and they certainly tried to take credit for them but I think they would have been more than happy to have never taken on/supported those cases themselves; they waited for (I think) the GOA to step up to the plate.

I don't consider either of those cases to be a "little issue" and while not "perfect" decisions, they moved the pendulum back at least somewhat to where it belongs.

Yes you would be wrong. The NRA was involved in both cases, and heavily so. I won't go into the details of Heller, but some disagreed with some of the NRA's involvement. However I will say it came to the court at the proper time and not before. The NRA was involved in more ways than most other organizations as well. Most only wrote an Amicus brief to the case.

The McDonald came about as the result of two different cases filed against Chicago laws at nearly the same time. In the end those cases were rolled into one before the appellate courts. In the McDonald case, not only was the NRA involved with the preparation of the case, but also argued the case before the court. There were two basic arguments made in support of McDonald. One was argued by the NRA in support of the issue based on the 14th Amendment and Incorporation. The second argument was made by Alan Guira. He argued for McDonald to also be based upon the privileges and immunities clause.

In the end all 5 justices deciding in support said they found the 14th incorporation argument to be the most compelling, though Thomas was clear to also mention he supported the argument based on privileges and immunities. In truth I supported the P&I argument as well, though felt the court would never step that far and would likely find the 14th the easiest way to decide in favor of McDonald. In the end though it helped to have both arguments laid out before the court.

[Guest PapaB]

What sticks in your craw regarding that statute?

- OS

Several things including the unneccesary wordyness (the Constitution was written in plain language, why aren't current laws), the defining of certain things, causing others to be left out and the way it weakens our right to life and liberty. As an example, they define vehicle so narrowly that they leave out atv's and utv's which are commonly used on many farms and ranches. Some of the wording is so vague they still leave too much to the prosecutors discretion.

Much of what was said could have been deleted by a statement similar to; "We affirm the right of the individual to protect the sanctity of their life, or that of another, whenever and wherever that life might be threatened by death or severe bodily injury as long as said individual is not in the process of committing an unlawful act or at a location they have no legal right to access." This would have fit with State and Federal Constitutions and done away with the need to include definitions of vehicle, dwelling, residence, business and curtilage. The entire bill could likely have been written in 12 lines or less. The whole idea of the castle doctrine is to acknowlege our right to protect our life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness wherever we might legally be.

[Oh Shoot]

... The whole idea of the castle doctrine is to acknowlege our right to protect our life, liberty and/or pursuit of happiness wherever we might legally be.

Well, no, it isn't. "Castle" obviously refers to your abode, otherwise it would be called the "Everywhere Doctrine", eh?

The "vehicle" designation is a surprising addition to it actually, since you can't even legally carry armed in your vehicle without a permit.

- OS

[Guest PapaB]

Well, no, it isn't. "Castle" obviously refers to your abode, otherwise it would be called the "Everywhere Doctrine", eh?

The "vehicle" designation is a surprising addition to it actually, since you can't even legally carry armed in your vehicle without a permit.

- OS

Point taken. I should have said wherever we might legally be on our property. The term castle doctrine doesn't just refer to our abode necessarily. In days of old a castle was more like a walled city with many buildings and land inside the walls, not just the large building in which the owner resided. I consider my fields to be a part of my castle as much as my house, garage and barn. Our current castle doctrine covers those buildings with roofs but is written in a way that doesn't cover buildings in certain stages of construction. It also doesn't cover open decks (it specifies roofed porches) swimming pools and certain other areas.

[Oh Shoot]

Point taken. I should have said wherever we might legally be on our property. The term castle doctrine doesn't just refer to our abode necessarily. In days of old a castle was more like a walled city with many buildings and land inside the walls, not just the large building in which the owner resided. I consider my fields to be a part of my castle as much as my house, garage and barn. Our current castle doctrine covers those buildings with roofs but is written in a way that doesn't cover buildings in certain stages of construction. It also doesn't cover open decks (it specifies roofed porches) swimming pools and certain other areas.

Your point taken also.

On the third hand (you do have one, right? ) granting the presumption of good shoot for anyone trespassing on your land at all seems a little beyond the pale, too. See a kid with his dog wandering through and shoot him? Neighbor picking up a stray frisbee? Surely you don't propose going that far?

The blanket presumption of "reasonable fear for you life" makes sense inside your abode, not so much outside of it, seems to me.

- OS

[Guest PapaB]

Your point taken also.

On the third hand (you do have one, right? ) granting the presumption of good shoot for anyone trespassing on your land at all seems a little beyond the pale, too. See a kid with his dog wandering through and shoot him? Neighbor picking up a stray frisbee? Surely you don't propose going that far?

The blanket presumption of "reasonable fear for you life" makes sense inside your abode, not so much outside of it, seems to me.

- OS

No, I don't propose anything even close to that. A lawyer familiar with this law told me that, because of some of the qualifiers, it's actually worse for the homeowner in some ways. As an example, it's says

who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered

so, if someone has broken in your door and the homeowner shoots them before they complete the act of entering, they can be prosecuted. I don't think a prosecutor would take that case very often but they can if they choose to because of poorly written wording. At my house there's an open porch covered with a roof at one door and an open deck at the other. A homeowner protecting their family would have to wait until the threat was inside the house if they were at one door, but could stop a threat from entering at the other door. I consider that to be the ridiculous result of a poorly written law. If the threat came through the bedroom window you'd have to wait until they got in, you can't legally stop them from entering under this law. The blanket presumption of "reasonable fear for you life" doesn't take effect until after they are under roof.

On open areas of your land, where you might be out caring for livestock, you have to wait until you're injured to show reasonable fear, unless the bad guy is nice enough to have a deadly weapon with him. If they're bigger and stronger than you, and committing a crime (other than just trespassing), you can't assume an attack is going to cause serious bodily harm. As the law is written, you have to wait and see. The law doesn't say that, but it is the effect none the less.