General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe NRA might be replaced by the Firearms Policy Coalition.
Plenty of gun owners are tired of the NRA's sucking up to the Republicans (and
the cultural warfare that goes with it), and some groups of gun owners
and industry types are finally doing something about it.
However, gun control advocates shouldn't jump for joy just yet-
The coaltion of groups that make up the FPC have a better track record
at winning court cases and getting less-restrictive firearms laws passed than
the NRA has of late
http://www.firearmspolicy.org/
What makes FPC so different? Our product. Put simply, FPC delivers. From landmark federal lawsuits like D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago to our highly-successful STOP SB 249 Campaign to stop a new gun ban in California, our Coalition members all have something in common: defending Second Amendment rights – your rights – has been and will forever remain the priority.
http://www.firearmspolicy.org/about/
Firearms Policy Coalition is effective and modern Second Amendment advocacy.
Technology provides an opportunity for gun owners to more easily make their voice heard by policymakers, the media, and others within our culture. In an age where families connect on Facebook and news breaks first on Twitter, we simply cannot rely on an inefficient, decades-old model of firearms policy activism and a tired, partisan message. That’s why we created FPC: it’s time to move our cause – and our culture – forward.
Our fundamental right to keep and bear arms is not determined or qualified by race, class, wealth, or political affiliation.
A project of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and The Calguns Foundation (CGF), the Coalition strives to offer a modern, effective vehicle for advocacy, education, and grassroots advocacy for our Second Amendment civil rights.
I, for one, would be quite happy to see the political wing of the NRA go the way of the Whigs
or the Know-Nothings- however, I will wait and see before joining the FPC.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Terrorist organizations like the NRA always do things like this.
but they are transparent.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...has been the subject of at least one determined attempt to portray him as a liberal.
However, you have not given any evidence that the NRA is behind the FPC. Perhaps you could
use your sources at the College of It Stands To Reason and get some for us?
TIA!....
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I leave it to you to answer that it is not the same.
Because it really matters little to me.
Meek Mike. He slew the NRA.
The NRA is now like the Knights who say Ni. They keep spewing but they are yesterday's news.
It takes decades for a seed to grow into a majestic redwood
You can call Mike Bloomberg all the names you want.
He don't give a spit what people call him
His billions in charity for liberal causes show the real man.
Nothing a gun fan would say to distort it matters at all.
As he is not running for anything, nor is he a coward like the NRA poster boy Zimmerman is,
Mike stands tall. He slew the gunslinger.
And of course those that call him names, would call him names.
the seed has been planted.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Redwood_National_Park,_fog_in_the_forest.jpg/284px-Redwood_National_Park,_fog_in_the_forest.jpg[/img]
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)He is not running for anything.
New York soon will have a new mayor, Christine Quinn, setting history in being the first out Gay mayor in NY and first female mayor.
At which time, a bored billionaire can sit in his command central and let his people deliver his money to finance any and all candidates who are against gun control
As a private citizen.
see, Kris Kristofferson said and might have been thinking of Mike Bloomberg, or perhaps not
but Kris said (c)Kristofferson "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
and Mike is free, because he has nothing left to lose, as he is no longer running for office.
Yet he has 100s of billions to use in his fight to make the streets safe and to have one less funeral of anyone killed by gunfire.
The seed is planted.
And Trayvon Martin will not have died in vain.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It wouldn't be one iota more obsequious than calling him "the Great Equalizer"
BTW, will he be conferring with his predecessor Rudy Giuliani? They share the
same views on gun control and civil liberties...
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)BTW-the sheriffs in the old wild wild west banned all guns in the streets of their towns.
Stopped the shoot em ups dead cold that way.
I don't hear the gun folk talk about that though.
Rock
Paper
Scissor
Match
the match strikes the spark
the scissor cuts the issue to the bone
the rock is crushed by the paper
the paper being both the brains and the currency that financed the revolt against the NRA and any new named agency that props up
and you can take it to the bank
because Meek Mike is not running for anything.
Therefore it matters little what anyone says against him politically or personally
it is just school park bloviating
because he doesn't care what gun funs will say to him
he is
The Great Equalizer
protecting Truth, Justice and the world against the Zimmerman's out there.
GrayCoyote
(7 posts)BTW-the sheriffs in the old wild wild west banned all guns in the streets of their towns.
Stopped the shoot em ups dead cold that way.
I don't hear the gun folk talk about that though.
No, it just made the cowboys carry concealed derringers rather than open carry single action revolvers.
You realize that the touchstone time for the 2nd amendment right is in 1791 in the Ohio territory (1791 was when the amendment was ratified), not in the 1880's. No populated towns & villages in 1791 in the Ohio territory had bans total on the possession & carrying of firearms, at all. The lack of lawsuit against Tombstone, Arizona was due to numerous factors in terms of federal judicial availability. People just didn't march into court in that era in the frontier west. However, in 1991, 3 residents of Tombstone sued in state court to strike down Tombstone's ban on carrying openly (the state prohibited concealed carry at the time). The state district court struck down the law, the city appealed it to the AZ Court of Appeals, but eventually reached a settlement with the residents & repealed the law. The lawsuit used Arizona Constitutional provisions, to read:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men
In the lack of lawsuits in Deadwood SD & Dodge City KS had more to do with three Supreme Court cases which wrongly interpreted the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states: The Slaughterhouse cases, United States v. Cruikshank, and Presser v. Illinois. Those cases essentially made the entirety of the 14th amendment a nullity, and at that time, no right, including 1A, applied to the states.
It wasn't until about 30-40 years after that decision did the Supreme Court start reversing itself and engaging in selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. In a 1A context, it started with Gitlow v. New York in 1925.
GrayCoyote
(7 posts)Terrorist organizations like the NRA always do things like this.
but they are transparent.
You would actually be wrong. The Firearms Policy Coalition is actually made up of groups that have tangled in opposition to the NRA-ILA (the lobbying wing of the NRA) numerous times. For example, District of Columbia v. Heller, the original case which cleared up the 2nd amendment's application to individuals, was bitterly opposed by the National Rifle Association and was subject to one attempt at taking over the Heller (which at the time was called Parker v. District of Columbia).
....At the same time, Halbrook also filed a motion to “consolidate” his case with Gura’s. Consolidation is a legal procedure whereby two separate cases are joined together for one trial, before the same judge, because they raise similar issues. By trying to consolidate the two cases, the NRA was trying to hijack Gura’s case and force the court to consider the trap door claims. To Gura, it was obvious that the NRA was “frustrated by” his “unwillingness to adopt its recommendations.” So the NRA “decided to take matters into its own hands.”
Gura filed a motion with the court opposing consolidation of the two cases. Court filings are usually sedate, but Gura’s anger was palpable. The NRA’s effort was “untimely, ill-conceived and inappropriate,” Gura told the
court. Not only were the two cases substantively different—the trap door claims wouldn’t have to be addressed in Gura’s suit—but the NRA’s case was really just “sham litigation.” Gura’s motion said the Seegars case was “motivated not by a bona fide desire” to challenge the D.C. gun laws, “but by the improper strategic goals of . . . the National Rifle Association.”34 In July 2003, the district court judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, agreed that the two cases should not be consolidated.
The NRA, of course, was not known for backing down from a fight. It hadn’t become a political powerhouse by accepting “no” for an answer. If the NRA couldn’t kill Gura’s lawsuit in court, it would simply move the clash to a battlefield where the NRA had a long track record of success: Capitol Hill. A week after Judge Sullivan decided not to join together the two cases, the NRA had Senator Orrin Hatch, one of its staunchest allies in Washington, introduce a bill in Congress designed to render the Gura lawsuit moot. Dubbed the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,” Hatch’s bill would overturn the D.C. gun laws and permit District residents to possess handguns. If passed, Gura’s case would be thrown out of court, and there would be no Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.
....
“Essentially, the NRA is saying, ‘If we can’t control the litigation, there won’t be any litigation.’” In Levy’s view, Hatch’s proposal was a bad idea on the merits. While it would give D.C. residents access to firearms for self-defense, the law could be reversed by a more liberal Congress in future years. A ruling by the Supreme Court was more durable.36 While the
Winkler, Adam (2011-09-12). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (p. 59-62). Norton. Kindle Edition.
NRA-ILA tried to kill the case that would have protected 2A at least some ways that the NRA wanted, taking "confiscation of handguns" off of the table. The real reason the NRA-ILA wanted to kill lawsuit was to make sure the donation spigot stream wasn't effected. Basically, the FPC is the opposition to the NRA, the more legalistically minded rather than politically minded organization, and not a Christian Dominionist Front Group like GOA (Gun Owners of America). When they say "away from partisan politics", they mean not being so tied into Republican politics, and more willingness to use the court system effectively to stop legislation from taking effect.
Also, in addition: FPC's coalition organizations don't have anyone on their boards are:
1) A washed up has been rock star who shat his pants to avoid serving in Vietnam, bangs girls under age of consent, calls women "c-nts", and does illegal hunting.
2) A former Secretary of State who did everything to screw up the vote in 2004 in Ohio
3) A guy who helped set up the Iran-Contra dealings (Ollie North)
4) A woman who is on-again/off-again a state lobbyist for the National Organization for Marriage.
5) A man who directly called gay people degenerates.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)The NRA will be the only game in town.
As much as some argue or try to deny it , they are a very powerful lobby group in Washington.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And not unimportantly, the FPC does not (AFAIK) have a statutory rapist/poacher for a
spokesperson and board member, nor do they obviously slobber over Republicans.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you have no right to trample on MY first amendment rights.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I haven't noticed you scurrying around.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Can you explain?
arthritisR_US
(7,282 posts)that is the antithesis to their intent 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)it's just rebranding
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...you are not the person who was asked the question.
GrayCoyote
(7 posts)Just like them to change the name to something
that is the antithesis to their intent
You would actually be wrong. The Firearms Policy Coalition is actually made up of groups that have tangled in opposition to the NRA-ILA (the lobbying wing of the NRA) numerous times. For example, District of Columbia v. Heller, the original case which cleared up the 2nd amendment's application to individuals, was bitterly opposed by the National Rifle Association and was subject to one attempt at taking over the Heller (which at the time was called Parker v. District of Columbia).
....At the same time, Halbrook also filed a motion to “consolidate” his case with Gura’s. Consolidation is a legal procedure whereby two separate cases are joined together for one trial, before the same judge, because they raise similar issues. By trying to consolidate the two cases, the NRA was trying to hijack Gura’s case and force the court to consider the trap door claims. To Gura, it was obvious that the NRA was “frustrated by” his “unwillingness to adopt its recommendations.” So the NRA “decided to take matters into its own hands.”
Gura filed a motion with the court opposing consolidation of the two cases. Court filings are usually sedate, but Gura’s anger was palpable. The NRA’s effort was “untimely, ill-conceived and inappropriate,” Gura told the
court. Not only were the two cases substantively different—the trap door claims wouldn’t have to be addressed in Gura’s suit—but the NRA’s case was really just “sham litigation.” Gura’s motion said the Seegars case was “motivated not by a bona fide desire” to challenge the D.C. gun laws, “but by the improper strategic goals of . . . the National Rifle Association.”34 In July 2003, the district court judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, agreed that the two cases should not be consolidated.
The NRA, of course, was not known for backing down from a fight. It hadn’t become a political powerhouse by accepting “no” for an answer. If the NRA couldn’t kill Gura’s lawsuit in court, it would simply move the clash to a battlefield where the NRA had a long track record of success: Capitol Hill. A week after Judge Sullivan decided not to join together the two cases, the NRA had Senator Orrin Hatch, one of its staunchest allies in Washington, introduce a bill in Congress designed to render the Gura lawsuit moot. Dubbed the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,” Hatch’s bill would overturn the D.C. gun laws and permit District residents to possess handguns. If passed, Gura’s case would be thrown out of court, and there would be no Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.
....
“Essentially, the NRA is saying, ‘If we can’t control the litigation, there won’t be any litigation.’” In Levy’s view, Hatch’s proposal was a bad idea on the merits. While it would give D.C. residents access to firearms for self-defense, the law could be reversed by a more liberal Congress in future years. A ruling by the Supreme Court was more durable.36 While the
Winkler, Adam (2011-09-12). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (p. 59-62). Norton. Kindle Edition.
NRA-ILA tried to kill the case that would have protected 2A at least some ways that the NRA wanted, taking "confiscation of handguns" off of the table. It was all about protecting NRA's fundraising, in reality. Basically, the FPC is the opposition to the NRA, the more legalistically minded rather than politically minded organization, and not a Christian Dominionist Front Group like GOA (Gun Owners of America). When they say "away from partisan politics", they mean not being so tied into Republican politics, and more willingness to use the court system effectively to stop legislation from taking effect.
Also, in addition: FPC's coalition organizations don't have anyone on their boards are:
1) A washed up has been rock star who shat his pants to avoid serving in Vietnam, bangs girls under age of consent, calls women "c-nts", and does illegal hunting.
2) A former Secretary of State who did everything to screw up the vote in 2004 in Ohio
3) A guy who helped set up the Iran-Contra dealings (Ollie North)
4) A woman who is on-again/off-again a state lobbyist for the National Organization for Marriage.
5) A man who directly called gay people degenerates.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...the FPC could be very powerful indeed.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)arthritisR_US
(7,282 posts)ignorance got the better of me and I apologize. 
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)toward pro-2A folks in the last two weeks, it was pretty mild!
Paladin
(28,241 posts)Policy-wise, there doesn't appear to be a dime's worth of difference between this new organization and what we've been saddled with for decades. Looking forward to the FPC putting out a comic book; the NRA's was hilarious, in a very sick way.....
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)sails of half the anitigun movement.
I have a fiver that says the NRA will help them along by airing their differences publicly- they never were very good at thinking outside their bubble.
Paladin
(28,241 posts)On what solar system is THAT going to happen? If not for the constant enabling of right wing politicians over the years (and some originalist Supreme Court justices), the NRA would still be a marksmanship and gun safety organization, without enough power to set off a small pistol primer. The statements from this new outfit may be a little more soothing in tone, but they are partisan to the hilt. Let's not be naive, OK?
And tell us all, if you will, about those "differences" that the NRA is going to help air out. There may be some "cosmetic" differences---you know, kind of like those little things that make a Remington 700 .223 different from a Bushmaster AR-15 .223, those "cosmetics" that you gun activists have been talking about so much, lately---but there don't appear to be any fundamental policy differences between the two organizations. Enlighten us all if that's not the case.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What the FPC says may, in fact, be only fine words- but the point is, they've said it
and that will count to a greater or lesser degree in purple states and districts.
You know, you lot might take a lesson from them and explicitly renounce the complete
firearms prohibition that some are advocating...
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)The main difference I see is that SAF does not speak to any political issue other than RKBA. They don't send me mailings about how "socialism" is going to kill us all, they don't publish partisan comments by members, they don't conflate 2A advocacy with the Republican party, etc. I pay them to go to court and keep me informed, and they do it. Level heads are in charge, and they are focused on a single goal, and don't tolerate distractions that could divide their membership.
NRA is run by a Who's Who of dirtbags who can't keep their mouths shut about how much they hate Democrats in general. When I was a member (one year, then I let it lapse and told them never to contact me again), their magazines and mailings were filled with stories, editorials, and reader comments that made it clear that NRA considers itself an all-purpose Republican club. They didn't hesitate to comment on whatever issue they thought would gin up the hard-right base that finds all that extraneous blathering right up their alley.
The statements from this new outfit may be a little more soothing in tone, but they are partisan to the hilt.
The FPC's founding coalition organizations are in blue states like Washington State & California. NRA is based in Virginia, which despite voting in presidential elections blue, tends to elect social conservative GOP crazies who support womb-controlling & rape using ultrasound equipment before being allowed to access the fundamental right to terminate pregnancy.
Support of unconstitutional forms of gun control, and gun ownership rights, are not a partisan issue. Republicans in California, for example, are the reason why many gun control laws were passed in the 1960's against the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (afterwards, COINTELPRO and other J.E. Hoover plans disrupted the BPP). Reagan signed the law to target the Black Panther Party (the Mulford Act).
Elements of the NRA, and the Republican conservative establishment, pushed for gun control when it was the people they perceived as left having the guns. That haunts both the GOP & the NRA to this day.
Principled and legal opposition to certain forms of gun control does not denote being a Republican or Democrat. Only people who believe that have caricatures in mind.
Paladin
(28,241 posts)I looked over this new group's site and I saw the same NRA-style bullshit: Uncompromising support for the LaPierre/Scalia/DU Gungeon version of the Second Amendment, and vicious trashing of Democratic politicians who fail to support such an outlook.
And from my standpoint there isn't any comfort to be derived from a new pro-gun outfit arising, if it is caused by the radical gun militancy movement starting to realize the obvious: that the NRA in its current, odious makeup, is going to be an increasing liability. As a long-time gun control advocate, I want shitheads like LaPierre and Nugent as figureheads for the opposition. I'm encouraged by the initial signs that this new group is just the NRA with a slightly better-tailored suit. And any notion that gun control, one of the most divisive political issues in this nation's history, is suddenly going to be rendered non-partisan by a more skillful tap dance, is ridiculous.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)NRA is so nauseatingly extreme, and yet they completely ignore the states that could benefit from their resources. SAF, on the other hand, has been kicking ass and taking names all over the place. Gura is a rock star around here.
Just one example that's always pissed me off: The NRA affiliate here, the Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association, claims to be the "flagship gun rights group" in the state, and politically active. During the 2012 regular session, when there were several gun bills that needed citizen participation, MSRPA literally did nothing. Nothing. All they do is organize pissant competition matches and get donations from people too dumb to realize what a fraud they are. All the legislative activity and outreach were done by Maryland Shall Issue and the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore. Still, when people think "gun rights" they automatically think "Oh! NRA!"
Here's hoping FPC can put those charlatans in their place.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)
...if they are smart enough to use it -and I think they are.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)The original composition of the task force was two law enforcement reps, four mental health reps, five legal reps, and an NRA rep. We managed to get the NRA stooge thrown out replace with TWO local gun rights reps, plus two more law enforcement reps and another legal rep. NRA is so completely out of touch with Maryland gun owners and voters that they have no right to speak for us. Not on a task force, not in Congress, not anywhere. They can eat shit.
