NRA Threatens Senators On Sotomayor

[tucsonlib]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/51488867.html

The National Rifle Association is warning senators that it will consider their votes on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as part of its influential annual ratings of lawmakers.

The NRA's opposition to Sotomayor is based solely on a ruling in one particular case (U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, 2004) in which she wrote “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

So, apparently the NRA is claiming that possessing a gun is a fundamental right? We're born with a fundamental right to own certain objects?

What if the Bose Corporation claimed that since there's a fundamental right to free speech, it followed that everyone has a fundamental right to possess a Bose P.A. System?


:crazy:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. The NRA makes me sick nt

[sharp_stick]

2. I'd be utterly amazed

if any Senator concerned about the ratings of the NRA would vote for her in the first place. The NRA has a death grip on any Senator, especially South of the Mason/Dixon they won't take a dump without a go ahead from Wayne La Pierre the prick.

Fuck em all, I personally despise anyone that gives the NRA rating a second look.

[glinda]

4. NRA membership about 4 million. USA population over 300 million. The NRA

has too much power for a minority to say anything about major issues regarding firearms.

[gorfle]

10. What other interest group...

What other interest group has as many motivated, voting, money-spending citizens in its ranks? The AARP is about the only one that comes to mind.

The only reason why the NRA has so much power is because there is no organized, funded group to counter it - because there aren't enough interested people to form one.

[iverglas]

20. ah, conflation, conflation

THE NRA has dues-paying members and provides services to its members and the public.

THE NRA-ILA is a political lobby group that rates politicians and engages in various other strongarm tactics.

To pretend that THE NRA's membership has any say over what THE NRA-ILA does is to encourage people to believe something that is false.

[gorfle]

24. Ah, semantics, semantics.

Everyone knows the NRA-ILA is simply the political activist wing of the NRA, and was set up solely to dodge the campaign contribution and free speech obstacles people tried to throw in front of the NRA.

If the NRA membership ranks shrank, it would affect the NRA-ILA.

I suspect the primary reason people belong to the NRA is to support the NRA-ILA.

[iverglas]

26. suspect indeed

Your entire post, that is. Fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy ...

Look up "semantics" some day, will ya?

Maybe when you get around to looking up "inalienable" ...

[gorfle]

29. I think this says it all.

http://tinyurl.com/n66cpd

[AtheistCrusader]

56. When I was a member

It was only for access to a particular rifle range that required it. I am no longer a member.

(Who the hell joins to support the NRA-ILA? Anyone? HEY! I know, another poll topic!)

[gorfle]

61. Lots of people.

(Who the hell joins to support the NRA-ILA? Anyone? HEY! I know, another poll topic!)

I joined the NRA so I would have a voice in Congress to represent my firearms interests.

[tucsonlib]

68. Re: I joined the NRA so I would have...

"...a voice in Congress to represent my firearms interests."

Oh! We didn't know! Are you the famous Gorfle Smith, or the famous Gorfle Wesson? Gorfle Heckler? Gorfle Koch?




:rofl:

[tucsonlib]

70. Of Course! I Shoulda Guessed!

Gorfle Glock!

[AtheistCrusader]

74. That's 'Gaston'.

Gaston Glock.


What's a gorfle? Onomatopoeia?

[tucsonlib]

78. Gaston and Gorfle

The Glock Sisters

One builds great pistols. The other posts comments on DU.

[gorfle]

87. There might be a few.

Oh! We didn't know! Are you the famous Gorfle Smith, or the famous Gorfle Wesson? Gorfle Heckler? Gorfle Koch?

I have no doubt that lots of people in the firearm industry belong to the NRA. Perhaps there are several thousand of them.

Of course there are four million NRA members. Which means most of them aren't affiliated with the industry. I am not affiliated with the firearms industry.

[tucsonlib]

67. Re: Who the hell joins to support the NRA-ILA? Anyone?

Now you've done it. You've opened the Gates of Hell........


:yoiks:

[AtheistCrusader]

73. No worries.

I happily go, where if angels existed, they would fear to tread.

:freak:

[tucsonlib]

77. Brave Chap!

:patriot:

[iverglas]

91. yes, but

how many of you can dance on the point of a pin??

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Exactly one.

[glinda]

35. yeah and AARP sold out to United. Sold it's members a piece of goods.

[eqfan592]

37. NRA membership is only 4 million, but gun owners in America...

...is somewhere around 45% of the population. A minority, but hardly a small one. And I'm willing to bet that most of those support the NRA to one extent or another, though perhaps not on every cause. Though I personally don't support any organization 100% of the time, tbh.

[tucsonlib]

69. Count Me Out

I'm a gun owner, and I don't support the NRA. Not even to one extent. Nor to any other. Why? Mostly because they give gun owners like myself a bad name. And because I'll never support any group which has to stoop to fear-mongering in order to advance its agenda.

[eqfan592]

71. So then you must not support the Dems....

...because they have, in fact, done this very thing when it has served their purpose (for instance, with gun control). So I guess we won't be seeing you around these parts any more tucson. Too bad.....

"Fear-mongering" is a political tactic that is used almost across the board by political groups. Some of the fear they are trying to excite is not entirely invalid, other times it's off the wall ridiculous. I won't say I support everything the NRA does, but I won't condemn them as 100% evil and wrong either. But they are certainly more on the ball than org's like the VPC and the Brady Campaign.

Giving your general support for a group does not equate to supporting 100% of that groups actions. I give the NRA my general support.

[tucsonlib]

76. Re: I won't say I support everything the NRA does

If could find any positive things they've done (Aside from gun safety programs and the like), well, I could still think of a couple dozen organizations more deserving of my support.

Recently, they have, it's true, been in large part responsible for the bare shelves in my local gun shops and the massive price increases for ammunition. But since that translated into huge profits for their corporate masters, they succeeded where it mattered. Of course, ask them or their more rabid supporters, and they'll be happy to explain that it was all Obama's fault!

No thanks. Hitler kept the trains running on time and built the autobahn, but I still wouldn't have joined his party.

[eqfan592]

81. lol, wow, you just dropped the "Hitler" bomb in a most...unusal place.

There's for certain a level of irony there, given the org you are attempting to relate him to. I wonder if you'll see it?

Anyway, the NRA's job is to make people aware of the potential threats to gun owners rights. Like it or not, the Obama administration does have a stated goal to do many things that gun owners do NOT support, perhaps on the top of that list being the reinstatement of the failed experiment that was the AWB. This is also a part of the party platform as a whole. Honestly, the NRA wouldn't have even needed to exist to drive the crazy sales on firearms that took place after the election. Shockingly enough, most gun owners are actually intelligent enough to read at a high enough level to understand things like the Democratic Party platform. And when they read that the AWB is something they want to reinstate, AND they see the Dems in control of everything, they are going to go on a spending frenzy while they still can.

You are basically stating the following. You don't like the NRA and other gun owners for telling people that the Dems may attempt to ram through some very harsh firearms policy, as if this wasn't the case, while these policies are listed clearly in the party platform. You may as well condemn a group of people for stating that the sky is blue.

It's ironic to me to see so many people make fun of gun owners because they think we fear them "taking our guns away" when in the very next breath they will say "we should take their guns away."

[tucsonlib]

83. Re: You don't like the NRA and other gun owners...

..for telling people that the Dems may attempt to ram through some very harsh firearms policy, as if this wasn't the case, while these policies are listed clearly in the party platform.

No, I mostly don't like the NRA because of the hypocrisy of their claiming to represent rank-n-file gun owners. That, and the way they rely on fear and paranoia to keep their followers agitated. They've used the same stale words and tactics for decades. It's funny, but during those dark eight years of the Clinton Administration I didn't have to turn in a single one of my guns. But I do recall a similar run on guns and ammo immediately following his election. The Obama administration also won't be acomin' for our guns. Nor will his successors. Trust me. They won't. But the NRA will be there to see to it that firearms and ammo keep sailin' off the shelves.

And the money will keep rollin' in......

[E-Mag]

85. No siezure but during Clinton we did stop the manufacture of...

... certain guns with "Evil" features. This is what swelled the NRA ranks originally. I wonder why you think the NRA is paranoid when the Obama platform stated that they wanted to make the ban permanent (BTW it still does)

"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

[iverglas]

100. maybe someone will tell eqfan592 for me

lol, wow, you just dropped the "Hitler" bomb in a most...unusal place.

that some people may have more reason for dropping it than others, and that they might not be too impressed by anyone's lectures about where to drop it.

And he just never knows when he might be talking to such a person.

I can sure think of some people who could benefit from his lectures about the propriety of using Hitler to advance their arguments though. Probably a few right here in this forum.

[eqfan592]

3. Last time I checked....

...the constitution does protect a fundamental right to keep arms. All guns are arms (and guns were in existence back then, in case you didn't know). Unless you want to argue that people "keeping" something does not equate to ownership of that thing. That's a different argument all together, and I honestly think it's purely semantics at best.

[tucsonlib]

5. Where In The 2A Did You Find The Word "Fundamental"? n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. The bill of rights is outlined as a "government-can-not-do" list

where it enumerates several inalienable rights. Specifically, the 2A limits the power of the government to restrict these preexisting rights (fundamental, inalienable, natural, ...whatever you want to call them).

Related but additional, the 2nd amendment affirms the individual citizens' right to protect their life, liberty, and property against unlawful violations whether by individuals or government. All people have a fundamental right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - hence the federal recognition of RKBA is essential to fundamental rights making ownership an implied right, if not a fundamental right itself.

--------------

Your statement, 'Where In The 2A Did You Find The Word "Fundamental"?' is about as intelligent a question as people who make similar statements regarding abortion, gay marriage, etc...

"Where in the __ Amendment do you find the word "_______"? :puke:

[LAGC]

16. Its about the 14th Amendment, not just the 2nd.

Clearly Sotomayor doesn't respect the 2A as being "fundamental" -- in legal terms meaning incorporation of a right to the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment -- she's saying the Second Amendment only prevents the Federal government from banning arms, but not the states. That's a very dangerous precedent to take, because if we don't extend the Second Amendment to prevent the States from overriding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, what about the First and Fourth Amendments? Can a state ban free speech? Allow unreasonable searches and seizures? A real slippery slope she's ruled on...

[X_Digger]

31. Incorporation is your friend..

.. selective incorporation is a bit of a morass with some parts of some amendments being protected from the state with others not.

Interesting blog post I read recently re the Slaughterhouse cases (basis for selective incorporation):

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/might-it-happen-slaughterhouse-overruled/

[slackmaster]

6. They're out of touch with reality on this one

Judge Sotomayor is well-qualified for the position. President Obama has a right, and an obligation, to appoint people to the SC as he sees fit.

[gorfle]

8. I don't think they are out of touch at all.

They are keeping perfectly true to form and to their goal - protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

Without context, I can't make much of Sotomayer's comment above, but it does sound damning. This, combined with her tapdancing when questioned on whether there is a right to self-defense or not, makes me strongly suspect she will be no proponent of the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA agrees, and will make a note of which Senators do not.

[tucsonlib]

14. Their Goal?

Only in the gullible minds of their most naive dues-paying members is their goal "protecting the right to keep and bear arms".

To the rest of us it's blatantly obvious that their raison d'etre is to increase sales and profits for gun and ammo manufacturers by keeping the fires of fear and paranoia well stoked.

[gorfle]

17. I am so sick of this argument.

To the rest of us it's blatantly obvious that their raison d'etre is to increase sales and profits for gun and ammo manufacturers by keeping the fires of fear and paranoia well stoked.

The NRA has some FOUR MILLION MEMBERS.

MOST OF THEM DON'T WORK IN THE FIREARM INDUSTRY, as it only employs, at best, a few thousand people.

Do you really think that all of us are paying our dues to increase sales and profits for gun and ammo manufacturers?

Of course not. The NRA is the largest, most effective pro-firearm legislative lobbying group in existence. Everyone knows it. Anyone who wants to see their pro-firearm interests represented in Congress belong to the NRA.

[tucsonlib]

22. Re: Do you really think......

....that all of us are paying our dues to increase sales and profits for gun and ammo manufacturers?

Yes. You've just been led to believe you aren't.


And Scientology has some EIGHT MILLION MEMBERS. So what's your point?


:silly:

[gorfle]

25. Right.

....that all of us are paying our dues to increase sales and profits for gun and ammo manufacturers?

Yes. You've just been led to believe you aren't.

Right. We've all just been lead to believe a fantasy that politicians live in dread of the NRA. If they were as impotent as you would have us believe there wouldn't be so many howlers about them. You need only listen to the quotes of the politicians themselves about the NRA to see that their influence in congress is anything but a "belief".

Besides - what's good for the firearm and ammunition industry is good for me. If sales of firearms and ammunition are robust, it means lots of people are freely exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Works for me.

And Scientology has some EIGHT MILLION MEMBERS. So what's your point?

My point is that there are far more members than there could possibly be people with connections to the firearm or ammunition industries. To claim that we are all members out of concern for the industry is ludicrous.

[tucsonlib]

42. And My Point Was Never....

that your four million members all had "connections to the firearm or ammunition industries".

My point is that it's not uncommon for millions of people to be duped into supporting an organization because of its professed goals, while turning a blind eye to its actual goals.

[JPK]

45. Re: NRA intentions

I'm not a member, I don't own a firearm unless a pellet gun falls into that category. The 2nd Amendment is pretty specific in what its intent is. While I do not own a firearm I do believe the 2nd A is an important part of the Constitution and obviously put there because of the history of the British occupation prior to independence and the intent of not having a populace that could be helpless in the event of political upheaval or facing a hostile invading force. That is 18th century thought though. Anyone thinking this country, in todays world, could be invaded and taken over is really out of touch with reality. Abe Lincoln said it best.....if this country were to fail it will be because of internal problems, not from foreign shores. What bothers me about the NRA and organizations of their ilk and political leanings is that they feel the need to tell half truths or even outright lie as they have and are doing with Sotomayor. They have taken one ruling and run with it not even qualifying why she had to make the decision she did. Her hands were basicly tied by precedent law. If they were a truly stand up organization they would present not only her decision but give a complete legal explanation as to why it was made so their members can make an educated evaluation of her and not just a she's a lefty that wants to take our guns away judge. I think the majority of their members have at best a HS education so their rhetoric appeals to those folk. The NRA has an agenda and while I support the right to bear firearms I feel they do have a more sinister reason for being as active as they are in conservative politic. Gun rights should not be a conservative or a liberal thing. It is part of our heritage and our Constitution so we need to find a way that will strike a reasonable compromise between society's needs and concerns and the desires of those that choose to own guns.

[tucsonlib]

46. Thank You. That Was A Breath Of Fresh Air.

[gorfle]

47. So how have I been duped?

The NRA does exactly what I want it to do. It rates politicians based on how friendly they are to the right to keep and bear arms. This in turn puts politicians on notice that they had best respect the right to keep and bear arms, lest four million activists find out about it through NRA publications, which they do.

The NRA is constantly bemoaned by the anti-gun side as being responsible for much of the pro-firearm legislation. The NRA is constantly pilloried for having congressfolks bullied to toe their line. I'd say this is pretty good proof that they are, in fact, doing just what they profess to do.

I don't feel duped at all. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they support its professed goals, as I have noted. And, if you like, I can go get specific quotes from specific politicians, including Bill Clinton, that give testimony to the power of the NRA in our legislature.

I don't suppose you have any evidence to support your claim that they are supporting the goals you claim they are?

[tucsonlib]

48. Okay, Let's Talk "Professed Goals"

The NRA is constantly pilloried for having congressfolks bullied to toe their line. I'd say this is pretty good proof that they are, in fact, doing just what they profess to do.

I wasn't aware that the NRA's charter proudly endorsed "Bullying Legislators". Ah, democracy in action. But then, the end always justifies the means when your cause is a just one, right? And those NRA lobbyists are only concerned with protecting your 2A rights, right? And those insurance industry lobbyists are only motivated by a desire to provide quality health care for all Americans, right?......

The NRA does exactly what I want it to do......I don't feel duped at all.
:dunce: :crazy: :spray: :rofl:

[gorfle]

53. That's what special interest groups are for.

I wasn't aware that the NRA's charter proudly endorsed "Bullying Legislators". Ah, democracy in action. But then, the end always justifies the means when your cause is a just one, right?

Like it or not, this is the way our government works. When enough people get together with a common interest, they can approach our legislatures with a united front. It is like a Union for voters. The NRA's goal is to influence legislation, through the NRA-ILA branch, and I can provide numerous examples of politicians bemoaning how effective that influence is, including Bill Clinton:

"Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners. . . . Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong."

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946. . . . The NRA had a great night. They beat both
Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen."

"After the election I had to face the fact that . . . supporters of responsible gun legislation . . . simply could not protect their friends in Congress from the NRA. The gun lobby outspent, outorganized,
outfought, and outdemagogued them."

"I had grown up in the hunting culture in which its influence was greatest and had seen the devastating impact the NRA had had on the '94 congressional elections."

- Excerpts from Bill Clinton's book, "My Life".

And those NRA lobbyists are only concerned with protecting your 2A rights, right? And those insurance industry lobbyists are only motivated by a desire to provide quality health care for all Americans, right?......

So your assertion, then, is that because you can name one lobbyist group in Washington that is out for money then all lobbyist groups in Washington are out for money?

How about MADD? Do you think they lobby Washington for money? How about AARP? How about ACLU? How about EFF? How about the NAACP?

There are MANY lobbying groups who have been organized to represent special interest groups, and not all of them are out for money.

Again, I note that you continue to provided no citations to back up your assertion that of some other motive.

[tucsonlib]

64. Still Duped, I See

How about MADD? Do you think they lobby Washington for money? How about AARP? How about ACLU? How about EFF? How about the NAACP?

AARP has become little more than an insurance broker, so yes, they, like the NRA, are out for money. The other groups you cite (I'm not familiar with "EFF") don't deal with products or industries.


I don't feel duped at all.


If your goal is to dupe people, rule number one is, Make certain they don't feel duped. For once they feel duped, they will no longer be duped. Like a couple of my friends - lifetime NRA members both - who, like you, didn't feel the NRA was duping them. Until one day when they realized the truth and, no longer dupees, tore up their membership cards.

[Euromutt]

106. That sounds like conspiracy theory "reasoning" to me

If there's no evidence of a conspiracy, that's because the conspirators are suppressing the evidence. If there's no evidence you're being duped, that's because the dupers are trying to make certain you don't see it.

The problem is that that means that the presence and the absence of a conspiracy are indistinguishable. So what evidence do you have that your two pals weren't being duped by some other group into falsely thinking they were being duped by the NRA? Obviously, by your logic, they wouldn't be able to tell they were duped by that other group, which would be doing its utmost to ensure your pals didn't feel duped by it, right? I mean, that's just as plausible a scenario, once you start claiming that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[tucsonlib]

107. It's Called "Deductive Reasoning". "Independent Thought"?

Not to be confused with Delusional Thinking.

[Euromutt]

108. "Circular logic" sounds more apt

You've failed to explain how someone is supposed to tell the difference between not feeling duped because somebody is intentionally misleading them, and not feeling duped because they're actually not being duped. To reach your conclusion, you have to take it as a premise; that's a circular argument. That fact that you feel the need to cast abuse at anyone who disagrees with you, rather than refining your argument, does not make your case any more compelling.

Now, for the record, I'll state that I'm well aware that the NRA engages in a number of activities that I do not care for; sponsoring CPAC is one, the "Celebration of American Values" is another (to paraphrase Hanns Johst's Schlageter, "when I hear of 'values,' I take off the safety on my Browning"). On balance, I think the NRA provides me with sufficient benefits that I'm willing to accept that, albeit reluctantly. But I can say with certainty that I have never been prompted to buy a firearm, ammunition, or firearms accessories because of anything I've received from the NRA, be it in e-mail or print.

[JPK]

50. Re: NRA

Just as unregulated capitalism got us to where we are today, a completely unregulated environment regarding firearms is not only dangerous but irresponsible in a society like ours today. The NRA's position on any matter attempting to regulate any aspect of firearm ownership or use is ignoring the realities of our modern society. We don't live in log cabins and go hunting for food anymore.....at least most of us don't. While sport hunting is a hobby for those that choose to participate in that activity, it is not a "survival" one and hopefully those that sport hunt consume the meat they kill. I know many do, my brother in law is a hunter and frequently eats the game he brings home. Going out to the range is also an activity that can be a great hobby for some. To be honest with you, I really don't know of any restrictions currently that should bother the NRA. It only seems prudent and responsible that you can't carry an exposed side arm within a city's municipal limits or into certain buildings. It seems prudent that in order to carry a concealed firearm you have to pass a test and receive a permit. It only seems prudent to require a background check to buy a "new" firearm from a licensed dealer. I believe that should also extend to gun shows, what's wrong with that? Evidently the NRA feels that is an infringement on a person's right TKBA but in actuality it it doesn't apply to ownership, only the purchase. Two distinctly different things. The NRA seems to equate unrestricted purchase with the right TKBA. I'm sorry I can't agree with that stance. It is totally irresponsible. I personally feel if you have nothing to hide what's the problem? They really need to get away from their 18th century back woods mentality and move into the 21st. I think they would find themselves less of a lightening rod in the public arena if they tempered their approaches to certain aspects of firearm issues. They have such an absolute, all or nothing stance on things I believe it frightens people that may not own firearms and leads them to see the NRA and it's members as secretive survivalists or underground militiamen.

[paulsby]

51. any post that starts with the assumption that the US has "unregulated capitalism"

is an epic fail. for pete's sake, singapore and hong kong (to name 2) have MUCH less regulation than we do. so, how can we be UNregulated.

this isn't a disagreement of opinion / a subjective matter. you are simply wrong on the facts. that has become a really silly meme, the "unregulated capitalism" thang. it's ridiculous

now certainly, we have areas where we need(ed) more regulation. other areas where we need less. ever try to start a small business? please. don't tell me about UNregulated capitalism.

referring to our system as unregulated capitalism is as intellectually void as some wingnut referring to clinton as a socialist.

[JPK]

57. I meant relative.......in general

.....prior to the Reagan Admin when deregulation started. I apologize if you understood it to mean there was NO regulation. Obviously there has been some but also what hasen't been gutted has been ignored for 30 years. And by the way, I am self employed and own my own business. I work for ME and I know all about the paperwork and business licenses, etc.. AS far as regulation is concerned, comparing the US to Singapore and HK is pretty "epic fail" too. The living standards are worlds apart for the average populaces compared to the US......however we are catching up to them thanks to repugs.

[iverglas]

59. as anybody with a brain knew

and anybody with a shred of integrity wouldn't pretend not to have known.

They don't deal well with literary devices around here. They're more willing to believe that someone is stupid enough that they actually think, or actually think they can get away with saying, that the US has a 100% unregulated free-for-all market than they are to admit that they know perfectly well what the meaning being conveyed was.

And of course they're always happy to jump on an entirely tangential comment and avoid any substance they can't deal with.

The deregulation in question affects major sectors of the economy, like transportation and broadcasting, and the significant reduction in regulations that protect the public in a whole host of areas, such as food safety and product safety. It has nothing to do with "paperwork".

I'd note that I couldn't agree more with your analysis of your second amendment:

... the 2nd A is an important part of the Constitution and obviously put there because of the history of the British occupation prior to independence and the intent of not having a populace that could be helpless in the event of political upheaval or facing a hostile invading force. That is 18th century thought though. Anyone thinking this country, in todays world, could be invaded and taken over is really out of touch with reality.

... and the rest. ;)

Those "security of a free state" words actually mean something, and actually are there for a reason.

[gorfle]

54. On firearms.

Just as unregulated capitalism got us to where we are today, a completely unregulated environment regarding firearms is not only dangerous but irresponsible in a society like ours today. The NRA's position on any matter attempting to regulate any aspect of firearm ownership or use is ignoring the realities of our modern society.

First of all, firearm ownership in this country is not unregulated.

Further, the NRA does support regulation of firearms. Specifically, the NRA has endorsed legislation and supports efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane people, and endorses stiff penalties for people who commit crimes using firearms.

Many of the pro-firearm people on this board, some, like myself who are NRA members, support background checks for all sales, including private sales, so long as anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

We don't live in log cabins and go hunting for food anymore.....at least most of us don't. While sport hunting is a hobby for those that choose to participate in that activity, it is not a "survival" one and hopefully those that sport hunt consume the meat they kill. I know many do, my brother in law is a hunter and frequently eats the game he brings home.

The second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the citizenry retaining the means to shoot oppressors.

Going out to the range is also an activity that can be a great hobby for some.

The second amendment is not about target practice.

To be honest with you, I really don't know of any restrictions currently that should bother the NRA. It only seems prudent and responsible that you can't carry an exposed side arm within a city's municipal limits or into certain buildings. It seems prudent that in order to carry a concealed firearm you have to pass a test and receive a permit.

I honestly don't know what the NRA's position is on those issues. Personally I don't think you should need a license to carry firearm, either openly or concealed, as you should not need a license to exercise a Constitutional right.

I am not a fan of open carry, because I believe there are few, if any, up-sides to advertising the fact that you have a gun, and there are many down-sides to doing so.

It only seems prudent to require a background check to buy a "new" firearm from a licensed dealer. I believe that should also extend to gun shows, what's wrong with that?

I don't believe the NRA has a problem with instant background checks, such as NICS. I certainly don't have a problem with them. Also, the same laws regarding background checks outside of gun shows apply at gun shows. If you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, at a gun show or not, you have to have a background check.

Evidently the NRA feels that is an infringement on a person's right TKBA but in actuality it it doesn't apply to ownership, only the purchase. Two distinctly different things. The NRA seems to equate unrestricted purchase with the right TKBA. I'm sorry I can't agree with that stance. It is totally irresponsible.

As I said, I don't think the NRA has a problem with background checks, as they routinely state that they are all for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

I personally feel if you have nothing to hide what's the problem?

This is dangerous logic. By this logic, presumably you have no problem giving up your 4th amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure? I assume you have no problem with pervasive domestic surveillance? I mean if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

They really need to get away from their 18th century back woods mentality and move into the 21st.

Some things that were true in the 18th century are still true today. They came up with the rest of the Bill of Rights in the 18th century - do you want to trash all that too since it was made in the 18th century?

They have such an absolute, all or nothing stance on things I believe it frightens people that may not own firearms and leads them to see the NRA and it's members as secretive survivalists or underground militiamen.

First of all, the Constitution's wording is quite clear: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's pretty much an all-or-nothing stance right there.

But further, we have learned very well the lesson of incrementalism practiced by the anti-firearm folks. You give an inch and they will take a mile.


A suggestion: It would make it easier to read your posts if you would use paragraphs to separate your ideas.

[JPK]

58. On Firearms

First, I never said firearms in this country were unregulated, I said unregulated firearms would be a disaster for this country. I know there are regulations. Your interpretation of my statement was incorrect.

As to the 2nd A being about "shooting" oppressors, I suppose if you're paranoid enough to feel like the society we have here is on the brink of falling into anarchy and kayos, perhaps having a gun on your hip will make you feel better when the decent into anarchy does come while you're wearing your heat, you can at least take a few out before they get you. Going down with your gun blazing. Sounds like a good movie plot. Please spare me the drama.

As to carrying a concealed weapon, as I stated before, the 2nd A needs to be interpreted with the rest of the Constitution as a whole. If you have a permit you can carry. Your right is not being infringed. If you have it on you, you have it on you. What is so hard to understand about that? The word infringe means to violate or trespass so if you have your gun on you and you just needed to fill out a piece of paper to have it, where's the infringement?

2nd A....target paractice........not about that.......I never said it was. I was just pointing out a couple of avenues of enjoyment of owning a gun as a hobby and not strictly for self defense or waiting for our decent into anarchy and kayos and the country turning into an apocalyptic morass akin to Road Warrior or something.

BGC's.....yes, at gun shows licensed sellers still have to do them but unlicensed private sellers do not.

Nothing to hide.....well if you don't....you don't. What makes a BGC for a gun buyer any different than having a BGC for employment, for getting on an airliner, for working for the goverenment? The words unreasonable search and seizure leaves a lot of wiggle room simply with the word "unreasonable" in there. That can be up for interpretation. Of course I have a problem with pervasive domestic surveillance but you know what, it is coming to a degree whether we like it or not and owning a gun isn't going to stop it. The Gov and employers do BGC's all the time, not just for guns.

The 18th Century....it was a much simpler time then, don't you agree? Again, as I stated earlier, the Constitution as a document has to be considered as a whole. That is why when rendering a decision the USSC doesn't just look at a single thing with regards to the issue before them, they also have to see how it meshes with other areas of the document and also how society will be affected. It is not just a simple up or down thing.

Did I break it up enough for you?

[gorfle]

60. Here's what you said:

First, I never said firearms in this country were unregulated, I said unregulated firearms would be a disaster for this country. I know there are regulations. Your interpretation of my statement was incorrect.

Here's what you said:

Just as unregulated capitalism got us to where we are today, a completely unregulated environment regarding firearms is not only dangerous but irresponsible in a society like ours today.

This clearly implies that we have an unregulated environment regarding firearms. Here's why:

Firstly, you said "Just as unregulated capitalism got us to where we are today". This implies that we had (or have) unregulated capitalism. By saying "just as", you imply that we also had (or have) unregulated firearms.

Secondly, you said "a completely unregulated environment regarding firearms is not only dangerous but irresponsible in a society like ours today." Not "would be" as you are saying now. You said "is".

As to the 2nd A being about "shooting" oppressors, I suppose if you're paranoid enough to feel like the society we have here is on the brink of falling into anarchy and kayos, perhaps having a gun on your hip will make you feel better when the decent into anarchy does come while you're wearing your heat, you can at least take a few out before they get you. Going down with your gun blazing. Sounds like a good movie plot. Please spare me the drama.

Ah, the old "paranoia" chestnut.

Firstly, being prepared is not being paranoid. I have car insurance, life insurance, house insurance, smoke detectors, spare tires, and fire extinguishers, not because I am paranoid, but because these modern implements enable me to be prepared in case of disaster.

Secondly, I have never claimed that we are "on the brink of falling into anarchy and kayos (sic)". I'm sure our founders didn't think we were on the brink when they penned the second amendment. It was penned so that if we ever are on the brink we will have the means to do something about it. If that's drama I can't take credit for it - see our founders.

2nd A....target paractice........not about that.......I never said it was. I was just pointing out a couple of avenues of enjoyment of owning a gun as a hobby and not strictly for self defense or waiting for our decent into anarchy and kayos and the country turning into an apocalyptic morass akin to Road Warrior or something.

So why did you bring up hunting and target shooting in a post about firearm regulation?

BGC's.....yes, at gun shows licensed sellers still have to do them but unlicensed private sellers do not.

This is true. But this is not what you said. What you said was:

It only seems prudent to require a background check to buy a "new" firearm from a licensed dealer. I believe that should also extend to gun shows, what's wrong with that?

You said you should have a background check when you buy a new firearm from a licensed dealer, and that you believe that should also extend to gun shows. I merely pointed out that it already does. If you now wish to talk about private sales, that's fine.

Nothing to hide.....well if you don't....you don't. What makes a BGC for a gun buyer any different than having a BGC for employment, for getting on an airliner, for working for the goverenment? The words unreasonable search and seizure leaves a lot of wiggle room simply with the word "unreasonable" in there. That can be up for interpretation. Of course I have a problem with pervasive domestic surveillance but you know what, it is coming to a degree whether we like it or not and owning a gun isn't going to stop it. The Gov and employers do BGC's all the time, not just for guns.

You have slipped to far down the slope of giving away your rights for my comfort.

But I am in favor of background checks for all firearm sales, provided anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

The 18th Century....it was a much simpler time then, don't you agree? Again, as I stated earlier, the Constitution as a document has to be considered as a whole. That is why when rendering a decision the USSC doesn't just look at a single thing with regards to the issue before them, they also have to see how it meshes with other areas of the document and also how society will be affected. It is not just a simple up or down thing.

I don't mind if you consider the Constitution as a whole, so long as you also don't violate it in part.

Did I break it up enough for you?

Yes, thanks. It makes it much easier to read.

[iverglas]

62. may the gods spare us

There's just never any context, is there?

Just as unregulated capitalism got us to where we are today, a completely unregulated environment regarding firearms is not only dangerous but irresponsible in a society like ours today.
This clearly implies that we have an unregulated environment regarding firearms. Here's why:

No, here's why not.

The discussion was actually about something. There was even a sentence right after that one that could have helped you, if the previous bit of the discussion had escaped your notice or leaked out of your head:

The NRA's position on any matter attempting to regulate any aspect of firearm ownership or use is ignoring the realities of our modern society.

The position being advanced was that the NRA opposed regulation of firearm ownership. That's what the statement you are trying to twist was about. It really wasn't about whatever you might like to pretend it was about. Really.


Secondly, you said "a completely unregulated environment regarding firearms is not only dangerous but irresponsible in a society like ours today." Not "would be" as you are saying now. You said "is".

And if I say "jumping off a bridge is a bad idea", what will you accuse me of?

[AtheistCrusader]

90. But the NRA doesn't advocate unregulated firearm ownership.

They oppose some specific regulations that we can quibble over whether or not they are a good idea, but the NRA has supported several 'gun control' measures in the last 100 years, and remained silent on others.

[iverglas]

92. oh, I think we all know what's meant

Restricting firearms ownership to people who aren't criminals and aren't stark raving mad, and providing that the odd bit of technology not be readily available to the public, really does look like "unregulated" to many of us.

[JPK]

65. You knew what I meant.....

But.....if I need to be precise with you about this then so be it. So I shall clarify for you.

An unregulated environment for firearms purchases, use and where they can be carried would be disastrous for our society.

I'm not the one paranoid. I too have taken precautions in matters that I see as a real and potential threat to my security and well being. An imagined boogieman is not one of them. Preparing for a scenario that is so far removed from rational thought, well I'm curious, just what "disaster" are you waiting and preparing for? As I said in an earlier post, 18th century concerns are quite different from 21st century concerns. The founding fathers composed a document with enough foresight and ambiguity to allow for changes in society and allow the application of law that would be relevant for their times. That would include the 2nd A. At least as far as things now stand with the USSC and the 2nd A and that is subject to change as it has not been ruled a "fundamental" right under the Constitution taking into consideration the 14th amendment.

However, since you seem to want to focus in on wording and the preciseness of it, let's take a look at the 2nd A in its entirety and divorce it from the rest of the Constitution and examine the words carefully. I'm not a lawyer so I can only read the words and offer one possible interpretation.

Second Amendment;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia? What is a militia? Why is that in there? Couldn't they have left that out and just had the rest of it? Is that one complete statement or is it two independent ones? The way it is written it could be considered either way.

According to the dictionary a militia is a body of citizens enrolled in military service and called out periodically for drills or training. A military force that is not part of the regular Army called upon in emergencies. I guess in other words, the National Guard.......citizen soldiers.

One could propose that because of the words/phrase, "a well regulated militia", ie: the national guard, contained within the amendment, A very brief one at that.....an argument could be made only those "civilians" or citizen soldiers which are enlisted in the guard have a right to carry arms. Also by that definition, it is a state's right to decide because of the mention of "free state" in the amendment in addition to a "well regulated militia" obviously suggesting a controlling body being the state and not a rag tag bunch of disorganized civies running around with guns or the federal government.

Now, that could have been the intent. We don't know, the syntax of the amendment is a little funny and seems like a word or two were left out. But you will have to agree that could be a possible interpretation of 2nd A.

AS far as BGC's like I said they are conducted all the time for various other conditions so why the paranoia about one when you purchase a gun?....unless you're worried Mr. Gov is coming to take it away.....again, paranoia. You can shrug it off all you want or accuse me of bringing up a worn indication but that is what it looks like to me.

Unreasonable search and seizure.....I don't know how this has anything to do with guns and their possession, purchase or registration other than when a gun may have been used in a crime. Am I worried about the feds coming banging on my door, no, at least not yet.

"You have slipped to(sic)...(it should be "too" far...etc.) sorry if you can pull that shit on my ass I'll do the same with you.
As long as we have liberal justices on the USSC to interpret the Constitution in a broad way, I don't think we'll have anything to worry too much about. We need a democratic congress with some balls to make sure laws are written to protect the rights of all citizens and backed up by a USSC.

On 18th Century....re-read above. The Constitution is a complex document. It can mean one thing to one generation and mean something different to the following one. It can mean different things to different people in the same generation. Laws change to reflect the times and social conditions. I support your right to buy, own and use your weapon as you see fit as long as it does not infringe on my rights. I personally don't feel the need to own one. If I felt the way you do as to its usefulness in a time of whatever imagined "disaster" might be pending, if it were a calamitous one as you feel it might be, the reality is unless you have mountains of ammo its usefulness would be short lived and then it becomes no better than a rock. That scenario doesn't hold much water, personal defense is a much more believable, credible and more broadly accepted one for the general public. To be honest, that's who you want to appeal to. The NRA currently preaches to the choir. The brethren don't need convincing, they are already there. The NRA needs to broaden their support and understanding by the general public by appealing to those that currently might feel the NRA is a fringe group that all they care about is guns without restrictions. You may know that is true but the message is not getting out to others beyond.

It is not your owning a gun that really gives me pause to wonder, it's the mentality of the what if scenario, the government is coming to get me attitude. That is paranoia and the NRA does nothing to quell that feeling in its ranks or in the public forum when they see the leaders of that organization act in an inflammatory way.

I had a friend that owned a business, a coin operated laundry business and several of his facilities were located in depressed areas of town. Many times he had to go at night to retrieve the days earnings. He went and got himself a concealed weapons permit and bought a Walther PPK. He brought it by the house and we oohed and awed over it. It was a very nice little weapon. Actually, I've always had a soft spot for Walther pistols. He bought something small that he could keep handy on his person if the need arose to protect himself or his livelihood. While need is not the only reason to own a weapon, sometimes they are the most convincing arguments to the general populous for a person's need or desire to own one. The notion that the government is out to get me mentality of the NRA is really a very narrow one that appeals to hopefully only a small number of its members but to be honest it does little and is kind of frightening to those who aren't familiar with the organization or its reason for being.

[gorfle]

86. Been addressed many times before.

I'm not the one paranoid. I too have taken precautions in matters that I see as a real and potential threat to my security and well being. An imagined boogieman is not one of them.

Do you think the possibility of rebellion was an imagined boogieman to our founders? I mean, it was drafted in 1787, and the revolution ended in 1783, five years prior. Surely the specter of rebellion was gone by then? Why then, would they include the second amendment?

Preparing for a scenario that is so far removed from rational thought, well I'm curious, just what "disaster" are you waiting and preparing for?

Frankly, I put the possibility of rebellion rather low down on the list of probable things likely to happen in my lifetime. The last presidential election here is proof that our system of government still works quite well. What I think is quite probable in my lifetime, however, is another terrorist attack. One need only look to Hurricane Katrina to see how fragile our fabric of society is. What I can easily forsee is some terrorist organization detonating a nuclear or chemical weapon in some major city, and then telephoning CNN telling them they have 5 more in 5 other major cities. It need not even be true. The ensuing chaos will be absolute. People will flee the cities, causing chaos and looting and pillaging. Supplies will cease flowing into cities except as enforced by martial law. Consequently cities will run out of supplies like food and gasoline within a week. Then the desperation will really set in. It is this situation - chaos due to disaster - that I find most likely to occur, and the one I have taken steps to be prepared for.

As I said in an earlier post, 18th century concerns are quite different from 21st century concerns.

The human condition seldom changes.

The founding fathers composed a document with enough foresight and ambiguity to allow for changes in society and allow the application of law that would be relevant for their times. That would include the 2nd A.

Yes, and there is a provision for amending the Constitution. I fully support it.

At least as far as things now stand with the USSC and the 2nd A and that is subject to change as it has not been ruled a "fundamental" right under the Constitution taking into consideration the 14th amendment.

Perhaps. But it has recently been ruled to be an individual right. I suspect and hope that incorporation is forthcoming.

On 18th Century....re-read above. The Constitution is a complex document. It can mean one thing to one generation and mean something different to the following one.

This is why it is ESSENTIAL to have a historical understanding of the document so that the INTENT of the FOUNDERS is known. The Constitution is not something that can or should be re-interpreted to mean something different every generation. It was set down at the time to mean something VERY SPECIFIC, with provisions to CHANGE it if future generations disagreed with it. The correct procedure is to CHANGE the document, not try and RE-INTERPRET IT every time you don't like what it says.

It is not your owning a gun that really gives me pause to wonder, it's the mentality of the what if scenario, the government is coming to get me attitude. That is paranoia and the NRA does nothing to quell that feeling in its ranks or in the public forum when they see the leaders of that organization act in an inflammatory way.

Because Constitutionally, your entire right to keep and bear arms hinges around being prepared to face oppression either from within or without. Yes, Heller has tied it to self-defense, but I think that is tenuous at best.

However, since you seem to want to focus in on wording and the preciseness of it, let's take a look at the 2nd A in its entirety and divorce it from the rest of the Constitution and examine the words carefully. I'm not a lawyer so I can only read the words and offer one possible interpretation.

Second Amendment;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia? What is a militia? Why is that in there? Couldn't they have left that out and just had the rest of it? Is that one complete statement or is it two independent ones? The way it is written it could be considered either way.

According to the dictionary a militia is a body of citizens enrolled in military service and called out periodically for drills or training. A military force that is not part of the regular Army called upon in emergencies. I guess in other words, the National Guard.......citizen soldiers.

One could propose that because of the words/phrase, "a well regulated militia", ie: the national guard, contained within the amendment, A very brief one at that.....an argument could be made only those "civilians" or citizen soldiers which are enlisted in the guard have a right to carry arms. Also by that definition, it is a state's right to decide because of the mention of "free state" in the amendment in addition to a "well regulated militia" obviously suggesting a controlling body being the state and not a rag tag bunch of disorganized civies running around with guns or the federal government.

Now, that could have been the intent. We don't know, the syntax of the amendment is a little funny and seems like a word or two were left out. But you will have to agree that could be a possible interpretation of 2nd A.

This argument has been addressed here many times before, and there are many documents contemporary to the Constitution to provide insight as to what the founders intended.

In the founders' day, the intent was to have no centralized military force, or at least a small one. Instead, they intended for a decentralized military force, made up of State Militias. These militias were to be made up of citizens of the states, and led by officers of the states, thus, the intent was, that they would only act in the interest of their respective states. Moreover, they thought it would be difficult to encourage the individual states to move in concert to oppress another state, or wage foreign wars, unless it was of vital interest to the majority of states and so they would operate in concert against a common threat.

The intent was for these militias to be able to replace, or at least counter, federal military power. The reason for making this force decentralized, and not centralized under the federal government, was because they feared that a strong central government, armed with its own military, could become a tyranny.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), such a decentralized system meant that the states kept their militias in different states of readiness. Some militia functions had become little more than social gatherings in order to get people to muster for drill. Consequently they were not very effective in waging war.

With the passage of the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, the state militias were federalized, creating the Organized Militia - the National Guard. It also created the Unorganized Militia - all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia.

Two important things to note here:

First, the intent of the founders - to have a decentralized military force under control of the states to be able to counter that of the central government - was destroyed with this act. The National Guard serves as an adjunct to federal military power, enhancing it rather than countering it.

Secondly, the Dick Act at least did still provide for an Unorganized Militia - all able bodied men aged 17-45 not in the National Guard. So the citizen militia does, in fact, still exist.

I have no doubt that the founders worried over just such an event as the Dick Act happening, and this is why they specifically stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, rather than saying the right of the states, or the militias, shall not be infringed.

So the organized militias of our founders day are gone - their power usurped by the federal government. Thus the best that can be done is for that power to remain with the people, and not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms.

[Statistical]

89. Still clinging to the 2nd = militia service debunked theory.

Please read Heller v. DC and then join the 21st century.

[Statistical]

88. The "NRA's position on any matter attempting to regulate any aspect of firearm ownership"

"is ignoring the realities of our modern society."

Really?

Was the NRA for or against the 1968 Gun Control Act (prohibits felons from owning a gun)?
Was the NRA for or against the implementation of the instant background check NICS?
Was the NRA for or against the "1986 machinegun ban" as a part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act?
Was the NRA for or against the 2007 NICS modernization act?
Was the NRA for or against the program "Project Exile" which placed a 5-20 year mandatory sentence on felons caught with illegal firearms?

"The NRA seems to equate unrestricted purchase with the right TKBA"
Please find a single quote anywhere by an NRS press release, or NRA official statement indicating they believe in unrestricted firearms access.

So who is just spewing talking points now.

[Tim01]

30. "Yes. You've just been led to believe you aren't."

No, NRA members pay their dues for the NRA to make sure the government doesn't destroy our rights. You know, stuff like letting congress know we don't want supreme court justices to be hostile to the 2nd amendment.

It is a pro gun rights organization.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Who gives a sweet one about what they think.

[gorfle]

12. I do.

I routinely use the NRA voting guide as a guide on who to vote for. Fortunately in my last election both of my Democratic candidates had received A ratings from the NRA.

I'm a member of the NRA and smile every time I write my dues check knowing the power I am helping wield in our legislative process. I personally feel like my dues to the NRA have more impact on the process than my vote does.

[gorfle]

9. Hard to say what she meant.

It's hard without context to understand fully what she meant when she said, "The NRA's opposition to Sotomayor is based solely on a ruling in one particular case (U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, 2004) in which she wrote “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

It's also important to note that she said this in 2004, which was before Heller which settled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

It's hard to say what Sotomayor means by saying the right to keep and bear arms is not fundamental.

I personally would say that the rights our founders thought especially important (fundamental?) were the ones they specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

I would be, and am, skeptical of anyone who says the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right. To me, the right to keep and bear arms is superior to all other rights, as it is the only one that provides the means to secure the rest.

[JPK]

18. Re: The word "Fundamental"

If I recall correctly from the Senate hearings, the words "Fundamental Right" was a description of delineation of what has been settled law of what the state's rights are vs the federal governemnt's with regards to the Constitution's Bill of Rights. If the word "fundamental" is used as a descriptor in the law it means the Constitution's wording and understanding as determined by the Supreme Court supercedes a state's interpretation of a right as stated in the Constitution. What Sotomayor's ruling was on, as I understood it, was not whether it is an individuals right to keep and to bear arms but she had to make a decision based on state law which has not faced the scrutiny of the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality. The Supreme Court has not clarified what the states's rights are vs what the federal govenment's rights are with regards to the 2nd Ammendment. In other words, the Feds may say anyone can own a firearm irregardless of their past, etc.. The states may say no....wait a minute, I think I can restrict that right. Then the legal question becomes can a state restrict or contain or even expand those freedoms and rights based on a states rights claim based on the language of the 2nd Ammendment. Who's law and interpretaion takes president. Sotomayer did not in her ruling restrict....she merely rendered a decision based on settled state law on which there has been no USSC decision on. Until the Supreme Court takes up the matter, state law will prevail in these cases. At least that's my understanding of the whole thing. So....in actuality, the NRA is sort of using this in a sort of underhanded way. She never ruled on whether or not a person has the right ot keep and to bear arms, but that's what the "Liars" want you to believe.

[gorfle]

23. So it sounds like...

From your description, it sounds like she ruled that the states have the right to overrule the Constitution concerning the second amendment. Which sounds to me like should the 2nd amendment come up to the supreme court for consideration under incorporation under the 14th, she would be against it?

[eqfan592]

33. Not exactly.

It's more like she acknowledged that, at that point in time, the USSC had not ruled on this issue, and so she (and really, it was a 3 judge panel in this case I believe) had to go with the legal president that has previously been established, at least until which time the USSC rules that the 2a does fall under the 14th.

I could be totally screwing up that explanation, but that's how I understand it right now.

[JPK]

41. "Fundamental"

Exactly. It was a three judge panel as it was in the New Haven fireman's case. I found it rather amusing when the republican senators were questioning her about the case, were lamenting if she had decided the other way the firemen would have won. Well....Duhhhhh. Those damn senators from the south can add real good if you're talking numbers fewer than ten. I guess it totally slipped their mind that if all three judge's decisions agreed either way then they would have lost or won too. I found it strange that they made it sound like she was the deciding vote, like she had purposely waited to render her decision after the other judges had rendered theirs. Another thing that struck me as pretty obvious on their part, they were questioning her about her ability to not be sympathetic to any one side and yet they themselves were obviously siding with the fireman not based on law but on their sympathies. In that instance Sotomayor again refered to settled state and federal law when she handed down her decision on the New Haven case. The republicans looked pretty stupid and appeared as if they were grasping at anything. I sat through most of those hearings and I can tell you the rebubs were like a broken record for three days. On the other hand, the dems were asking some pretty difficult questions on a broad range of subjects. The repubs looked very petty.

[X_Digger]

36. Don't forget..

.. US Circuit Court judges don't have the latitude to express opinions outside of previous precedent. Much as I applaud the ninth's decision in Nordyke, as it almost guaranteed a SCOTUS review, it's on shaky ground, legally.

[JPK]

43. Her decision......Re: Gorfle

She may be but that remains to be seen. In her decision, her ruling was based on law precedent. A word the repubs like to use but seem to like to stray away from when it suits them. Using your logic according to the 2nd A, a state has no right to restrict in anyway, under any circumstances anyones right to keep and to bear arms. So, any state, county, municipality cannot restrict firearms and their possesion in any way. Only the federal government has that right and very limited if you stick strictly to the wording in the 2nd ammendment. The Constitution is a document that has many facets to it that can be subject to interpretation. You can't just look at an ammendment as a single device, you need to look at the document as a whole and how it affects other parts or how other parts affect the one in question. However, there are other words in the Constitution that can have bearing on that ammendment or any other for that matter. If you can consider words like "insure domestic tranquility" and to "promote the general wefare" in the preamble, which is just as important as the Bill of Rights, then you can arguably say that if guns are causing a deteroration in the general welfare and domestic tranquility such as in a city with a high gun crime rate, the government can possibly have a right to restrict some aspects or interpret the 2nd A in narrower way.

Since domestic tranquility would intitially fall to the more local governments, state, county or city, one can argue the federal government cannot exercise complete and utter control over firearms on this level because each instance has its own unique circumstances best served by the local representatives of the issues involving firearms.

[eqfan592]

32. That's actually been my understanding as well, to a degree...

....of the decision in question. I can't say I still agree with her decision, but I think I understand the logic behind it.

[paulsby]

52. you're missing the main point. see: strict scrutiny

there is essentially a hierarcy of standards (to borrow a term) that the courts use in the process of judicial review.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS require the strict scrutiny standard. this is the HIGHEST amongst the hierarchy of standards.

a law that restricts a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, under the STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD must

1) serve a COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST
2) be NARROWLY TAILORED
3) must use the LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS to achieve the goal

this is con law 101, frankly.

the other two standards are rational basis review, and intermediate scrutiny.

iow, the govt. has much more latitude and much less chance of being overturned by judicial review when it passes laws affecting some right that is subject to rational basis review (the lowest standard) or intermediate scrutiny (the middle)

[iverglas]

63. can someone provide a direct quote

from Heller where the Court states that firearms possession is a "fundamental right" (in the US constitutional law sense) equivalent to, oh:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):

A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

-- that it's one of those 1.B.4 rights there?

I am, as always, curious, and I haven't managed to find it myself.

[Statistical]

97. It is currently unsettled law.

When Heller first came out I looked over it closesly looking for strict scrutiny but didn't find it.

Of course there is nothing to say it isn't either.
So until SCOTUS decides one way or the other it will be unsettled.

It is obvious then why someone making a RKBA is not a fundamental right statement is being nominated to SCOTUS when it hasn't yet decided if the 2nd is fundamental.
Then since fundamental right is the litmus test for incorporation it has a larger implication.

I am not worried though. Sotomayor is anti-RKBA that is obvious to me but she replaces to Souter who was the most anti-RKBA justice on the Surpreme Court.
So nothing really changes.

[iverglas]

99. that was certainly my impression

I searched through the reasons and found nothing. And yet I could just swear I'd seen assertions in this very forum that Heller says that the "right" in question is a fundamental right. Huh.

So until SCOTUS decides one way or the other it will be unsettled.

Has it not now had, like, a kind of perfect opportunity?

It is obvious then why someone making a RKBA is not a fundamental right statement is being nominated to SCOTUS when it hasn't yet decided if the 2nd is fundamental.

Uh huh. I gather she said: "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

If the issue ever arises, and four other members of the Court agree with her, she'll be right.

Funny how that works. Kinda like how it worked in Heller. Four other judges agreed with one, and bingo, they were right. Of course, they were already right, for the most part. Far right.

[Statistical]

105. Well they are wrong.

Now it is my personal opinion that the 2nd is a funadmental right. I think the issue of fudnamental right was argued well in NRA v. Chicago and will certainly be at the center of any SCOTUS incorporation case.

However I have to concede that there is nothing in the ruling of Heller that states that.

I left out a couple words on previous post:

It is obvious then why someone making a RKBA is not a fundamental right statement is being nominated to SCOTUS when it hasn't yet decided if the 2nd is fundamental.

Should have been:

It is obvious then why someone making a "RKBA is not a fundamental right" statement and who is being nominated to SCOTUS when it hasn't yet decided if the 2nd is fundamental would concern gun owners.

However Souter likely would have ruled the same way so not much is changing. If she was replacing Kennedy that would be a whole different level of concern.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. No highs, no lows... must be Bose(tm)

[tucsonlib]

15. LOL! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

55. On a more serious note

the 2nd does not specify weapons by make or model. It specifies 'arms', not a Henry Arms Rifled Musket or anything like that.

Arms technology was a fast moving beast at the time the 2nd was ratified. The Austrians were already using a 20 shot compressed-air rifle (later aganst the French) in 1791.

[tucsonlib]

66. Of Course

But the NRA does lobby on behalf of a specific type of arms. They're not arguing a fundamental right to possess brass knuckles, or nuclear bombs, or cruise missiles. But they do contend there's a fundamental right to possess guns.

Because that's where the money comes from.....

[Irreverend IX]

72. Do you know how much money the gun industry makes?

About 2.5 billion a year. That's the entire industry, from Smith & Wesson to the hundreds of little accessory makers and custom ammo reloaders. McDonald's alone makes something like 11-12 billion a year. Guns have never been a very profitable industry; there are only 2 publicly traded gun companies in the US, Ruger and Smith & Wesson, and SW has been bounced around various holding companies like a football. Guns are one of the few consumer products still made to last forever - deliberate planned obsolescence is a bad idea for a device built to contain an explosion. This combined with sky-high manufacturing costs means that the profitability of making guns will never be close to that of drilling for oil or selling insurance policies.

The NRA enjoys influence on par with the insurance and petrochemical industries because there are so many individual citizens who are passionate about their right to own guns. If the gun rights movement is all astroturf, then why are there hundreds of pro-gun blogs and forums? I can recall visiting four anti-gun blogs, and three of those were written by professional paid lobbyists.

[tucsonlib]

79. Re: The NRA enjoys...

..influence on par with the insurance and petrochemical industries because there are so many individual citizens who are passionate about their right to own guns.
:rofl:

Ah, the poor, starving gun industry. Thank God there's an organization like the NRA dedicated to keeping them fed and clothed........

[Irreverend IX]

80. Do you have any evidence...

That what I said is inaccurate? If guns are such big business, why are gun manufacturers so underrepresented in the stock exchanges and Fortune 500? If the NRA is astroturf, why are there so many gun forums with so many members? There aren't many blogs and forums dedicated to discussing the awesome new oil rig Exxon-Mobil just built, but Exxon-Mobil could buy and sell the entire gun industry a hundred times over.

[tucsonlib]

82. hmmmm.....

Well, there's this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_10_53/ai_n30978633/

And then there's this nifty anti-Obama website they produce:

www.gunbanobama.com/

And then there's the NRA's endorsement and adoration of woefully unqualified political candidates, along with their implied enthusiastic approval of the practice of slaughtering helpless animals from helicopters:

http://www.2ablogbash.com/2009/03/16/gov-sarah-palin-to-receive-nra-ila-award/

And another little corporate "gift" (Not that they expect anything in return, mind you):

http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/lever-action-rifles/162291-marlin-donates-30-000-000th-lever-action-rifle-nra-ila.html

And here's an example of how representing the rank and file is their top priority:

http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=2084


But then, if I found incontrovertible evidence that the NRA was actually a front for NAMBLA it wouldn't matter to the true believers.....

[Irreverend IX]

84. Ruger gave them $125k.

How much lobbying service do you think that buys? That's jack shit compared to what the big industries dish out to their lobbyists. $125 grand is nothing, 4 million members paying $35 or more a year is what really keeps the NRA running. The gun industry has its own lobbying group, called the National Shooting Sports Foundation, but you don't hear much about it because the NRA's member donations dwarf what little money the gun industry can afford to give the NSSF.

The Obama and Palin stuff is their typical overblown crap; I don't agree with it and I'm not an NRA member but their political tone is set by consensus among the members. I'm sure that rifle they got from Marlin did a lot to help keep them in the black. And stopping anti-gun lawsuits is very important to the rank and file members; if frivolous lawsuits could be used to drive gun makers out of business, many popular brands of guns could be discontinued and left unsupported.

If you want to paint the NRA as an industry lobby, try to come up with something more substantive than $125,000 from Ruger. That much money won't keep your lights on for a month on K Street.

[iverglas]

93. now that is an interesting one

http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=2084

NRA-ILA Website Features New "Reckless Lawsuits" Feature

One of NRA-ILA's top legislative priorities in Congress this year will once again be the passage of a "clean" federal law to block reckless lawsuits against the firearm industry. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" passed in the House in 2003, and had majority support in the U.S. Senate (and is supported by President Bush), but was torpedoed last year by anti-gun zealots, including former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who helped his fellow anti-gun Senators attach a number of anti-gun amendments to the underlying measure.

The NRA fighting to protect gun manufacturers against lawsuits.

Who might sue gun manufacturers in relation to problems with guns?

Hmm. Gun owners?

Whom does the NRA claim to represent.

Hmm. Gun owners?

[Statistical]

96. gun owners can still sue for defective products.

the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act simply eliminates lawsuits of gun manufacturers from groups who want to sue Glock for example because Glocks are used in crime.

The goal of those lawsuits is to bankrupt the industry and have a defacto gun ban due to no supply.

Gun owners overwhelming support Protection of Lawful Commerce Act.

You may not like the NRA but to think it is a shill for a tiny group of gun makers is mistaken.
Then the antis wonder why they keep losing.

Of course that doesn't include the GOA which has about 2 million members and doesn't thinks the NRA is weak because it compromises.
Then you got Second Amendment Foundation with 600K members.

[iverglas]

98. no

the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act simply eliminates lawsuits of gun manufacturers from groups who want to sue Glock for example because Glocks are used in crime.

It doesn't.

But whatever. Let's look a little farther afield.

http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.asp?prid=1633

Governor Doyle also vetoed Assembly Bill 56, which would grant immunity from civil liability to the entire gun industry, virtually eliminating all incentive for safety innovations in the industry.

"Since President Bush and Congress have already given the gun industry sweeping immunity that no other industry enjoys, I can see no need for the State of Wisconsin to give the gun industry even more protection," Governor Doyle said. "It is unfortunate that the Legislature is spending its time protecting the gun industry instead of protecting the environment or taking meaningful steps that would actually enhance the wilderness experience for hunters and other sportsmen and women. It is just one more example of a Legislature that is out of touch with Wisconsin families."

AB 56 exceeds recently passed federal legislation, the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, which already protects the gun industry from liability lawsuits. In addition, this bill allows no recourse for citizens and communities affected by gun violence.

http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=5757&locid=19

The President granted the gun industry sweeping immunity this past October when he signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Public Law No. 109-092. Under the federal law, no civil actions may be filed in federal or state court by individuals or governmental entities seeking relief for injury or death resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm.

AB 56 unnecessarily extends these protections beyond the new federal law, by granting immunity irrespective of whether there is an injury resulting from a criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm. The bill also extends the immunity to gun club or sport shooting range owners or operators, even though Wisconsin has never seen any such lawsuits filed here. Although I honor the long tradition of hunting and shooting sports in Wisconsin and the value this tradition brings to our state, this bill is not about protecting hunters and other sportsmen and women.

I'll bet he's a damned Democrat.

And what did the NRA have to say?

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=1650

Reckless Lawsuit Preemption Bill Passes Out of the Wisconsin Assembly!

Friday, June 17, 2005

Please Contact Your State Senator!

On Tuesday, June 14, NRA supported Assembly Bill 56 passed out of the State Assembly by a vote of 65 to 34. Also known as the Reckless Lawsuit Preemption Bill, AB 56 may receive a hearing in the Senate as early as next week.

This critical legislation protects firearms related businesses and organizations from reckless lawsuits intended to hold them liable for the criminal or negligent acts of others over whom they have no control. Anti-gun forces have attempted to use these lawsuits in order to bankrupt firearms businesses and to seek regulations and prohibitions through activist courts that they have been unable to enact through the State Legislature and Congress.

With the passage of AB 56, Wisconsin will become the 34th state to have enacted this critical protection of our firearms heritage. It is essential that you call your State Senator as soon as possible and ask him or her to strongly support AB 56. You can reach the Wisconsin State Senate at [phone].

Huh.

AB 56:

AB56

I doubt that will work.

... (2) The state, a local governmental unit, and every department, division, board, or agency of the state or of a local governmental unit, may not bring an action against a firearm dealer, a firearm trade association, a manufacturer, an importer, or a dealer of firearm ammunition, a gun or sportsman's club, or a sport shooting range owner or operator for damages resulting from, or equitable relief relating to, the design, distribution, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms, firearm components, or firearm ammunition or under any nuisance theory.

(3) Subsection (2) does not prohibit the state, a local governmental unit, or a department, division, board, or agency of the state or of a local governmental unit, from bringing an action against a firearm dealer, a firearm trade association, or a manufacturer, an importer, or a dealer of firearm ammunition:

(a) For breach of contract or express warranty as to a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition purchased by the state, by a local governmental unit, or by a department, division, board, or agency of the state or of a local governmental unit.

(b) Related to a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition that was designed, distributed, manufactured, marketed, or sold in violation of a state or federal law that could result in a criminal penalty or civil forfeiture. An action that is permitted under this paragraph may be brought only against a person who violated a state or federal law that could result in a criminal penalty or civil forfeiture and only if the harm giving rise to the action was proximately caused by the person's violation of a state or federal law that could result in a criminal penalty or civil forfeiture. The fact that a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition was designed, distributed, manufactured, or sold in violation of a state or federal law that could result in a criminal penalty or civil forfeiture must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

(5) (a) 1. A firearm dealer, a firearm trade association, or a manufacturer, an importer, or a dealer of firearm ammunition is immune from civil liability in any action for an injury or death caused by a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition.

2. A gun or sportsman's club or a sport shooting range owner or operator is immune from civil liability in any action for an injury or death caused by a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition, if the action is based on the participation by the gun or sportsman's club or the sport shooting range owner or operator in the distribution, marketing, sale, or other transfer of the firearm, firearm component, or ammunition.

(b) 1. No equitable relief may be granted against a firearm dealer, a firearm trade association, or a manufacturer, an importer, or a dealer of firearm ammunition in any action for an injury or death caused by a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition.

2. No equitable relief may be granted against a gun or sportsman's club or against a sport shooting range owner or operator in any action for an injury or death caused by a firearm, a firearm component, or firearm ammunition, if the action is based on the participation by the gun or sportsman's club or the sport shooting range owner or operator in the distribution, marketing, sale, or other transfer of the firearm, firearm component, or ammunition.

So if an owner or operator of a gun or sportsman's club or a sport shooting range transferred a firearm to someone disqualified, say, and that someone turned around and gunned down a dozen gun owners at the club, they couldn't sue.

Huh. That sure looks to be in gun owners' interests.

And the NRA liked that idea.

Huh.


You may not like the NRA but to think it is a shill for a tiny group of gun makers is mistaken.

Has anyone said that is ALL it is??

[AtheistCrusader]

75. The civilian armaments market is, I'm afraid, probably of dissapointingly small size to you.

It's about a 2 billion dollar industry, including Law Enforcement and Military purchases, and ammo for all markets, including the Military.

That's actually pretty tiny.

[iverglas]

19. and as I have always said

There is a fundamental right to eat pizza! Eating is an obvious component of the right to life, and pizza is something you eat. Q.E.D.

Be nice to me. I am going tomorrow to have the second cat in two weeks to succumb to what appears to be feline leukemia euthanised. The bizarrest of coincidences, but the only likely explanation. Eddie, the current one, is the likely original source. Only Bouchée remains ... for now ...

[cslinger59]

21. Dear God, I don't even like cats but....

that is horrible. Losing a loved pet is horrible. Sorry to hear it.

[iverglas]

27. never mind the sympathy

I want casseroles! ;)

From 5 cats 7 years ago (a total that was never planned, all being uninvited guests), down to one. Haven't had a single cat at a time since I was in law school. Best to wait and see whether this one dies of the feleuk before stocking up again though, I think. Although it's virtually certain to be in the feral colony we support, so the whole effort is probably hopeless.

Maybe I'll revert to budgies.


edited to make more sense

[gorfle]

28. Sorry about your cats.

Before we had kids our dogs were like children to us. I've lost a dog to cancer before, too. Had to put him down. Best dog I ever had. The most loyal dog I've ever seen.

[iverglas]

34. dog talk?

Trying to change the subject, I see.

Ah, the true colours show. Cat-haters!!!

;)

The true test of a boyfriend is how much he adores your cats, you know.

A moment for silent remembrance of the beasties of our pasts.

The cat pee on the furniture, the midnight cat fights on the stairs, the 6 a.m. caterwauling for whatever whim might arise ... cats are loyal to a fault too, you know. As long as you feed them on demand, they'll keep demanding that you let them back in the house. If you don't, they'll climb the screen door. Unless you spend the extra $50 and get the kind with the screen on the top.

[Tim01]

40. And they are nice enough to get stuff off the shelves for you at 2am.

The top shelves.

[X_Digger]

38. Ouch!

We had to put our oldest doxie to sleep a while back, no fun.

[Tim01]

39. Damn. So very sorry about your cats. nt

[aikoaiko]

44. Its not like any senator will go from an NRA A to and NRA F over voting for Sotomayor

But a ding on the record might be appropriate. There are other issues involved and the Senators need to take them all into account.

I'm sure she'll be confirmed.

[proteus_lives]

49. Well if Sotomayor doesn't support the 2nd Amendment then she doesn't deserve to be on the SC.

[iverglas]

94. well if you mumble that meme often enough

somebody might believe it. And then they might vote Republican. And then your work will be done.

[proteus_lives]

101. boring as ever.

[tucsonlib]

102. Wow!

What a scathing retort! What an eloquent rebuttal! I doubt she'll ever recover from that one!

But facts are often boring, it's true. Which explains why your comments are never boring.....

[proteus_lives]

103. You thinks she's about facts?

That's funny. Well, you anti's are a simple folk.

[iverglas]

104. I'm going home

Mortally wounded.

Also hungry.