|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
NRA backs unconstitutional gun control!!!
 Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:44 pm
|
 |
|
KeepandBearArms.com
(original link: [url=http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3619)]http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3619)[/url]
10/13/03
NRA Attorney:
“YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS.”
by Angel Shamaya
October 13, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com -- NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook appears not only unprepared to effectively argue a Second Amendment case, but ready to give up the farm — to register handguns and call it “reasonable” — when he gets his day in court. Read the annotated transcript of Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments from court just last week:
D.C. SECOND AMENDMENT FEDERAL COURT HEARING
Annotated Transcript of NRA Case Proceedings
by Roy Lucas http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp
Here is a short excerpt from Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments last Wednesday, October 8, in a case the NRA calls a “Second Amendment” lawsuit:
THE COURT: THE GOVERNMENT CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
MR. HALBROOK: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.
THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?
MR. HALBROOK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.
[See: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp for the full transcript, with annotations.]
Sarah Brady wants to register handguns, too. Maybe Mr. Halbrook should join her organization to help in their efforts. When you read the full, annotated transcript, the above will be one of many concerns raised.
Arguing a so-called “Second Amendment case” while “wanting to register handguns” is working directly against the rights of those who would never submit to such restrictions under any circumstances. Stephen Halbrook is an NRA-paid attorney, and he filed this lawsuit with their support.
Would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison have gone to court to fight a Second Amendment case merely wanting to register handguns in the home? Of course not. Would they have argued for handgun registration in the middle of a court hearing in which they eagerly agreed that the government can impose “reasonable restrictions”? Not a chance. Doing so suggests that such an overt infringement on our Second Amendment rights is “reasonable,” when it most certainly is not. Treasonable, perhaps...
You do not have to register your Bible, or your computer (First Amendment), so why should you register your firearms (Second Amendment)? Answer: you shouldn't. But NRA Management and their unprepared attorney obviously disagree — and they are using members' donations to do just that. Handgun registration is NRA's idea of leading a Second Amendment court challenge. Yet they've been in operation since the late 1800's and have raised billions of dollars to “protect the Second Amendment.”
Americans must realize that NRA management's “defense” of Second Amendment rights in court litigation is destructive. Fortunately, the current Second Amendment lawsuit most likely to be heard by the Supreme Court — Silveira v. Lockyer — is beyond NRA management's control.
The Supreme Court is very likely to grant a hearing in the Silveira case soon. And thanks to careful legal research spanning the last year, the case is far better prepared than any Second Amendment litigation the National Rifle Association has ever brought in court — with already-greater judicial success for the Second Amendment than the NRA's well-paid lawyers have ever managed.
Read the certiorari petition now being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in that case. The arguments for strict scrutiny far surpass what NRA's attorney weakly suggested to the judge last week: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf
Mr. Halbrook should study the Silveira petition. He could learn a thing or two and certainly improve his arguments by doing so.
Three weeks ago, the Silveira lawsuit was attacked (and misrepresented) by an NRA-funded writer on a well-trafficked website. He told the world that NRA's Stephen Halbrook was the man to send to the Supreme Court to win a Second Amendment victory. Perhaps these gentlemen have a different idea of victory than we do.
With the help of grassroots activists, KeepAndBearArms.com is funding the necessary legal research and writing being used in the Silveira lawsuit (and another Second Amendment lawsuit, to be announced soon). More work is necessary, and it costs money to get it done. We've publicly displayed our books on funds raised and invested bolstering the case. If you'd like to help, please do by clicking here.
Silveira v. Lockyer Status of Fundraising http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/funds_status.asp
Silveira Second Amendment Case Needs Immediate Financial Support, and Here's Why http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/fundshelp.asp
Silveira v. Lockyer Home Page http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 10-16-2003] |
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:21 am
|
|
|
As an NRA life member, I can't tell you how pissed off I am. They will never get another penny from me. Folks, they are a trojan horse in the 2nd amendment fight clear and simple.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3594
Betrayal of Trust
How the NRA Bargains Away Our Second Amendment
by Nicki Fellenzer
June 2, 2003
It is with a heavy heart that I write my column this week. I write it as a columnist for Armed Females of America – a tireless proponent of the principle of “no compromise” when it comes to our freedoms. I write it as a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for KeepAndBearArms.com – an organization dedicated to the principles of defending our Second Amendment rights fully, completely and without negotiation, concession or conciliation. And I write this column as a member of the National Rifle Association. It is this last membership that makes it so painful to convey this story, but I feel I need to convey it to all of you – whether you are NRA members or not. You need to know the truth about the largest organization of and for gun owners in the country. You need to understand that the biggest doesn’t necessarily mean the best, and that the political clout of an organization that allegedly claims to support and defend gun owners in the United States, doesn’t necessarily work in your favor or to protect your rights.
When I first joined the NRA, I did so because I felt they were the best suited to represent my interests. As the biggest organization dedicated to the rights of gun owners in the United States, I felt they had the most political influence and were in the best position possible to achieve our pro-freedom goals. I thought they served a terrific purpose – to mainstream the views of gun owners. And even though I disagreed with some if their political moves, I felt we all supported the same cause – to ensure the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed – even though we took different roads to that goal.
I was wrong.
The National Rifle Association does do a lot of good. Their training programs, gun owner and children’s education programs are hard to beat. But their Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and the NRA’s Political Victory Fund (PVF) are nothing but a horde of sycophantic, power-hungry compromisers, who aim to preserve their jobs – not to preserve your freedoms.
The ILA’s website unequivocally states the following: “For 130 years the National Rifle Association of America has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern. NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.”
Let’s examine this particular lie “step-by-step.” A few weeks ago I wrote in my column that the NRA supports unconstitutional gun laws and that it takes credit for victories in battles not its own. I even provided a link to their own website to support this fact. The NRA, after getting irate phone calls and emails from numerous gun owners and members, immediately took action. Did they admit this fact? No. Did they take immediate steps to change that policy? Not that I’ve seen. No. They altered the link on their website so that anyone who tries to access it receives this message. Not to worry, however, you can still access this particular information via the NRA-ILA’s website. All you need to do is access “Fable III: NRA opposes all ‘reasonable’ gun regulations.” And you will see the following:
The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.
NRA has also assisted in writing gun laws. The 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards NRA helped write. When anti-gun groups accuse NRA of opposing the law, they lie. NRA, joined by the Justice Department and Treasury Department, opposed only earlier legislation because that legislation would have banned an enormous variety of hunting, target shooting and defensive ammunition….
… NRA only opposed a bill that would have banned millions of commonplace handguns, and instead supported an alternative, the Hughes-McCollum bill. That 1988 legislation prohibited the development and production of any firearm that would be undetectable by airport detectors, and enhanced airport security systems to counter terrorism. In the end, the NRA-backed legislation passed Congress with wide bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Reagan.
At the state level, NRA has worked with legislators to write laws requiring computerized "instant" criminal records checks on purchasers of firearms and those who carry firearms for protection in public...
How bizarre that an organization dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms which claims that it “has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern” would not only support unconstitutional gun legislation, but help write it as well.
How strange that an organization that claims to support the rights of all gun owners favors creating an elite class – law enforcement officers – who would be privileged enough to use ammunition suitable for any type of encounter, while you – the ordinary peon and employer of said elite class – are not to be trusted with such “dangerous” bullets.
How odd that an organization which supposedly supports the idea that gun ownership as an inalienable right would support legislation to check if those wishing to practice that right are “fit” to do so – especially since the NRA claims that it “continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.”
The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
It supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition.
It supported legislation to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
increasing penalties for violation.
All of these facts have been carefully and meticulously documented by KeepAndBearArms.com Founder and Executive Director Angel Shamaya in an article entitled, NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934. This excellent and thorough essay details the NRA’s long history of supporting gun control laws, as documented and admitted by the NRA itself in a March, 1968 issue of American Rifleman. Those of you who have the issue, may want to give it a read. Those of you who haven’t, can access the entire article on the KeepAndBearArms.com website via the above link.
Never mind that several of the above are stepping stones to registration of gun owners - which NRA has publicly, repeatedly admitted leads to confiscation. In fact, NRA has raised money to ‘fight against gun registration’ out of one side of their mouth while helping create gun and gun owner registration lists out of the other.
Never mind the absurdity of placing a minimum age on a constitutional right – especially when teenagers can enter the military and use firearms in the defense of our country.
Never mind the pure maliciousness of forcing Americans to wait a week to exercise their constitutional rights!
The issue is: why does an organization which purports to be a major force in defending the right to keep and bear arms actually support infringements on said right?
Let me give you a clue: anytime the government or any other powerful entity speaks of permitting or licensing a right, it should be your wake-up call that said entity does not consider it a right, but rather a privilege – to be approved, licensed and controlled by the government. This is what the NRA supports, according to Wayne LaPierre, “We believe that a lawful, properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ... with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement that's making America a safer place to live.” (emphasis mine)
Seems the NRA wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to appear moderate and supportive of “common sense” gun control legislation (cautiously avoiding the fact that the laws they have supported thus far have been an unconstitutional and ineffective farce), but at the same time they would have you believe that they stand in opposition to any attempts to gradually erode your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which one is it, NRA? This member would certainly like to know!
But my disappointment and disenchantment with the National Rifle Association doesn’t end there. They have repeatedly sold out gun owners by supporting petty tyrants in three-piece suits, who consistently take steps to infringe on our freedoms. In California, the NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender of Freedom” Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported unconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of “freedom” apparently thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time, according to Gun Owners of California.
During the last election cycle the NRA and anti-gun Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence actually supported some of the same candidates! According to the Kennebec Journal, Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
Meanwhile, in Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
The latest travesty comes from Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun “accomplishments” of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and “milita-esque”[sic] organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners. And by the way, according to KeepAndBearArms.com, Frederick is actually an NRA member, while Rollison is not. But I have no doubt Rollison will run right out and join real quick just to correct that little error.
And if you have any doubt that the NRA supports gun grabbers, don’t take my word for it, read the words of former NRA board member Russ Howard, who resigned from the board in 1997. “In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving undeserved grades to politicians who trample on the 2nd Amendment.” This is an insider talking, folks. This is a man who knows the goings on inside the NRA’s boardrooms telling you that the NRA has been giving “A” and “A-“ grades to undeserving, freedom-trampling, gun grabbing politicians! And, as you can well see, the trend continues today.
The list of NRA betrayals goes on and on. In 2001, the NRA sold out North Carolina gun owners by allowing a bill to prevent cities from suing gun makers pass committee for a floor vote in the Senate. This bill is not what it appeared to be, according to Grass Roots North Carolina. While it restricted municipal suits against gun makers it also:
Required peaceable gun owners to register private gun sales with the FBI through the National Instant Check System if they chose to sell a gun at a show.
Would have allowed shooting competitions and wildlife clubs to be classified as "gun shows" if anyone sold a firearm at the event.
Required registration of black powder firearms with the FBI via the NICS.
Punished gun show promoters for illegal sales over which they have no control, offering them only an "affirmative defense" to keep them from being punished with a Class 1 misdemeanor.
According to the GRNC, the NRA sold North Carolinians out because “despite giving Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight (D-Dare, GRNC *) an ‘A’ and an endorsement, he has held their gun litigation bills hostage in the Senate. So they made a deal to include all of the gun show bill which GRNC has defeated for the last 3 years – a bill drafted by lobbyists for NC's Handgun Control affiliate, North Carolinians ‘Against Gun Violence.’ Translated, that means the NRA just got into bed with NCGV!”
The NRA also went on record as supporting CARA – the Conservation and Reinvestment Act – in 2001, a bill that made available billions of dollars to essentially condemn private property. Why? Apparently to appease Alaska Congressman Don Young – an NRA board member.
The NRA supports Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods, which will allow the federal government to prosecute gun crimes – primarily a responsibility of the states. It violates the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution and could conceivably lead to a “mindless zero-tolerance policy toward technical infractions of the gun laws, resulting in long prison sentences for marginal offenders who do not deserve to be in jail,” according to Gene Healy of the CATO Institute. Project Safe Neighborhoods is enthusiastically backed by the NRA, which claims to hold the entire Constitution inviolate. Dozens of gun rights organizations and leading individuals came out, in a Coalition opposed to Project Exile. It tacks on extra jail time to anyone possessing a gun during the commission of a crime, regardless of whether or not the gun was actually used in the crime. It holds “gun” crime as more heinous than, say, a crime in which a woman pours gasoline on another and sets her on fire, rendering a gun more “evil” than a lighter and some gasoline for the purpose of harming another.
Last year the NRA supported a bill that would give away billions of taxpayer dollars to help states update the national database used for background checks on gun buyers. That bill was introduced by rabid anti-gunner Carolyn McCarthy – the same McCarthy who is now trying to shove yet another “assault” weapons ban down our throats – a ban that includes, among many other firearms, the widely-owned Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30.
And speaking of “assault” weapons, THIS NRA member wants to know why the NRA has been transparently silent on President Bush’s promise to sign McCarthy’s ban into law! I’ve scoured their website top to bottom. I’ve done searches of major news outlets. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out one thing: Why has the NRA said nothing about Bush’s apparent support of this ridiculous “assault” weapons ban? Why, after a campaign of obsequious Bush ass-kissing in the last election, will the NRA say nothing negative about the President’s willingness to sell gun owners down the river?
I find it a bit hypocritical that the NRA is willing to consider revoking its support of the staunchest supporter of the Second Amendment in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, because he refused to support their pet legislation on constitutional grounds, but they will not say a negative word about President Bush and his clearly political betrayal of gun owners. Ron Paul’s actions weren’t against gun owners. He didn’t do what he did to betray the Second Amendment. He rejected H.R. 1036 on clearly constitutional grounds – because he believed it violated the 10th Amendment. Yeah – another portion of the “inviolate” Constitution the NRA claims to protect. Meanwhile, a clearly political maneuver on the part of Bush in an effort to appear more moderate to clueless, uninformed, misguided anti-gun morons gets a pass from the NRA. Does this give you an indication where the NRA’s loyalties lie? It certainly doesn’t appear to be with the Second Amendment. Instead the NRA’s loyalties lie with the seat of power.
Some have suggested an even more insidious scenario: The NRA is poised to sell out gun owners. That’s why it won’t tell its members that Bush supports the extension of the present “assault” weapons ban. By staunchly opposing the much more sweeping legislation proposed by Carolyn McCarthy, the NRA could claim a victory when the present ban is extended or even made permanent by pointing out that they helped defeat the much more restrictive H.R. 2038.
An anonymous Internet post reveals just such a scenario:
“PAY ATTENTION! What NRA DOESN'T SAY is just as important as what they do say. (Maybe MORE important!),” the alert says.
“NRA-ILA is conducting ‘spin control’ by omission. Nowhere …does NRA mention the fact that the so-called ‘assault weapon’ bill WILL sunset in Sept. 2004. The uninformed reader depending on the NRA for the ‘straight story’ on this issue has yet to be told of the sunset feature of Clinton’s gun ban. Neither has he been told of President Bush’s endorsement of the current gun ban. Furthermore, the ILA ‘report’ urges members to call and register opposition to the MORE RESTRICTIVE Feinstein / McCarthy bills. But, NRA-ILA fails to tell members to register opposition to the current gun ban.”
“Friends,” the alert continues, “two NRA Directors have personally contacted me. Both have implied that in secret executive session, the leadership (NRA BoD) has been informed that the situation is ‘under control.’” George Bush made his announcement in support of Bill Clinton’s gun ban just days after the anti-lawsuit bill passed its most daunting obstacle in Congress. Wayne (LaPierre) had placed the lawsuit protection bill as a ‘TOP PRIORITY’ for the NRA. By saying that in public, he placed the NRA's reputation on the line. He painted himself into a corner from which it is easy to see how he could have ‘dealt’ the ‘assault weapon’ ban off to gain protection for the gun industry.”
“My conclusion,” says this writer, “ is that NRA has ALREADY ‘struck a deal’ with George Bush and the Republican Party to use the smoke screen of Feinstein / McCarthy as the ‘windmill’ that NRA will direct its members to tilt at. Then, some Republican will propose a simple ‘extension’ of the current AWB. Wayne will claim ‘ANOTHER GREAT VICTORY’ for the so-called ‘Winning Team’ by passing the ‘compromise’ and ‘defeating’ Feinstein / McCarthy! And in return for selling out the Second Amendment, LaPierre and the gun industry will get their 30 pieces of silver in the form of protection from lawsuits.”
Dennis Jackson, a pilot, Second Amendment rights activist and advisor to Armed Females of America agrees. “I’ve been saying this for a long time,” he quips. “What they’re going to do is introduce a more sweeping bill that the NRA will oppose, but in the background they’ve already agreed to extend the existing ban.”
Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com has two theories on the long and telling NRA silence on Bush’s support for renewals of the federal gun ban. “First, they may actually have inside information that says the bill will never hit Bush's desk -- and they want to let him and help him curry favor with gun prohibitionists. If that's the case, thinking gun prohibitionists will ever vote for Bush in 2004 is almost as stupid as thinking you're safer when you're defenseless. But maybe their inside information makes them think this is a sound strategy, by some kind of logic that eludes my logical mind.”
”Second,” he continues, “they are re-engaging their political cowardice and don't want to rock the boat by coming out against a president they helped put in office. NRA's managers are in fact political cowards with unfortunate frequency, so this is also likely. Perhaps the NRA Managers' yellow streak is at play here.”
While I won’t speculate about what is in the head of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s Board of Directors, I will say that this scenario isn’t as farfetched as I would like it to be. The NRA has been playing politics with our rights for far too long. They have compromised away gun owners’ rights in a transparent attempt to gain power in Washington. They have interfered, manipulated and tried to derail real and legitimate work on behalf of our Second Amendment rights.
For instance, note the NRA’s attempts to combine its lawsuit challenging the D.C. gun ban with another suit brought by the Cato Institute on behalf of five D.C. residents, claiming that the city’s gun ban violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Robert Levy, a Georgetown University law professor and constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, told CNS News recently that his clients are “just perfectly situated to make the best case possible in the jurisdiction that has the worst laws possible.” But it seems the NRA just can’t stand being left out of a superior court case, so in an attempt to hog in on the action, it filed a motion to combine Levy’s suit with its own, far inferior one. The NRA’s suit doesn’t just address the Second Amendment violations in Washington, D.C., but it also claims the D.C. gun ban violates the Fifth Amendment protection against being deprived of property without due process, as well as the provision dealing with "equal protection" under the law. It also claims the ban violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and imposes regulations that are not "usual and reasonable" as required elsewhere in D.C. law. These extraneous and unnecessary claims will only serve to muddy the waters of the much more pure Second Amendment suit brought by Levy. It will give the court a way to once again avoid addressing the Second Amendment directly, and if combined with the Cato suit, it could cause it to fail. CATO attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy even go so far as to accuse NRA’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, of filing cases with a built in “trap door” in an effort to “give the court a basis, if it chose, to avoid a foursquare holding on the Second Amendment.” That’s one of many reasons the CATO attorneys gave the court – while trying to get NRA to stop sabotaging their case:
In a similar attempt to get in on the action, the NRA tried to convince its members to give money to a lawsuit that wasn’t theirs earlier this year. According to Gary Gorski, the lead attorney in Silveira vs. Lockyer, an NRA representative called his home asking him to renew his membership for the next three years to help take Silveira to the Supreme Court. “I asked him the name of the case,” writes Gorski, “and he said Silveira v. Lockyer. I then asked him specifically what the NRA's attorneys were doing on the case, and he said that "they were going to take the case to the Supreme Court" to get the decision overturned. I asked where he was calling from, and he said the NRA in Virginia (The NRA's legal counsel is in VA - 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030.) I then told him who I was, and he was dumfounded. He said it was a pleasure talking to me, and thanked me for all my hard work. I asked to speak to a manager, and he hung up the phone.”
The NRA representative had claimed that the NRA had “legions” of lawyers working to bring Silveira to the Supreme Court. But in fact, Gorski says NRA attorneys Stephen Holbrook and Chuck Michelle had earlier asked him to drop the suit, because they claimed he couldn’t win, and because the suit would interfere with other projects the NRA was working on "behind the scenes."
Why would they do this? Angel Shamaya has a viable theory. “If the Second Amendment were resolved by the Supreme Court in the way educated civil rights advocates demand that it be resolved, the largest percentage of NRA's 'Save the Second Amendment' income would vanish. The fact that NRA has never once taken a Second Amendment case all the way to the Supreme Court speaks volumes -- they've been around since 1871, and they've been raising money on the Second Amendment for several decades.”
In the end, this strategy will serve to alienate numerous gun owners. When my column mentioned the NRA’s sellout of gun owners by their support of unconstitutional gun laws, I was informed that the NRA offices received numerous phone calls and emails demanding an explanation. Additionally, the fact that one of their lead attorneys has tried to kill a current 2A case and another of their lead attorneys is still trying to sabotage yet another current 2A case has inspired more people to resign their memberships from NRA, according to Shamaya.
Here’s the bottom line: Groups like Armed Females of America, KeepAndBearArms.com, Liberty Belles and many other state-level non-NRA organizations exist to preserve and protect your freedoms. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action exists to protect its employees’ jobs. They’ve failed gun owners too many times to think otherwise. “I think the NRA, VPC, Brady, etc. they’re businesses,” says Dennis Jackson. “Without some degree of gun control there’s no need for them to exist.”
Angel Shamaya agrees. “If the NRA was doing its job, our organization would not exist,” he writes. “I could poll 30-odd non-NRA group leaders who'd likely echo a similar statement. NRA's charter calls for them to defend the Second Amendment, but they frequently attack the Second Amendment -- and we've got so much evidence to prove that statement it turns your stomach, when you look at it objectively.”
I’ll tell you the truth. I would rather be doing something else. I love to write. I want to write a novel. I used to do professional stage work while in college – musical theater – and I’d love to get back to it. Angel, Dennis, Carma Lewis of Armed Females of America and many others would love to spend their time doing something other than fighting this frustrating fight. “I'd love nothing more than to completely END the war being waged against our Second Amendment rights.” Shamaya says. “ I have other things I'd like to do with my life -- this movement is an ongoing series of headaches, stresses and anxieties I'd be very happy to nullify.”
The Armed Females of America mission statement states unequivocally “A GOD GIVEN RIGHT cannot be legislated; cannot be turned into a privilege by a self-serving government who may then revoke it; cannot be judged or interpreted, and cannot be amended, added to a ballot, or repealed. OUR RIGHTS have no ‘loopholes.’ Any law restricting use, quantity owned or purchased, magazine capacity, configuration, caliber, firing operation, or age limits is unconstitutional.” This is a direct antithesis to the NRA’s actions, its constant pandering to power-hungry politicians, its compromising away of our God-given rights in exchange for political clout and its historical support of unconstitutional and immoral legislation. Enough is enough!
OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE. Our rights are not to be used as bargaining chips in power plays. They are not to be used as bait or manipulation. Our rights are not the NRA’s, President Bush’s or anyone else’s toys. They are inalienable and inviolate, and there will be consequences to those who try to sell our rights out for a few votes.
|
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:23 am
|
|
|
Those that have known me for a while know that this is probably my dearest "pet" issue. Bear with me. And oh yeah, then bear arms!
NRA Helping Feds Force More Gun Control on States and Citizens
Schumer/McCarthy Gun Control Bill Set to Pass with NRA's Help
by Angel Shamaya
October 7, 2003
NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, former NRA Director Rep. John Dingell and Sen. Chuck Schumer held a press conference Thursday, September 25, 2003, to announce their mutual enthusiastic support for the “National Instant Check Improvement Act,” which will require states to submit $1.25 Billion worth of additional information into the FBI's gun buyer background check database — including personal, private medical records people never knew would be used to prevent their ability to purchase firearms. (Photo by Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com, Click image to enlarge.)
KeepAndBearArms.com — “What do you get when you put a current and former board member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the same room with two of the most vehemently anti-gun members of the House and Senate?” asks CNSNews columnist Jeff Johnson in his Sept. 26 news report. “On Thursday, the answer to that question was: agreement.”
The NRA is enthusiastically endorsing a gun control bill that's also supported by avowed gun banners Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. Handgun Control, Inc. calls the bill “a sensible step that will save lives” — note the word “step” — which is what they say about banning semi-automatic rifles due to ergonomic and safety features, and what they've said in the past about completely banning handguns.
NRA's former and current board members took the stage with two of America's premier gun banners, smiling as they announced unequivocal support for this new gun control bill. Rep. Dingell called the two gun prohibitionists “patriotic Americans” and praised them in other ways. Sen. Schumer and Rep. McCarthy vehemently oppose the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment and consistently sign on to bills that would ban guns. They were both elected to Congress — and pride themselves — on their gun banishment agendas. Some would have a hard time calling such people patriotic. NRA insider Dingell didn't stutter.
About the Legislation
This NRA/Schumer gun control bill is called the “NICS Improvement Act” and has just been introduced under that name in both houses of Congress (S.1706 & H.R.3237). The bill's alleged visible intent is “to improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.”
By “improve”, according to the Washington Times, they actually mean to “add 35 million new records to the system.” CNSNews says that includes investing $1.25 Billion dollars over three years — roughly $4 for every man, woman and child in America — to add records to the FBI's database. The bill amounts to the bribing of States with federal money to add private, personal records to FBI's list of prohibited persons — to expand their list of people who cannot purchase or possess firearms — and to penalize States that fail to comply. Included in those records will be medical records.
Gun Owners of America says the bill, if signed into law, will “bar millions more from gun ownership.” In their report of September 30, GOA says, “the bill could require states to turn over vast numbers of records (on potentially all Americans) to the FBI for use in connection with the Instantcheck. These records — often containing sensitive, personal information — could include ANY state record.”
This new expansion of the NRA-endorsed National Instant Check System is about making certain that people prohibited from owning firearms under federal law are prohibited from buying new firearms legally. On the surface that might sound, to some, like a good idea. But analysis of who is banned by federal law is required — and it's a good idea to consider what adding personal, private medical records to the FBI's database will actually do.
Current federal law prohibits several classes of people from keeping and bearing arms. The full list is below, with highlighted text to draw your attention to just some of the ways innocent people are ensnared. Scan for the highlights (in red, underlined text), then read further below:
Persons Federally Prohibited from Keeping and Bearing Arms
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
Sec. 922. Unlawful acts
[CITE: 18USC922]
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien--
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
( who is subject to a court order that--
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
People subject to frivolous, unjustified court orders are being denied their right to keep and bear arms every week in America. We received two such reports this week — and the details are frightening. Studying the new NRA/Schumer bill makes one thing very clear: NRA wants to make sure the feds know about and keep a registration of people subject to such orders — regardless of whether or not said people are guilty of any crime at all.
Emerson as an Example
Take the U.S. v. Emerson case, for example — a case NRA supported with an amicus brief when it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Emerson had been accused of pointing a firearm at his wife and daughter, and a restraining order was taken out against him. According to federal law, he was prohibited from owning a firearm. He was prosecuted for having firearms in his possession — under 922(g)( listed above. He was later exonerated of charges that he'd done what he was accused of doing, and the restraining order was therefore rendered invalid — but he was still prosecuted, and convicted, for violating that federal law. Section 922(g)( says anyone subject to a court order of that nature cannot possess firearms. He was still in violation of that law even though the very reason for the court order that brought that law down upon him was disproved.
The new NRA/Schumer bill intends to make sure that everyone under such a court order — whether valid or not — is prohibited from keeping and bearing arms. The purpose of the bill is to expand the federal registry of people subject to such court orders — even if the orders have no merit whatsoever.
It's bad enough that innocent people are ensnared by estranged spouses in “restraining orders” that have no basis of fact. But now the National Rifle Association wants to help the federal government find and prosecute such people. How many more Dr. Emersons does NRA Management want to see imprisoned?
Medical Records Invasions
Now think about the kind of questions medical intake forms have included over the last many years. “Any person...who has been...committed to a mental institution” could mean someone who got involuntary in-house alcohol treatment and psychological counseling TWENTY YEARS AGO. Even if they've completely rehabilitated, federal law says they are banned from owning firearms — and the new NRA/Schumer bill seeks to make sure the federal government finds out about every such person in America, to make sure their gun rights are restricted.
Among the many “none of your business” questions on medical forms, variations of the “have you ever smoked marijuana?” abound. Refer above to federal law on who is banned from keeping and bearing arms, repeated here again:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Unlawful user. How many people who said “yes” to the “have you smoked pot” question will find their way into the FBI's database one day? Saying so was an admission of being an “unlawful user”. BATF's current definition of “unlawful user” includes “and has lost the power of self-control” — but federal regulatory definitions can change, and the “drug war” is still being waged with increasing militarism. The same is true of the steroids many athletes have surely told their doctors they've used to pump up their muscles. How might that information be used in the future? And what of medical marijuana users who've been “legalized” by their State but are still being viciously prosecuted by the feds? Perhaps they already fit the “lost self-control” description, according to armed enforcement bureaucrats.
Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act is now codified into 21USC802. There's a current bill before Congress to add more substances to the list of “controlled substances” in section 102.
NRA and Charles Schumer want all of that personal, private medical information used to deny people their right to keep and bear arms. Bye bye, right to keep and bear arms, for lots more people. GOA's assessment of this NRA/Schumer bill is correct. NRA wants to make sure the FBI catches all of the people whose records have slipped through the Gun Prohibition System — when many of those prohibitions are clear, direct, overt infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
“We think this is a step in the right direction,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA.
How Could This Affect You Personally?
Do you have a spouse? If so, and if he or she ever files a restraining order against you for frivolous (invented) reasons, the new NRA/Schumer bill seeks to use over one billion dollars to make sure that information is sent directly to the FBI.
If you ever suffered a painful, tragic unexpected loss of a loved one and fell into deep despair, it's conceivable that your doctor could “commit” you to an in-house treatment facility to help you heal your broken heart so you could regain your “mental health”. The new NRA/Schumer bill seeks to use over one billion dollars to make sure that information is sent directly to the FBI.
If you ever smoked a single marijuana cigarette in college and confessed that to your doctor, is it so far fetched to wonder if that information will be used in some way in an FBI database?
If your son refuses to wear a United Nations insignia and is dishonorably discharged from the military, the new NRA/Schumer bill seeks to use over one billion dollars to make sure that information is sent directly to the FBI. “Patriotic Americans,” indeed.
Or try this on for size: you spank your child on the buttocks, with your bare hand, he screams bloody murder — kids tend to do that — and your neighbor calls the police. The police charge you with domestic violence, and the anti-gun judge finds out you're a gun owner and convicts you. Sound far-fetched? Tell it to the people who've already lived that very nightmare. Just know that if it does happen, the new NRA/Schumer bill seeks to use over one billion dollars to make sure that information about your “misdemeanor domestic violence conviction” is sent directly to the FBI.
Media on the NRA/Schumer Legislation
Billionaire-funded “Americans for Gun Safety” calls the current NRA-created background check system “the linchpin behind the nation’s gun laws.” That may explain why Handgun Control Inc. — the nation's largest national gun prohibition organization — also praises current NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig and former NRA Director Rep. John Dingell for introducing the legislation.
Click to enlarge, use at will.
New York Times columnist Eric Lichtblau says “the legislation appears headed for passage in both houses of Congress” because it has support from both sides of the aisle and NRA's strong endorsement and active praise. “The aim, said [NRA Director] Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, was to create 'an effective, accurate, speedy background check',” reports Lichtblau.
Gun Rights Leaders Are Very Displeased
Non-NRA gun rights leaders are disturbed by this development — but not surprised. They say there's no background check required to express your First Amendment rights — purchasing a Bible, publishing an editorial, peaceably assembling, or petitioning the government to stop trampling your rights, for examples — so why should there be a background check required to express your Second Amendment rights? Would a background check prior to being allowed to attend church be okay as long as it was “speedy”?
“The NRA's support for legislation promoted by the most zealous anti-rights legislators in the US is just more evidence of their true place in the Second Amendment debate,” says Kevin Starrett, head of Oregon Firearms Federation, known as Oregon's only No Compromise gun lobby. “This is not the first time the NRA has sided with the enemies of freedom,” he says. “NRA members everywhere should start seriously wondering what's next for NRA. Gun banners Schumer and McCarthy are now 'patriotic Americans'. Next up: Sarah Brady is the good Samaritan.”
“Bill of Rights background checks — only the NRA would support such unAmerican treachery,” says Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the uncompromising Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in Colorado. “They've supported this prior restraint against a basic right for many years, but now they want to take over four bucks per person in America to 'improve' the system, while raising money for allegedly being defenders of the Second Amendment. My understanding of the Second Amendment and the intentions of our nation's Founders is that 'shall not be infringed' means 'shall not be impaired, abridged, blocked, thwarted, restrained or messed with' at all. I guess NRA's managers don't have a dictionary — or they don't refer to it because they are too busy cutting deals with people who want to ultimately eradicate private firearms ownership.”
“Gun banners Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy are now 'patriotic Americans'. Next up: Sarah Brady is the good Samaritan.”
—Kevin Starrett, head of Oregon Firearms Federation
Starrett and Brown aren't alone in their ire. At least a dozen leaders of incorporated non-NRA gun rights organizations oppose this latest move by NRA. Some of them say NRA has already tried to make this happen in the states. Ken Rineer of Arizona Gun Owners says “we successfully fought off similar provisions in the Arizona legislature in both the 2001 and 2002 session. However, the NRA wanted mental health records incorporated in to Arizona's instant check system. Near the end of the 2002 session, the NRA and Senator Ruth Solomon worked out a deal and the mental health provisions were added to a budget bill. We all missed it.”
GrassRoots North Carolina President F. Paul Valone shares Rineer's pain. “As usual,” he says, “the NRA lacked the intestinal fortitude to brand the bill for what it is: A 'Medical Records Disclosure Act,' demanding the release of private medical information to bureaucrats — they provided no help in killing the so-called 'gun trafficking' bill. The measure was introduced last year in North Carolina in a 'gun trafficking' package endorsed by Governor Mike Easley. We immediately ran radio spots in Raleigh, branding it 'Governor Easley's Medical Records Disclosure Act.' Given his other political problems, Easley then helped us suppress the committee hearing for the bill, killing it.”
Now NRA is committed to helping force states to give that private information to the feds.
GRNC is being sued by NRA's attorney and employee — Valone is personally named in the suit — for allegedly doing something he says he didn't do. He says the suit is about silencing him and his volunteer organization. Many gun rights leaders who've assessed the NRA lawsuit against him agree — NRA wants to chill the group's efforts at defending freedom. The NRA doesn't like opposition to their gun control bills — especially from gun rights organizations and leaders — and GRNC has been effective at exposing them in the state for quite some time.
“The National Instant Background Check System doesn't need to be strengthened,” says Zach Lautenschlager, leader of South Dakota Gun Owners. “It needs to be abolished. No matter how tight the system is, murderers, rapists and muggers still have numerous other means for procuring weapons, while thousands are convicted of 'domestic violence' for a non-physical family squabble and then denied access to the basic tools of self-defense.”
If we take NRA and Sen. Schumer's lead and assume that background checks — prior restraints against exercising the Bill of Rights — aren't infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then what's wrong with aggressively adding mental health and other records to the database? As one example, some judges require 'psychological testing' when restraining orders are issued. Even if the restraining order is frivolous and proven as such, that data being entered into a database could prove problematic for the target of such a court order. Some states also use a debunked 'restraining order' as justification to deny a permit to even purchase a firearm. If such a denial were to become codified into federal law, a whole group of innocent people would be denied their basic right to keep and bear firearms.
If you want to see what kind of people will get “caught” by the NRA/Schumer NICS “Improvement” Act, go study up on the plight of Mr. Russell Laing. That could be any of us, or any of a number of people we know and love.
We've already seen alleged “Instant Check” computer glitches shut down gun sales in this country. And naturally, NRA's latest gun control partners will still fight tooth and nail to maintain waiting periods in states that require them — even after this latest NRA/Schumer scheme becomes law.
But opposition to this type of “strengthened” gun control is more fundamental than the intricacies of what could go wrong if the law were abused. “The bottom line is that if we wouldn't support a First Amendment background check, it's dishonorable to support a Second Amendment background check,” says Kevin Starrett. “NRA might support having reporters pass background checks before they can use the free press, too” he says. “But that wouldn't make it right.”
“This is one more example of the NRA selling their false premise that 'getting tough on crime' is equivalent to being 'pro-gun',” says Andy Barniskis of the Keystone Firearms Coalition in Pennsylvania. “While they promote false optimism in their members' ranks, based on small victories like one more state being added to the roles of those offering concealed carry permits, they also applaud the expansion of the mechanisms of future defeat, such as federal gun buyer registration, that will be used against us when national confiscation comes, as it came to England.”
Many gun rights activists have argued that the timing of this latest sell-out is suspicious because it coincides with Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle's support for legislation banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers. NRA's pet legislation being supported by Daschle the Gun Controller does seem rather strange. Some believe our rights are being used like trading cards — that NRA is giving up some ground to get their pet legislation passed...as if our rights are theirs to bargain with in the first place.
Think about this stuff next time you get an NRA beg letter asking you to fund their insidious support for the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3617
|
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:39 am
|
|
|
as al sharpton said to General Clark:
"...a new democrat who is a real Democrat... better than an old Democrat who votes with Republicans..."
Daschel is an old Democrat who sold out long ago.
Those who know me know I've railed against the deceit and lies of the NRA = National Republican (front) Association
And tried to warn that the sell-outs on both sides are our enemies.
When the NRA said "Clinton will take away your guns." they lied.
I, like most others, bought guns while Clinton was in office.
When Reagan banned clip fed and large magazine (alley sweeper) shotguns,
the NRA was silent.
When Bush (the first) passed the initial 1991 assault weapons ban;
the NRA was silent.
But when Clinton extended the Bush assault Weapons Ban;
The NRA suddenly found their voice and became extreme in their opposition.
Yet,
as a DNC member;
I can verify that the NRA refused to join the DNC in passing a National Concealed Carry Permit.
The offer was repeated year after year and the NRA refused to even consider supporting an extension of liberty,
as would result from law abiding citizens being able to legally travel interstate carrying concealed weapons.
Do you believe that Rush ever actually listened to any Liberal and knows what he is talking about when he spouts propaganda blaming Liberals for all the world's ills'
He no more knows Liberals than Goebbels knew Jews
though the rhetoric is almost identical in both words and purpose:
"the magician does a flourish with one hand to distract the audience/
while he does the trick unnoticed with the other hand"
Join the NRA
and watch your 2nd amendment rights vanish
while NRA funds the people who disarm you,
just because they spout the lies you want to hear,
Or listen to those who tell you the truths that offend you;
who get not one cent from the NRA,
because they fail to parrot the party line.
glad a few others have learned the truth.
Sad it comes so late.
Now learn to also disbelieve Rush
(and his fellow propagandists)
and begin to take back America.
Both sides are sold out.
That magic (R) next to a name does not make an enemy your friend!
[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 10-17-2003] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:48 pm
|
|
|
"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
http://www.gunowners.org/ |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:59 pm
|
|
|
Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/
2nd Amendment
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. |
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:59 am
|
|
|
Told you Mech, that's where you need to shop for your next date! Seriously, http://www.keepandbeararms.com is also worthy of support.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra for everything you need to know about why I will no longer support the NRA and you shouldn't either.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by FLKook on 10-24-2003] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:55 am
|
|
|
Never sent the NRA my money...now I CERTAINLY won't. |
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:30 am
|
|
|
Here is just one article that can befound about the NRA at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
March 29, 2002
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
INTRODUCTION
When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record — to prove my claim and inform others.
I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did — and they have for a very long time.
Don't take my word for it.
KeepAndBearArms.com — The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.
As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.
To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" — elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.
Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman — NRA's premier magazine, then and now — and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.
First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later — decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.
The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)
The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch — a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.
"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)
That's one form of registration.
"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)
That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.
In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts," NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:
"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"
That's a registration list.
"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"
That's another registration mechanism.
"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;"
Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.
"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"
That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."
"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"
"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service — another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.
"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)
What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?
At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:
"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."
Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.
and
"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]
Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has — over 70 years ago.
Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)
"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)
"Worthwhile gun legislation"?
The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder — their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.
Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
—NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws
By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.
"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.
Here is the record over the years:
Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.
Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.
Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.
"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22
More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:
The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.
The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.
In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23
The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.
NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:
1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.
2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.
3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.
4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the
CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)
purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;
f. increasing penalties for violation.
Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:
"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."
The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:
NRA Secretary Daniel
"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."
The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.
Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:16 am
|
|
|
Sounds like the NRA is another TROJAN HORSE for the UN lovers, globalists and gun grabbers. |
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:06 pm
|
|
|
Bingo. They called me again the other day; boy did I give the solicitor an earful. Hope he checks out the info I gave him and wakes up.
It was really a tough pill to swallow. My whole family has supported the NRA forever, lied to again. Once you start peeling away the lies in one area it is so much easier to see them in another. That doesn't make the betrayal any easier though.
It is understandable how some cling to the liberal/conservative paradigm. There is something in us that just wants the "system" to have some sort of reason. The truth of deception on both sides and the resulting trip down the rabbit hole is far from a comfortable journey.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:21 pm
|
|
|
That's right Florida.
That's why i'm not a Neo-Con and not a liberal.
I'm a CONSTITUTIONALIST.
Mabye somewhat of a populist.
Its just like a lot of mainstream orgs.
Look at the liberal ACLU...they actually have stood up for rights at one points and then stab peoples rights on other occasions.
Again..its the same phony left/right paradigm.Its all about consolidating power in the hands of a tiny few.
Banning guns will NOT bring security..it will bring TYRANNY.
I can hear Patrick Henry turning in his grave right now.
Probably so are the ghosts of the soldiers who fought the soldiers of the British crown at Lexington and Concord...a two hour drive from my house.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 10-25-2003] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 11:39 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
