The NRA has me hopping mad today

[Rich Stern]

I became a member of GeorgiaCarry.org (GCO) about a year ago, and it has been an awesome group in terms of protecting and restoring Georgia citizens' gun rights.



I joined a rifle/pistol/skeet club about five months ago, and due to some pressure from other club members, I knuckled under and joined the NRA, despite having some misgivings about how the NRA does business.



Well, today, that decision came back to bite me.



GCO has been kicking ass and taking names in every local and state legal battle it has been involved in. An amaazing track record due to some very dedicated and talented people in the organization.



Last year, they asked the membership, now over 700 strong in just one year, what the key priority was for 2008 state legislative action. The membership said loudly and strongly: Reducing carry restrictions for permit holders. Right now Georgia is one of the most restrictive states in the nation in terms of where a permit holder can legally carry. A lot of it is non-sensical and difficult to comply with, putting honest citizens at risk with the law.



So, the best 2nd Amendment friend we have in the state house, a representative and fomer cop named Tim Bearden, has introduced Georgia HB 915, which is a sweeping and rational overall of the code that regulates firearms restrictions in Georgia. It's an excellent bill and the GCO is throwing it's weight entirely behind it.



Today, I find out that Wayne LaPierre is coming to town, next week, in opposition to HB 915, and in favor of a much weaker bill that was proposed last year, previously supported by the NRA.



A large group of Georgia gun rights advocates, people who live here, have a dedicated 2nd Amendment champion bringing the best 2nd Amendment protection bill we've ever seen, and the NRA is coming down to try to stop it.



WTF?



Will be parting ways with the NRA very shortly.

 

[Jody Woodruff]

What is the reason behind the NRA supporting the other bill?

 

[Rich Stern]

The other bill (HB 89) emphasizes "parking lot" gun rights; keeping your gun in your car while on the private property of others (specifically employers).



It's also handled in HB 915, but not explicitly.



Honestly, I think the NRA is trying to let GCO know they are still the big fish in whatever pond they choose to swim in. Because, if you read the two bills, HB 915 is superior in every way. A far more comprehensive gun rights bill. I can think of no earthly reason why NRA wouldn't support it, except that it was written without them.

 

[Jody Woodruff]

I can understand your frustration but don't let this drive you out of the NRA. They aren't perfect but they do a lot of good in protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. As the Country gets more urban with less and less people hunting and shooting we are going to need all the help we can get in D.C. Has the GCO ask for some time with wayne while he's in town?

 

[Texas Transplant]

Joined and then left the NRA, for primarily one and only one reason.



Wayne LaPierre



IMHO, he is simply an overpaid jerk. Causes far too many problems for those that really have our interests at heart. He reminds me quite a bit, of some of the people over at PETA. He has one, and only one view - and simply refuses to budge.



Tex

 

[fatrap]

That's really weird. I'm not a 100% NRA guy but they beat anything else lobbying for us.

fatrap

 

[fatrap]

That's really weird. I'm not a 100% NRA guy but they beat anything else lobbying for us.

fatrap

 

[Marty Klein]

Perhaps there would be more sympathy for y'all's 2d Amendment rights if each person truly concerned would sign up for their state militia, thereby generating the weapon requirement as envisioned by the Constitution.

 

[Jody Woodruff]

you've got that right fatrap. There are those in D.C. that would love to see personal gun ownership abolished, some using the above mention "militia" argument. The NRA may not be perfect but they have done a lot over the years to protect our rights. Even likeminded folks won't agree on every detail but at the end of the day we need to be vigilant of what the politicians are doing.

 

[Rich Stern]

Marty, the founders wanted people to be armed against government, not on behalf of government. Any reasonable amount of time spent reading their words on the subject makes it painfully clear this was their intent, regardless of how one might try to wordsmith the 2nd Amendment.



Don't take my word for it. Read some founders words on the subject.

 

[Jody Woodruff]

Right on Rich. Not to mention the militia at the time of the writing of the Constitution was considered every able bodied person.

 

[Mark Hofman]

I'm with you, Rich.



After one year of being an NRA member, I am so disappointed and frustrated with that organization that I will not be renewing my membership. Wayne LaPierre comes across as less interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment than he is with making the NRA the one and only special interest group representing law-abiding firearms owners.



I'll think about rejoining when he is no longer an employee or representative of the NRA.

 

[Jody Woodruff]

Please consider Gunowners of America or the Second Amendment Foundation if the NRA has you mad but by all means be involved. The anti gun schemes are endless with the politicians so they someone smoking them out! Personally I like Wayne but to each their own. I love my Nitro boat too!

 

[Greg Meyer]

Marty's issue is before the US Supreme Court... So, it will be deided...



I am curious why I should be restricted in any way, after all I responsibly carried a weapon on the governments payroll from 1967 to 1994, and not once did I shoot the wrong person...

 

[Marty Klein]

Actually, the Second Amendment and its linkage to the militia was to ensure that the central government did not have to maintain a large standing army for defense. The founding fathers wanted to preclude the expense of maintaining such an army, Further, they did not want a standing army that could possibly be misused against its own citizens or for an attack on its central government via the often-played coup card. Secondarily, the Second Amendment was intended to preclude the central government from unilaterally eliminating the state militias as the British similarly tried against its colonial citizens just prior to the revolution. It doesn't take much research to determine that those were the underpinnings of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is less about each individual being allowed to maintain a weapon come hell or high water, if related to personal ownership at all. Had that been the intent, the Second Amendment would have easily been written to simply say "all citizens of of our newly formed nation may possess a gun come hell or high water"--but it wasn't. None of these comments should be construed to mean I'm anti-gun possession. I simply believe any undying fight to link our gun ownership to the Second Amendment is a poor offense [or defense] and is bound to fail. We would probably be better off in the long run to strongly shape some kind of regulation/la which might in fact give us the added benefit of being able to control the flow of guns to evil-doers and better protection for good guys to own guns. I'm not sure how using my military weapon from 1973 until 2002 is linked to personal use, the Second Amendment, or anything else.

 

[Bruce Freeman]

OK, This is a great conversation and while always important, even more now that the elections are on the way. So my 2 cents go this way. If they won't enforce the existing laws? Why bother writing new ones?



BF

 

[Mark Hofman]

When we were in Williamsburg this summer we learned that the pre-colonial government mandated that every able-bodied male over the age of (I believe) 18 was REQUIRED to possess a personal firearm. When the British moved to sieze the powder stored in the capitol magazine, (they did this in Williamsburg and were moving to do it again at Lexington and Concord) it was a direct threat to the safety and security of the colonists.



The Second Amendment clearly states, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Although it is placed within the context of "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," the right granted is not to militias or to the government, but to the free people for the sake of their own security. The debate lateley seems to center on the second right (the first being to keep) to BEAR arms. If that one goes, the KEEP is sure to follow.



What the framers had in mind when they couched this within the concept of a well-regulated milita is something historians, not judges and special-interest groups, should decide. A strict constructionist view of the Constitution will look at word PEOPLE and read it as YOU, and ME and my law-abiding neighbor.



The case before the Supreme Court about the right to keep (and bear) arms within the District of Columbia is going to be pivotal.

 

[Greg Meyer]

It is educational on this issue to read the briefs filed by the parties and the amicus briefs by the various interested groups. Each side arues as pursuasively as possible for their constructon of the wording of the Second Amendment.



The Federal Appeals Court held, in a very detailed and well written opinion, that Marty's reading and interpretation of the Second Amendment was not legally or historically correct. The Appellete Ourt took great pains to analyze the meaning and reasoning for its decision.



I have posted a link to all of the pleadings filed, briefs from all parties and other motions, etc. and, the Appellate Court decision. Very dry reading in some parts but also very educational.
http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

 

[fatrap]

Marty

I would join the State Milita in a second if they'd have a 57 year old ex-swabbie, cripple. Especially if it'd insure my second amendment rights. I tried to get back into the Navy reserve a couple times but no luck.

fatra[