Tag: National Rifle Association

Lots of Complaining But What’s the Solution LaPierre

Via Uncle I came across a column by NRA president Wayne LaPierre. In the piece he warns about the dangers of Obama receiving a second term and explains many of the potential dangers:

And as I travel the country talking to fellow National Rifle Association members, gun owners, and Americans from all walks of life, it is clear to me that the next decisive date in American history will be November 6, 2012 – the day America must decide whether President Barack Obama deserves a second term in the White House.

I say this because so many Americans genuinely, and rightly, fear that something is deeply wrong in our great nation. We fear that the America we know and love is in danger of jumping the tracks and spiraling out of control. We see a President whose values and goals are, in many ways, the exact opposite of our beliefs and what generations of Americans have fought and died for.

This is why all gun owners and freedom-loving Americans must ask this question: “If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, will my freedom, and particularly my Second Amendment freedom, become more or less secure?”

And then, we must consider the facts.

[…]

This is why I’m asking every NRA member, every gun owner, and every patriotic American to view next year’s election through the lens of freedom. If we fail to draw a line in the sand and defend the future of our Second Amendment rights, then we will lose the one freedom that gives common men and women uncommon power to protect all freedoms. And then, it’s only a matter of time before every freedom in our Bill of Rights is scaled back, diluted or even destroyed.

That’s good and all but it’s nothing everybody isn’t already vehemently aware of. Here’s my question, what’s the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) solution? Let’s take a look at the last election and consider what ended up happening. Last election was set between John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of which were good news. Even though McCain proved himself to be no friend of gun owners the NRA gave him the endorsement. I’m sorry but there was no acceptable reason to get behind McCain considering his history and the NRA should have either endorsed a third-party candidate (fat chance) or simply said, “Both major players are horrible, we’re ducking out of this and focusing our efforts on a contingency plan.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) moved in with several high-profile court cases that went so far as to incorporate the second amendment. In other words even under dire circumstances SAF found a different route outside of the decision between rock and hard place. Considering the NRA has far more resources available to them they should have been the ones initiating the lawsuits and moving them through, instead they simply continued with the status quo of endorsing the “lesser” of two evils.

So far the Republicans haven’t selected a nominee and there is a chance for the NRA to make a stand. Of the Republican candidates there is only one who will stand up for the rights of gun owners (and everybody else) and candidate is Ron Paul. Instead of complaining about Obama for the entire column LaPierre could have taken a stance and said, “Due to the threat of Obama to the rights of gun owners the NRA is hereby endorsing Ron Paul for Republican Party presidential candidate.” Unfortunately it appears as though the NRA is going to keep playing it’s old game of simply endorsing the Republican candidate.

As it currently stands the Republican Party appears to be setting up Romney to win by simply ignoring Ron Paul and hyping up each other candidate only to have them torn down (so far they’ve done this to Bachmann, Perry, and Cain with Gingrich being the fourth one receiving this treatment). If the election domes down to Obama versus Obama II Romney will the NRA give Romney their endorsement? Will that be their way of fighting for the rights of gun owners?

SAF has the right idea, given the futility of getting true pro-gun candidates into office a new strategy had to be devised and utilizing the court system seems to be a fairly effective strategy. I believe the NRA should drop their tried and false approach of giving the “lesser” of two evils an endorsement and focus on a new and potentially more effective strategy. Perhaps they can start working with SAF from the start of each lawsuit instead of hoping in after all the real leg work as been done and claiming the credit. Maybe the NRA can say, “Well Obama and Romney are both bad for gun owner rights so we’re sitting this election out and concentrating on getting pro-gun Senate and House members in office.”

Yeah this is a rather long rant just to say, “Put up or shut up LaPierre” but I’m getting sick of constant compromises when it comes to my rights. Supporting the “lesser” of two evils doesn’t accomplish jack shit, it merely gives your endorsement to evil. When one strategy doesn’t work you need to be adaptive and move to a new strategy. If endorsing a real pro-gun candidate like Paul isn’t in the works then it’s time for something entirely different.

The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act

One of the biggest cluster fucks in United States law regards the sale of firearms between individual states. Basically the only legal way to sell a firearm to a person residing in another state is by doing a transfer through a federally licensed dealer. Well it appears as though some congress critters have finally had enough of this stupidity and introduced H.R. 58, The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has a good rundown of the bill:

In the 1980s, the Congress revisited these restrictions during the debate over the Firearms Owners` Protection Act (FOPA). As the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on FOPA put it, the 1968 interstate sales provisions were “so cumbersome that they [were] rarely used.”2 When the Congress passed FOPA in 1986, it did away with the state authorization, notification and waiting period requirements. Federal law now allows dealers to make interstate rifle and shotgun sales, as long as (a) the buyer meets in person with the dealer, and (b) the transaction complies with the laws of both the buyer’s and the seller’s states.3

Since 1998, however, all people buying firearms from dealers in the U.S. have been subject to computerized background checks under the FBI`s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), either by the dealer contacting NICS (directly or through a state “point of contact” agency) or by the buyer presenting a state firearms permit issued after a NICS check. Any of these systems are far more advanced than anything available in 1968.

H.R. 58 are common sense measures that would take advantage of these technological improvements to further reduce restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Under H.R. 58:

Individuals could buy handguns, as well as rifles or shotguns, from licensed dealers in another state, subject to the background check requirement. The buyer and dealer would still have to meet in person and comply with the laws of both states.

[…]

Finally, H.R. 58 would reduce theft and loss of firearms during shipment between dealers. BATFE’s longstanding interpretation of the Gun Control Act generally forbids licensed dealers from transferring firearms directly to other licensed dealers, face to face, away from their licensed premises.5 Even though the dealers have already had a thorough background check, under the current interpretation, dealers who agree on a sale are forced to return to their business premises and ship firearms to each other by common carrier, which always involves some risk of theft or loss. H.R. 58 would allow a face-to-face exchange instead.

I could never figure out why I’m forbidden from buying a handgun in a neighboring state when all federally licensed dealers, regardless of the state they’re in, are required to perform the same National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) check on me. Before the anti-gunners start shitting their pants lets just get this out of the way; this bill will not allow somebody to bypass stricter laws in their state of residence by purchasing a firearm in another state. H.R. 58 only affects federal laws and will not prevent states like Illinois from requiring stupid things like Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card before being able to legally own a firearm. An Illinois resident who purchases a firearm in Wisconsin will still be a criminal unless he has a FOID card in hand when he gets back to his home state.

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

Yeah I know I’m a bit late to the party on this but it’s better to be late than never show up right? H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, is a bill that once again attempts to require each state recognize carry permits from all other states.

I’m a big fan of any legislation that removes some teeth from the government (either state of federal). This bill would prohibit states from refusing to acknowledge carry permits from any other state (except Illinois since they are the last state without any form of legal carry). Although I have my doubts that this bill has a chance of passing I do hope it does. It would be nice if one of my so-called constitutionally guarantee rights were actually respected in this country.

Gun Owners Prove Safe Once Again

So 71,139 National Rifle Association (NRA) members descended upon Pittsburgh and none of those scary gun lovers, many of whom were carrying, killed anybody. This isn’t surprising to people who pay attention as gun owners are generally very peaceful people but according to the anti-gunners allowing the carrying of firearms can only lead to blood in the streets as all arguments will turn into shooting wars.

So when exactly is this supposed to happen because it wasn’t when tens of thousands of gun owners were all crammed into the same area at the same time.

I Think This is Called Winning

According to Say Uncle the National Rifle Association (NRA) Annual Meeting had 71,139 people in attendance. Just remember that according to the anti-gunners the issue of gun rights is declining in the United States and it’s only a matter of time until nobody cares about gun rights in this country.

Isn’t it funny how everything the anti-gunners claim is always going to be just a matter of time? They claim that it’s only a matter of time until blood runs in the streets after any pro-gun bill is passed which has yet to happen. It reminds me of Keynesian economists who claim it’s only a matter of time until an economy recovers when the government starts spending tons of money which also never ends up happening.

That Evil NRA

As Snowflakes in Hell brings up one thing the anti-gunners like to parrot is how the National Rifle Association (NRA) hates police officers. They claim the fact that the NRA works to maintain gun rights for use measly little peasants as proof. Well the NRA must really hate police officers since they’re buying them body armor:

The Taylor County Sheriff’s Office is getting new body armor thanks to a grant from the National Rifle Association.

The funds were awarded earlier this year in an effort to provide body armor that may not otherwise be available because of budget constraints.

Wait that doesn’t fit the anti-gunner schtick.

I Can’t Agree With the NRA on This

Most of the time I don’t have a lot of problems with the actions of the National Rifle Association (NRA) but this new piece of Florida legislation they’re backing is pure shit. The bills are S.B. 432 and H.B. 155

What the bills would do if passed is make it a felony for a medical practitioner to ask about your firearms or record information about your status as a gun owner:

(2)(a) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable, except as provided in paragraph (b), as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) A person who violates this section may be assessed a fine of not more than $5 million if the court determines that the person knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was unlawful.

I’m completely against doctors asking if you own firearms but you know what? If they ask you can flat out tell them it’s none of their business. They can’t legally force you to tell them if you own firearms. On top of that making it a fucking felony, a charge that will revoke said doctor’s own second amendment rights, is insane. Here’s my solution to this problem, if your doctor is asking you question about your personal life that you don’t want to answer then don’t answer. If said doctor continues to inquire find a new doctor.

Likewise the bill also mentions medical personnel making records of whether or not you have firearms in your household. I agree that shouldn’t be happening but making it a fucking felony is overboard to say the least. You know what a good solution to this would be? Check your medical records periodically and if any mention of your status as a firearm owner appears go to another doctor and maybe even bring a civil suite against your doctor for recording non-medical related information. This is bad legislation plain and simple and I wish the NRA would stop promoting it. Punishments should fit the crime and revoking somebody’s right to bear arms or even vote because they recorded information they shouldn’t have is going a bit far.

Now if we want to make a law against government inquiring about your status as a gun owner or recording any information about your status as a firearm owner I’ll back that 100%.

California AB962 Struck Down

For the first time in a long time some good news as emerged from California. The law passed last year that would have made it illegal to mail order ammunition in the state of California has been struck down in the Fresno Superior Court:

The law, passed last year as AB 962, would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered. In an unwritten ruling from the bench, Judge Jeffrey Hamilton found the law unconstitutionally vague on its face and issued an injunction against its enforcement. For now, at least, mail order ammunition sales to California residents can continue, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

The lawsuit—funded by the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation as part of a joint Legal Action Project—was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new law. Plaintiffs in the case include Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker, the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

Being California is about as tyrannical of a state as you can get you can bet money this will be appealed. Still score yet another one for the good guys.

NRA Challenging Ban on 18-20 Year Olds Buying Handguns

The National Rifle Association (NRA) are challenging the ban on 18-20 year olds being prohibited from purchasing handguns from a federally licensed dealer:

The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D’Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.

Good on them. I’ve always found some things odd in this country. Take for example being an adult, in this country you are legally considered an adult at 18 years of age. Alas being an adult doesn’t mean you’re quite ready to be treated as such. In most states you can’t legally purchase or consume alcohol until you’re 21 and you are prohibited from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer until you reach the same age.

Strangely enough when you turn 18 you’re old enough to join the military where they often issue you handguns. Hell, at 18 you’re old enough to join the civilian police force who are issued handguns as well. Yet, even if you join military or a police force, you still can not legally go to a gun shop and purchase a handgun until you reached 21 years of age. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

I’m glad to see the NRA challenging this one.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

Unless you’re the National Rifle Association (NRA) apparently. The Gun Rights Examiner has a piece talking about how the NRA is taking credit for the recent McDonald vs. Chicago case that incorporated the Second Amendment. The case was bankrolled and petitioned to the Supreme Court by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but the NRA seems to ignore that fact when they talk about it. Both the NRA and the SAF had a case to bring to the Supreme Court and the head honchos of judiciary chose the SAF case. The NRA then petitioned and were granted shared time in the SAF case.

Needless to say in the NRA-ILA article that the Examiner was talking about didn’t both to mention SAF once. That is pretty dickish if I do say so myself. I think it’s about time I went and practiced my other privilege of being a member of the NRA, complain to the organization when they aren’t doing what they should be doing.