Implications of MacDonald?

[DoubleTap45]

Even before the fowl have hatched some folks are speculating that with a very favorable ruling (to US) the NRA will launch a volley of appeals from states and municipalities with similar laws or at least draconian laws such as in NY City. Any reliable indications on that score? Seems like a good plan IF good test cases exist.

-Ray

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't foresee a blizzard from the NRA. Perhaps a flurry, but not a blizzard or "volley." The NRA has a vested interest in allowing as many onerous anti-gun regulations as possible stay on the books so they have an excuse to solicit us for money to fight the evil government.

If the SCOTUS were to rule that the 2nd Amendment is absolute, applies to the states, and that ALL laws and regulations limiting firearms ownership and carry are null and void -- the NRA would be left facing the reality that they were originally founded to promote marksmanship and safety, and not much else. Wayne LaPierre would no longer be able to justify his obscene salary.

No, the NRA doesn't want a slam dunk, and they won't go after all the local and state gun laws. They'll cherry pick a few easy cases so they can proclaim how proactive they are in protecting our rights, but it's all show.

Remember: The NRA argued AGAINST Heller until it was accepted for review by the SCOTUS, at which point they had to change their tune or risk looking like the opposition if the plaintiffs prevailed (which they did). The CATO Institute did the heavy lifting, and the NRA stood ready to share the credit.

[DoubleTap45]

48 States with some form of CCW or 40 with SHALL ISSUE. NOBODY has their war chest. The SAF, GOA and CCRKBA can all merge and not have HALF the clout of the NRA. NOBODY expects the SCOTUS to void all gun laws overnight or even over ten years. It took us about 75 years to get here and will take another 30 to get back.

What ABOUT shooting sports? I don't know where you live but I'm in NY City. I have to drive a minimum of 40 miles to shoot anything bigger than a handgun or .22 rifle. We don't even have an archery range anymore the Marxist City Council will see to that as well. I WANT the NRA to get onto the next big thing which will be much greater ACCESS to shooting.

Geeez! I thought I was cynical.


-Ray

[Aguila Blanca]

Geeez! I thought I was cynical.
I doubt anyone has a monopoly on cynicism.

For the record, I am a dues-paying member of the NRA. That doesn't mean I think LaPierre is worth anywhere near the salary he gets, and it doesn't mean I drank the Kool-Aid. If all the gun laws were to disappear overnight, the paid honchos at the NRA would be VERY unhappy. They might have to actually justify their jobs.

[Frank]

...The NRA argued AGAINST Heller until it was accepted for review by the SCOTUS, at which point they had to change their tune or risk looking like the opposition if the plaintiffs prevailed...The NRA was initially resistant to Heller (at the time Parker) because Rehnquist and O'Connor were on the Court at the time, and they were likely to be resistant to our arguments. We were playing for all the marbles, and an adverse decision would have been a disaster.

When the composition of the Court changed, the NRA signed on.

...No, the NRA doesn't want a slam dunk,.. If you believe that somewhere in this morass there's a "slam dunk" that will resolve all things in our favor once and for all, please name it. I surely can't think of any.

...they won't go after all the local and state gun laws. They'll cherry pick a few easy cases...First, they have gone after local and state gun laws, including cases in San Fransisco and Washington State shortly after Heller. They also have cases pending in California waiting for a favorable ruling in McDonald.

And yes, they will choose their cases carefully. Getting hammered in one at this stage in the development of RKBA precedent post Heller isn't going to do us any good.

...If all the gun laws were to disappear overnight, the paid honchos at the NRA would be VERY unhappy. They might have to actually justify their jobs...But that's absolutely never going to happen no matter how wildly successful the NRA can be. First, we have a lot of litigation to look forward to. Second, as each victory is won in court, the anti-gun forces will be working to enact legislation to get around it to the extent possible. The Brady Bunch, VPC and their ilk aren't going to just evaporate.

There has been plenty to keep various civil rights organizations busy in the 50+ years since Brown v. Board of Education . And Roe v. Wade hardly settled the abortion question for all time. There will be plenty of work for the NRA and other RKBA organizations for a very long time to come.

...That doesn't mean I think LaPierre is worth anywhere near the salary he gets,... Are the people who work for the NRA not entitled to salaries consistent with what they could earn elsewhere in jobs requiring similar skills, training, education and experience -- and having similar responsibilities? Choosing to work full time for the RKBA should not require that one take a vow of poverty. The NRA is not a monastic order.

Any organization, like the NRA, has to be able to offer salaries to top level executives that are competitive to those being offered by other organizations of a similar size. And the NRA can't offer stock options or stock grants like those generally used by publicly traded companies as part of executive compensation packages.

[Old Fashioned]

Good post Frank.

[CODY]

the NRA would be left facing the reality that they were originally founded to promote marksmanship and safety, and not much else
For the 35 bucks it costs to belong to the NRA, its a small price to pay. You do have benefits.
Discounts at hotels, insurance on theft. I lost a 9mm back in the eighties and got the max $200.
Just had to send a form and the police report. between my homeowners and the NRA ins. I was able to replace my 150 dollar model 39 with a SIG P226.
Where exactly are we with this case. I live in Illinois, so I have a messed up situation in this state.

[allforguns]

Hi all. First post. Soooo, where is this old Macdonald issue at in this point in time? Forgive me if I don't know....my head is swimming from all the data and news out there. Thanks

[DoubleTap45]

The SCOTUS has heard all oral arguments and will now write their opinion. I KNOW a 7-2 in our favor is ridiculous, but I'd much rather see a 6-3 than a 5-4 decision. :appld: The close decisions will only embolden the gun grabbing nanny staters to try and craft laws to circumvent the SCOTUS' decision.

IF we get the 6-3 I want the NRA-ILA, GOA, SCOPE, NYSRPA, CCRKBA and SAF to EARN all the cash we've sent them for thirty years and go after Governor for Life Daley, Nanny Bloomberg, Mayor Nutter of Philly , Fenty in D.C. and that hoplophobe in Baltimore whose name I can't recall.

If the RKBA applies to the States through the 14th Amendment then it applies to the CITIES as well. :butthead:

-Ray.

PS- I KNOW Daley's a mayor but the NRA guys in IL call him "governor" because he in fact runs the STATE due to 5 million ideologues who keep electing him.

[allforguns]

Thanks, DoubleTap. You know, what boggles my mind is, if you really read the amendments to the original Constitution, paying close attention to the wording, is that some (many?) people can still not see that the RKBA is an individual right. It's kind of like the 1st amendment about free speech, press, etc. Who, in their right mind, would think this means a state or city has the right to free speech, but an individual does not? Maybe it would have been better if they had left out the milita part of the 2nd amendment, due to people of today getting that mixed up with National Guard and such. Thanks again.

[DoubleTap45]

The National Guard was not formed for about a century AFTER the CONUS was written. There was NO confusion. The unorganized militia was said to consist of all males 18-45 years old excepting a few public officials who would be needed to continue their duties in the event of a national crisis.

-Ray

[allforguns]

That's what I mean. People of today misconstrue the original wording to refer to the National Guard and such. It's really even more clear (as if it weren't already) when you start reading the correspondence between the framers of the CONUS. But, then again, I cannot remember who said it, I was thinking it was Franklin possibly (probably wrong), but at any rate one of them had said that once the population of the USA had grown past a certain size there was bound to become an inestimable amount of confusion and misinterpretation regarding just where the boundaries of government began and ended. It might have been Hancock. I'll have to go back and do some researching on that. But, we sure are at that place it seems. Thanks

[DoubleTap45]

"A lie can get all the way around the world before the truth gets across the street." He knew the dangerous power of demogoguery and media distortion. He lived in the heyday of yellow journalism. :geek:

-Ray

[Aguila Blanca]

It obviously would have been better if the Founders had omitted the militia clause, but they didn't. And the fact that the RKBA is an individual right has now been settled by Heller. That part is a done deal.

What is before the Supreme Court now is the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, or if there is one Bill of Rights for people who live in Washington, DC, and a different Bill of Rights for people living in the fifty states.

The National Guard was not formed for about a century AFTER the CONUS was written. There was NO confusion. The unorganized militia was said to consist of all males 18-45 years old excepting a few public officials who would be needed to continue their duties in the event of a national crisis.
That is still the case. The Militia Act has been revised a couple or three times since the original (1782 original, revised 1792, 1795,1862, 1903 and 1908), but it is still on the books under 10 US Code 311.

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[DoubleTap45]

Look at health care "reform" that 74% of the public DOES NOT WANT. They want force a bill through by DEEMING it to have passed in the Senate so it can be passed in the House and sent BACK to the Senate for "reconciliation".

Our dear friend Schumer has been taped without his knowledge as claiming "we can change ANYTHING and I'm very excited about it." :(

If they care nothing for the RULES in the CONUS re: legislative procedure WHY do you think they won't try the same hamfisted approach with the 2nd Amendment. They do NOT care about the will of the People. To them we the people are ignorant sheep and need to be led by THEM and that goes for the RKBA as well. :scared:

-Ray :butthead:

[Dial 1911 for Help]

No, they want to "deem" the Senate bill in the House. They no longer have 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, so they have to pass the Senate bill verbatim in the House, then "reconciliation" could be used to make adjustments, which would only take 51 Senate votes (on the reconciliation) which they could probably still get.

While Harry Reid says "reconciliation" has been used numerous times, and mostly by Republicans, so they should quit "crying" about it, he conveniently forgets to mention that all those times, it was used for RECONCILIATON, not for ramming legislation down our throats that's so bad even politicians don't like it.

Now the problem (for tyranny) is that they're having a hard time getting the 216 they need in the House, because a lot of the Reps don't like stuff in the Senate bill (abortion funding, etc). So they're having problems getting the Senate bill through the House. Thus, the "deeming".

I "deem" they're a bunch of petty tyrants (and probably child molesters).

[DoubleTap45]

Most politicians talk about gun control in the terms that journalists are comfortable with. In other words they talk vaguely about "hunting, target shooting, collecting" and so forth. They NEVER go into lawful self-defense because the great unwashed PUBLIC actually understands and LIKES that part.

They always come up with the technological argument to ban a class of guns like "scary black rifles", scoped "sniper rifles", "gangsta special" high capacity autoloaders and so forth. They NEVER address the tech factor concerning high speed printing presses, news outlets that run 24/7/365 or the Internet. The Framers NEVER foresaw those so why CAN'T they be infringed? TRY IT with our press.

Most educated politicians, particularly the lawyers, KNOW the real reason for the 2nd Amendment and they FEAR it. They know why Jefferson, Madison and others wanted it in there. It had NOTHING to do with the Redcoats returning 12 abreast. It had EVERYTHING to do with unresponsive, sleazy and corrupt politicians who try to ram things like THIS down our throats. They know it and are SO frightened they won't ever talk about it.

That's why they rely on the pointy-headed intellectual elites who have NEVER lived outside their own ivory towers or mingled with average folks in their lives to "explain" away the 2nd Amendment.

-Ray

[Tedzo]

Most educated politicians, particularly the lawyers, KNOW the real reason for the 2nd Amendment and they FEAR it. They know why Jefferson, Madison and others wanted it in there. It had NOTHING to do with the Redcoats returning 12 abreast. It had EVERYTHING to do with unresponsive, sleazy and corrupt politicians who try to ram things like THIS down our throats. They know it and are SO frightened they won't ever talk about it.
Amen. (plus 6 more characters to make this response long enough to post).