Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: What is the NRA doing for US these days?

  1. #1

    What is the NRA doing for US these days?

    I had asked before and was told that this was ok, Mods, PM me if I am overstepping my bounds.

    Many here are critical of the NRA and think they only care about $10,000 European side by side shotguns. NO, The NRA is us and represents us. I received a nice e-mail outlining some court cases in which the NRA is involved here in California.

    Remember, the NRA is an organization made up of it's members, it is who its members are. They are the best friend we can have in days like these.


    The NRA Supports California Litigation

    The NRA has been fighting for your right to keep and bear arms in California courts for decades. Below is a list of some of the recent cases that the NRA is supporting. Several other potential lawsuits are pending, including one against Glendale for a gun show ban, a case against Los Angeles for a proposed ban on possession of magazines that hold over ten rounds, a case against San Francisco for a potential hollow-point ammunition possession ban and a case against California DOJ for unjustifiably delaying lawful firearm purchases. In addition to these cases in California courts, NRA has dozens of other cases in courts throughout the country that may be used as precedent in California, including several attacking the constitutionality of “assault weapon” bans. For more information on these suits visit NRAILA.org/legalupdate.

    Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully striking down main portions of California’s AB 962, that would have banned mail order ammunition purchases and required registration and thumbprinting for in-store purchases. The State’s appeal of the 2011 decision is now fully briefed before the California Court of Appeals and we are waiting for oral argument to be scheduled by the Court.

    Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. This ban was rescinded and the NRA negotiated a formal settlement agreement to prevent adoption of similar restrictions in the future. This case has recently been used as precedent to help NRA lawyers fight similar bans in Washington, D.C. and in Delaware.

    Peruta v. County of San Diego - Lawsuit challenges San Diego County’s requirement of a special need (i.e. "good cause") for obtaining a license to carry a firearm in public. Though the trial court did not grant plaintiffs the specific relief they sought, the court’s opinion was the first to recognize post-Heller that the Second Amendment right "to bear arms" secures a right to carry arms in public for self-defense -- not a complete victory yet, but positive progress in Second Amendment jurisprudence. Plaintiffs have fully briefed and argued their appeal. We are currently awaiting a decision that could come any day.

    McKay v. Sheriff Hutchens - Lawsuit challenges Orange County’s requirement of a special need for obtaining a license to carry a firearm in public. This case was filed after the California legislature banned the "unloaded open carry" of firearms. This case is a follow-up to the Peruta and Richards cases which relied (partially) on the plaintiffs’ ability to openly carry an unloaded firearm -- an option that is no longer available under state law. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction is fully briefed before the Ninth Circuit. We are currently waiting for oral argument to be scheduled by the court.

    Assenza v. City of Los Angeles - Successfully enforced an 18-year old consent decree against the LAPD and Police Chief Beck to ensure that all members of the public were properly receiving the requisite CCW application and CCW policy upon request at station houses. Each LAPD station must now conspicuously post a sign explaining where the application and policy can be found.

    Davis v. City of Los Angeles - Lawsuit challenges Police Chief Beck’s failure to adhere to an 18-year old consent decree in processing CCW applications and determining what constitutes good cause to issue CCWs to LA residents.

    Bauer v. Harris - Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the fees the California DOJ requires in order to purchase firearms in California and the use of those fees’ revenues for purposes unrelated to lawful firearm purchasers exercising their right to acquire a firearm.

    Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco- Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring that handguns be locked up while in the home, banning the discharge of firearms (lawsuit already forced amendment authorizing lawful defensive discharges), and prohibiting sales of common self-defense ammunition. Plaintiffs (including NRA) received a favorable published opinion in opposing the City’s challenge to their standing, paving the way for other plaintiffs to bring Second Amendment challenges in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs are currently appealing denial of their preliminary injunction and have filed their opening brief before the Ninth Circuit.

    Pizzo v. Newsom - Obtained amicus status and defeated ill-conceived and poorly prepared claims threatening to undermine efforts in Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco. In dismissing those claims on legal "standing" (and avoiding a damaging merits ruling), the district court followed the favorable standing analysis suggested by NRA attorneys in their amicus brief and disregarded the watered-down standing argument pushed for by the City.

    Mehl v. Blanas - Submitted an amicus brief and participated in oral argument in Ninth Circuit review of this ill-conceived and poorly prepared case challenging CCW laws and policies. Explained defects in the case and that better cases existed for deciding the CCW issues, in an attempt to avoid bad case law that would impact other better prepared CCW cases.

    Richards v. Prieto - Filed amicus brief in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting appellants who sued Yolo County, challenging CCW issuance laws and policies.

    People v. Nguyen - Filed a request for depublication with the California Supreme Court of a decision that is currently dangerous binding legal precedent for California firearm owners. The current opinion opens the door to prosecutions for possession of mere firearm parts. If the request is granted, the misguided and dangerous decision could not be cited as legal precedent.


    Help NRA Get Californian’s Connected With NRA’s California Resources

    Help the NRA expand its California network to keep all pro-Second Amendment Californians better informed about legislation in Congress, Sacramento, and locally that threatens your right to keep and bear arms, as well as developments in Second Amendment litigation and regulatory enforcement actions. Please forward this email to your family, friends and fellow gun owners, whether they belong to the NRA or not! Encourage them to sign up for California NRA’s Stayed Informed e-mails here. And follow NRA through these additional connections:

    Websites:
    NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA California, NRA – ILA Legal Update, CalNRA.com, CRPA.org, CalGunLaws.com, HuntforTruth.org

    Facebook Pages: NRA’s Facebook page, CalGunLaws.com Facebook page, NRA Members' Councils' Facebook page, Hunt for Truth Facebook page

    LinkedIn: NRA’s LinkedIn page, YouTube: NRA YouTube, Twitter: NRA Twitter, NRA-ILA Twitter, CalNRATwitter, CalGunLaws Twitter

    The NRA recognizes that California is one of the most active Second Amendment "battleground states," so for decades NRA has devoted substantial resources to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms for Californians. The NRA has full-time legislative advocates in its Sacramento office fighting ill-conceived gun ban proposals. NRA coordinates a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local gun bans and regulations. And NRA has been litigating cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment for many years. NRA’s California legal team continues to work pro-actively to strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of California firearms owners. For information about NRA’s litigation efforts, see www.nraila.org/legal/litigation.aspx

    To donate to help support the NRA’s California efforts, please click here.

  2. #2
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    3,490
    Thanks NAPOTS!

    For one, it is self destructive to forget the good things an organization does. Even behind the lines here in CA, the NRA still butts heads with the antis. I hate the fuckers who spew "so? you have massive anti gun laws that passed" All I have to say is that things would be MUCH WORSE if it were not for the NRA. The NRA was instrumental in some very sick anti gun laws being overturned or at least rendered to the "never will be enforced" file.

  3. #3
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,068
    What is the NRA doing for US these days?
    I read somewhere recently that they were negotiating Universal Background checks that would require all private sales go through NICS.

  4. #4
    I think we have to realize that we are so overpowered by the big city liberals here in this state that fighting legislation through political influence is almost impossible. Fighting the constitutionality of legislation in our courts is the only hope we have. The congressional committees in this state rubber stamp almost all gun control legislation. A lot of left leaning gun owners thought that brown would veto some of the gun control legislation but it has since been proven that he is no friend of the 2A.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    I read somewhere recently that they were negotiating Universal Background checks that would require all private sales go through NICS.
    You must not be a member, they were accused of this in the MSM and are emphatically against it.

  6. #6
    Think where we would be today without them. They may not be perfect, but I do believe in and support them with my money.

  7. #7
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by nitewatcher View Post
    Think where we would be today without them.
    I think we would not have gotten the 86 firearms protection act, and the ban on machine guns that came with it. As I recall, the NRA said that it was a fair trade.

  8. #8
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by NAPOTS View Post
    You must not be a member, they were accused of this in the MSM and are emphatically against it.
    No, I am no longer a member. I renounced the NRA when they tried to derail the Parker case (later the Heller case that was won) Now the hypocrites try to take credit for the Heller victory and even use it to try and solicit my money from me. IF they hold firm on this round I may consider rejoining them. I just don't trust them anymore to trust them with more of my money to not sell me out again.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    I think we would not have gotten the 86 firearms protection act, and the ban on machine guns that came with it. As I recall, the NRA said that it was a fair trade.
    As I said, the NRA is a body of it's members. It is not the same organization today that it was 10 or 20 years ago. They currently hold a hard stance against any gun control. I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't like the direction they are going? Join and get involved.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Punk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    I read somewhere recently that they were negotiating Universal Background checks that would require all private sales go through NICS.
    You read lies. The NRA's position on this latest assault on the 2nd is armed protection in schools and mental health initiatives.
    Guns Network member since January 2001

    Illinois State Rifle Association

  11. #11
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by NAPOTS View Post
    As I said, the NRA is a body of it's members. It is not the same organization today that it was 10 or 20 years ago. They currently hold a hard stance against any gun control. I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't like the direction they are going? Join and get involved.
    Like I said, I WAS a member and I got screwed so I quit giving them my money. If, and I mean IF, they hold firm on this round I may rejoin. We shall see. It still boils my blood though, that they hypocritically try to take credit for Heller when they actually did everything they could to kill it. The Heller victory was not do TO NRA actions, but in spite of it.

  12. #12
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Punk View Post
    You read lies. The NRA's position on this latest assault on the 2nd is armed protection in schools and mental health initiatives.
    Perhaps it's intentional mis-information to sow desention among the NRA folks. But the NRA does have a track record on these things, and it ain't good. As you always see in a prospectus: "past performance does not guarantee future results". But despite that, financial analysts always look at past performance. I will wait and watch. Maybe the NRA will get some more of my money. But I am curious, why does the NRA tout the Heller victory as a reason to support the NRA, when they tried to so hard to keep it from going to trial?

  13. #13
    Forum Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    No, I am no longer a member. I renounced the NRA when they tried to derail the Parker case (later the Heller case that was won) Now the hypocrites try to take credit for the Heller victory and even use it to try and solicit my money from me. IF they hold firm on this round I may consider rejoining them. I just don't trust them anymore to trust them with more of my money to not sell me out again.
    The Heller case was only one by one vote which is why the NRA didn't feel it was a good time to take it before the SCOTUS. You may be lacking some basic info on what really happened or you may have all the information you need, correct or not. The statement you already made about universal background checks is completely untrue as others have mentioned. I presume that due to your self stated bias you didn't bother to vet your source. That doesn't help anyone.

    The fact that you are against the NRA for the actions you feel they took with Heller yet you are here asking why they did what they did shows you haven't done any research on which to justify your distrust.
    Last edited by Richard Simmons; 04-06-2013 at 04:16 PM.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

  14. #14
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Simmons View Post
    The Heller case was only one by one vote which is why the NRA didn't feel it was a good time to take it before the SCOTUS. You may be lacking some basic info on what really happened or you may have all the information you need, correct or not. The statement you already made about universal background checks is completely untrue as others have mentioned. I presume that due to your self stated bias you didn't bother to vet your source. That doesn't help anyone.

    The fact that you are against the NRA for the actions you feel they took with Heller yet you are here asking why they did what they did shows you haven't done any research on which to justify your distrust.
    Please go back and read my post. I did NOT ask why the NRA did what they did. I asked why they hypocritically take credit for the Heller victory in the "give us money ads" when they tried to get it tossed out of court. As you acknowledged in your post, the NRA did not want this going to court. Yet now they try to take credit for it, why?

    I know very well NRA's argument about not taking it (or anything else for that matter) to court. They are always scared "we might not get the verdict we want". As far as winning by only one vote, just how many votes does it take to win? (Wasn't Roe v. Wade a 5-4 split? yep it was) Most figured it would be a split vote, so what. It was the best time in decades to get a win at SCOTUS. I had this very conversation with my FFL dealer when NRA was pulling this shit. I ended it by asking a famous question, "If not now, when? If not Parker, who? Bottom line, we won and with NO thanks the the NRA.

    As far as the current goings on. A while back it was reported that the NRA would back "universal background checks". The NRA made a statement that that was not true. There is now a new round of reports that the NRA would be on board with a watered down background check on private transfers as long as there is no record kept of the check. I have not heard any denials on this latest rumor from the NRA. Last time the NRA came out quickly and firmly to deny the rumor. This one has been floating for a week now with nothing from the NRA about it. As the saying goes, what is past is prologue.

    I've said it numerous times but I guess it bears repeating. IF the NRA holds firm on this, I will again join them. Until they PROVE they have evolved in their position, I donate to GOA and SAF.

  15. #15
    Team Gunsnet Silver 02/14 - Moderator recon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,625
    This group seems to be doing some good.
    http://gunowners.org/
    Buy It Cheap!
    Stack It Deep!

    Original Member-July-1999!

  16. #16
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    11,130
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    No, I am no longer a member. I renounced the NRA when they tried to derail the Parker case (later the Heller case that was won) Now the hypocrites try to take credit for the Heller victory and even use it to try and solicit my money from me. IF they hold firm on this round I may consider rejoining them. I just don't trust them anymore to trust them with more of my money to not sell me out again.
    NRA was terrified about the Heller case. If it were decided against us, we would be screwed. Thankfully, we squeaked by 5-4 and won a great victory. But it could have gone the other way and that was what NRA was "against".
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  17. #17
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    11,130
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    I think we would not have gotten the 86 firearms protection act, and the ban on machine guns that came with it. As I recall, the NRA said that it was a fair trade.
    The FOPA was a great deal. That asshole Hughes from NJ snuck in the MG ban at the last second. Even Reagan didn't know about it.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  18. #18
    Forum Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,077
    As I recall the NRA did not want the "reasonable restrictions" part of the lawsuit Heller brought. Heller was OK with it so it went forward and now the "reasonable restrictions" is all we hear about since the SCOTUS ruled on it. Where exactly are these "rumors" about the NRA coming from the liberal media or organizations like the GOA that spend almost as much time and money targeting the NRA as they do anti-gun laws. Everyone can donate to whomever they want. Fact is most gun owners don't even bother to donate to any pro-gun organization.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

  19. #19
    I have noticed alot of friction between GOA and the NRA over issues both present and past. I HAVE been recieving daily alerts from both org since this has started and several in particular has attacked the NRA quite heavily in this area and the NRA has denied it vehemetly. I am not sure if it is GOA or not? next one i get i will backtrack it. I too was really mad at the NRA for yrs over past decisions in how to fight for the 2nd and their past distain for AKs and ARs., and it was there, on a back burner. But i also remember when ole man Bush thru in his lifetime membership over their refusal to bow to anti-gunners when he was the president. (he wanted comprimise badly with the Dems at the time) We as a whole have had it real good for the last 10-15 yrs or so and nut jobs keep ruining it for us,and gentleman make no mistake about it,there is another plotting today as we speak. The issue for me is separting the lefts issue of BLAMING every gunowner in america for what very few do, but that is not their agenda. I ALWAYS KNEW THE OBAMA AND THE DEMS WOULD ATTACK THE SECOND,they always have,they just needed a damn good issue to get it started hard. THEY CANT HELP THEMSELVES, it a bread and butter issue to them. Like abortion and welfare, big govt, high taxes and spending like madmen, its in their genes.

  20. #20
    Forum Administrator Schuetzenman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    East of Atlanta GA
    Posts
    10,396
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    I think we would not have gotten the 86 firearms protection act, and the ban on machine guns that came with it. As I recall, the NRA said that it was a fair trade.
    And if the 86 Firearms Owners Protection act hand't been signed ... you would still be showing your Driver's license and signing in a bound book for every purchase of any caliber of ammo that can fit in a handgun. Additionally mail order ammo, primers and powder would not be legal. Gun shows would never happen either. I'm not saying I'm happy about the MG ban but having had to sign the book to buy ammo I can say I am not unhappy with the passed act.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •