NRA sits out gunfight with feds

[Rod Snell]

What if all of us who believe there should be no compromise went to the NRA and took away the wind from their sails? Do you think it is the name NRA that makes them strong or the people behind them?

Come on in. Buy a life membership and vote your choices for the board members. Run for the board yourself. Write letters to your board members as an insider, not an outsider who criticizes without knowing the political and fiscal reality.

And you will learn what it is like to try to cover the most important bases when 95% of the gun owners in the country ride on the 2A wagon and ***** about the bumpy ride. There is never enough money to cover all the most important issues, much less every one that comes along.

I dream about what it would be like if only 1 in 5 gun owners became active, so 20% of the gun owners would be pushing the wagon, and only 80% taking the free ride.

Make no mistake, the NRA members and representatives are THE most effective lobby to the US Congress. And every gun owner in the country is welcomed and encouraged to become a full voting member and help set policy.

 

[Stephen Cue]

The strong central government they set in motion doesn't hold a candle to the strong central government we're living with now.

Wonder where we'd be if it stayed that small throughout our short existance?

Good or bad?

Come on in. Buy a life membership and vote your choices for the board members. Run for the board yourself. Write letters to your board members as an insider, not an outsider who criticizes without knowing the political and fiscal reality.

And you will learn what it is like to try to cover the most important bases when 95% of the gun owners in the country ride on the 2A wagon and ***** about the bumpy ride. There is never enough money to cover all the most important issues, much less every one that comes along.

I dream about what it would be like if only 1 in 5 gun owners became active, so 20% of the gun owners would be pushing the wagon, and only 80% taking the free ride.

Make no mistake, the NRA members and representatives are THE most effective lobby to the US Congress. And every gun owner in the country is welcomed and encouraged to become a full voting member and help set policy.

 

[Shadowrider]

Come on in. Buy a life membership and vote your choices for the board members. Run for the board yourself. Write letters to your board members as an insider, not an outsider who criticizes without knowing the political and fiscal reality.

And you will learn what it is like to try to cover the most important bases when 95% of the gun owners in the country ride on the 2A wagon and ***** about the bumpy ride. There is never enough money to cover all the most important issues, much less every one that comes along.

I dream about what it would be like if only 1 in 5 gun owners became active, so 20% of the gun owners would be pushing the wagon, and only 80% taking the free ride.

Make no mistake, the NRA members and representatives are THE most effective lobby to the US Congress. And every gun owner in the country is welcomed and encouraged to become a full voting member and help set policy.

I would add that they are probably the most feared too.

 

[MadDawg]

Spiff-
Thats like saying if Daniel Boone could have known what he set in motion by crossing the appalachian mountains, or the Wright Brothers could see nuclear bombers.

Fact is the Federalists believed in a strong central government that held a nation together, built a two ocean navy and grew to dominate the free world.

Now forces from within are pulling it apart with cries of government interference and government inability. Sad thing I see is alot of those voices profitted from the looting of social security, and running up a huge federal debt chasing communist ghosts and 'deregulating the freehand of the marketplace'.

Hensch-
Like I said there are rumors, myths and talk radio facts that lose out in the long view of history. Nullification was a theory who's popularity was pre-civil war. it was rejected and the civil war nailed that coffin shut.

Presidents Jefferson and Madison advanced the theory when it suited their political goals however that doesnt negate that when Mr. Madison was working hard on the Constitution he was a confirmed strong central government man.

 

[crazy8]

Come on in. Buy a life membership and vote your choices for the board members. Run for the board yourself. Write letters to your board members as an insider, not an outsider who criticizes without knowing the political and fiscal reality.

And you will learn what it is like to try to cover the most important bases when 95% of the gun owners in the country ride on the 2A wagon and ***** about the bumpy ride. There is never enough money to cover all the most important issues, much less every one that comes along.

I dream about what it would be like if only 1 in 5 gun owners became active, so 20% of the gun owners would be pushing the wagon, and only 80% taking the free ride.

Make no mistake, the NRA members and representatives are THE most effective lobby to the US Congress. And every gun owner in the country is welcomed and encouraged to become a full voting member and help set policy.

I can fix that in a second,have the NRA become a grass roots movement,Drop the Elitistism,$1,000.00 gets you a vote.Why not your$35.00 gets you a vote?
Only folks with a thousand dollars are qualified to have an opinion,get back down to the american gun owners level t,Drop the poll tax.

When a person finds out when he becomes a gun owner,he can participate in a gun rights organization for as little as $35.00 you wont just have 5 people pushing the wagon,you will have1 million.As it stands now your $35.00 gets you what? Lip service,slick 3 color mailers.The NRA is nothing more than an elitest good ole boy club for the uber rich

 

[dennishoddy]

I can fix that in a second,have the NRA become a grass roots movement,Drop the Elitistism,$1,000.00 gets you a vote.Why not your$35.00 gets you a vote?
Only folks with a thousand dollars are qualified to have an opinion,get back down to the american gun owners level t,Drop the poll tax.

When a person finds out when he becomes a gun owner,he can participate in a gun rights organization for as little as $35.00 you wont just have 5 people pushing the wagon,you will have1 million.As it stands now your $35.00 gets you what? Lip service,slick 3 color mailers.The NRA is nothing more than an elitest good ole boy club for the uber rich

I've been a member for many more years than most on this board have been alive, and I can vote. I'm an annual member. sign up for three years at a time.
If you don't like the mail-outs, contact member services and get on the no-mail list.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

(Funny how these men are freely quoted when it suits but they set in motion the strong central government tradition)

Though the United States under the Constitution is stronger than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation, the Union was still meant to be limited in scope and the Constitution maintains the separation of powers between the Union and the several states with the several states having far more powers than the Union. The strong state thing didn't fall apart, the Union simply didn't have enough power to keep peace and harmony between the states under the Confederation. The failure was not with the states, the problem was the weak Confederation.

Henchman is correct. The Constitution does not grant power to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. No one is granted power in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. All who are in positions of power under the Constitution are commanded by oath or affirmation as a requisite of holding office; from the President "...to... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ..."; and all others "... to support this Constitution; ...". That is strictly a READ AND OBEY commandment.

The strong central government they set in motion doesn't hold a candle to the strong central government we're living with now.

All made possible by the usurpation of power blessed by the Court when it said "regulate" included "prohibit" and "restrain" in its definition, and the stripping of the power of the several states' legislatures to have a voice in Congress by Seventeenth Amendment.

Many people misconstrue Marbury v. Madison to mean that the Court has the power, or assumed the power, to interpret the Constitution and assumed the power to declare unconstitutional law unconstitutional. 'Twern't the case. Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789 tried to give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus. Marbury and others went to the Supreme Court, invoked that Judiciary Act of 1789 to force the Madison administration to complete their appointments with a writ of mandamus

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
Page 5 U. S. 179
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

Form the Justices themselves - "read" and "obey". No mention of "interpret".

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
"No person,' says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
Page 5 U. S. 180
contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The Court is laying down the law that they must abide the Constitution.

And next the meat:

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? This is the Court saying that if it takes an oath to abide by the Constitution, it must look to the Constitution for the rules under which the Court must abide - and abide by those rules!.
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. this is the Court saying that if a law is not written in pursuance of the Constitution, that law has no rank under the Constitution.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. This is the Court saying it is bound by the Constitution and not the law that is repugnant to the Constitution. The Court is saying it cannot act or adjudicate in accordance with a law repugnant to the Constitution and neither can anyone else.
The rule must be discharged.

This is not the Court "interpreting" the Constitution, nor is it the Court assuming such power.

If the NRA's Board of Directors understood this, maybe they'd be a little more inspired to challenge all these unconstitutional anti-gun-rights laws we suffer under. These laws are detrimental to the security of our free state.

Woody

 

[crazy8]

I've been a member for many more years than most on this board have been alive, and I can vote. I'm an annual member. sign up for three years at a time.
If you don't like the mail-outs, contact member services and get on the no-mail list.

I'm a lifetime "voting" member.and still think The NRA sucks.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

4 million members, $12.00 per member minimum = $48,000,000.00 per year. I think they can afford to count votes.

Woody

 

[MadDawg]

I do beleive several have made the point the court system doesnt interpret the Constitution but rather rules if new laws pass Constitutional muster.

Our legal system is based on the theory of precedent. Laws have advanced alot since Cyrus the Great. The legal system of 18th century America would be swamped by our times.

I know some would like certain parts of the 18th century returned, but alas that will never be.