NRA sits out gunfight with feds

[henschman]

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.

Nullification is as strong as the will of the States (and their citizens) to employ it and see it through. I strongly support the increasing willingness to do this that we are currently seeing, and I would like to see a lot more of it.

As far as Madison and the rest of the Federalists go, the label "strong central government" is highly relative. They might more accurately be described "strongER central government guys." Though they wanted a stronger central government than the one under the Articles, they still created a national government of limited, enumerated powers and reserved all other power to the states and the people. And their most outspoken advocate unequivocally supported nullification, both before and after the Constitution was written.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What will happen without the NRA ?

None of us know.

However, we have history to guide us about the future concerning the NRA...the history of 75 years of compromising away the Second Amendment.

20,000+++ gun laws...and the NRA cannot seem to find ONE that they disagree with.
I freely predict that within 50 years, with the NRAs leadership, ONLY the rich will own weapons here in A merica.

You folks keep right on delaying the inevitable...shove off on your children what is YOUR responsibility.

Personally...I prefer that the NRA go away..today. Let the Masters of the Universe take their grab at the brass ring. Let us see just WHOM has the biggest balls...the 3 percent of the American people that will resist a gun grab...or the power mad thugs in power.

 

[henschman]

The NRA is a very broad-based organization that attempts to represent the common interests of all gun owners, which is a very broad category of people. Like with any broad-based organization, they tend to try to please as many of them as possible, and they therefore end up with a relatively moderate agenda. They are quite successful in the battles they choose to fight, and it would be difficult to deny that they have accomplished some great things for our right to keep and bear arms. We should support them for the good things that they are doing, while encouraging them to adopt a stronger stance on issues like the assault weapon bans, open carry, state laws nullifying unconstitutional federal regualtion of firearms, and repealing some of our current gun control legislation like the '68 GCA and the '34 NFA.

The fact that the NRA doesn't take a stand on these more "extreme" pro-gun issues is why the GOA exists. We should definitely support groups like the GOA, who do not compromise in their defense of our liberty, but we should also continue to support the NRA... they are generally for moving things in the right direction and they are good at making things happen, even if they don't support doing it to the extent that we would like.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don't recall any other 'gun Rights' organization sitting down and writing out gun control laws.
Nor insisting that government pass those laws
...like 'Project Exile', or 'Disarm a Vet Today'...as the NRA has.

The REAL trouble ?

Many...if not MOST gun owners support gun laws. There IS no 'preaching to the choir' when it comes to supporting the Second Amendment AS WRITTEN...simply because most have been brain washed into distrusting their fellow citizens more then they distrust government...
'

 

[redmax51]

The NRA is a very broad-based organization that attempts to represent the common interests of all gun owners, which is a very broad category of people. Like with any broad-based organization, they tend to try to please as many of them as possible, and they therefore end up with a relatively moderate agenda. They are quite successful in the battles they choose to fight, and it would be difficult to deny that they have accomplished some great things for our right to keep and bear arms. We should support them for the good things that they are doing, while encouraging them to adopt a stronger stance on issues like the assault weapon bans, open carry, state laws nullifying unconstitutional federal regualtion of firearms, and repealing some of our current gun control legislation like the '68 GCA and the '34 NFA.

The fact that the NRA doesn't take a stand on these more "extreme" pro-gun issues is why the GOA exists. We should definitely support groups like the GOA, who do not compromise in their defense of our liberty, but we should also continue to support the NRA... they are generally for moving things in the right direction and they are good at making things happen, even if they don't support doing it to the extent that we would like.

+1,very well said!! Steve

 

[MadDawg]

Hensh-
Nullification was a Hail Mary THEORY that proved false and ineffective.

It was an desperate attempt to head off the Civil War. It only got any play because Southerns Jefferson and Madison were looking for a way around the national will of the people. Which is trump, a state's right or a nation's right?

Nullification could be used to cancel a woman's right to vote or a black man's freedom, Roe v Wade, Brown vs Board of Education in any state which doesnt agree.

Not gonna happen anyplace but on AM Radio.

Beware the will of the people being only working its magic for you, it is a double edged sword. Just like Prohibition was repealed so too can any other Amendment.

To include our cherished 2nd A. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the first 10 Amendments are untouchable.

To me the debate over obey and interpret is simple code for not liking what a court rules.

I remember the very conservative Supreme Court ruling state law has set the precedent when BushII 'won' in Florida.

They later ruled that same state's law had set the precedent on who is next of kin and who decides when to let a loved one go.

The Outraged Republicans lined up for their 10 second news spots to denounce the 'Activist' judges on the Supreme court!

When the court 'interprets' they ruled a way you dont like.
When the court 'reads and obeys' they saw it your way

 

[Glocktogo]

Hensh-
Nullification was a Hail Mary THEORY that proved false and ineffective.

It was an desperate attempt to head off the Civil War. It only got any play because Southerns Jefferson and Madison were looking for a way around the national will of the people. Which is trump, a state's right or a nation's right?

Nullification could be used to cancel a woman's right to vote or a black man's freedom, Roe v Wade, Brown vs Board of Education in any state which doesnt agree.

Not gonna happen anyplace but on AM Radio.

Beware the will of the people being only working its magic for you, it is a double edged sword. Just like Prohibition was repealed so too can any other Amendment.

To include our cherished 2nd A. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the first 10 Amendments are untouchable.

To me the debate over obey and interpret is simple code for not liking what a court rules.

I remember the very conservative Supreme Court ruling state law has set the precedent when BushII 'won' in Florida.

They later ruled that same state's law had set the precedent on who is next of kin and who decides when to let a loved one go.

The Outraged Republicans lined up for their 10 second news spots to denounce the 'Activist' judges on the Supreme court!

When the court 'interprets' they ruled a way you dont like.
When the court 'reads and obeys' they saw it your way

Not a snowballs chance in hell and you know it.

 

[redmax51]

Not a snowballs chance in hell and you know it.

That's for sure. I think it's comical the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was just compared to prohibition. Steve

 

[henschman]

Hensh-
Nullification was a Hail Mary THEORY that proved false and ineffective.

It was an desperate attempt to head off the Civil War. It only got any play because Southerns Jefferson and Madison were looking for a way around the national will of the people. Which is trump, a state's right or a nation's right?

Nullification could be used to cancel a woman's right to vote or a black man's freedom, Roe v Wade, Brown vs Board of Education in any state which doesnt agree.

Jefferson and Madison were dead long before the Civil War. They used Nullification, quite successfully, with the VA and KY resolutions. Those resolutions rallied the public around the issue of freedom of speech -- the Federalists were soundly defeated in the next election, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire by the new legislature. Nullification was not so successfully used by South Carolina to nullify the unconstitutional federal tariffs that were protective of northern industry -- Andrew Jackson threatened to send in the Army and SC backed down. The Civil War was mostly fought over the issue of secession, not nullification. Nullification was later used (unsuccessfully) in Arkansas in the 1950s to nullify Brown v. Board of Education when Arkansas refused to integrate the government schools. This ended when Dwight Eisenhower sent in the troops and forced integration.

So I would say that Nullification has a mixed record. It may get a bad rap since the most recent time it was invoked was for a bad cause... but it is far from dead, as can be seen from these firearms statutes that are being passed by a large number of states. Many states are also considering legislation nullifying the insurance mandate in the new health care law.

A way around the national will of the people? Maybe... but when the national will of the people is to pass unconstitutional legislation, then it doesn't carry any water with me.

As far as whether a "state's right" trumps a "nation's right," I would say that the national government has no right to pass unconstitutional legislation. If it does, the states are certainly justified in resisting. As far as who has the right to interpret the Constitution, the states have as good a claim on that as anybody.

And Nullification isn't just about states not liking the Supreme Court's decision... it is about them deciding that an act of the national government, though declared legal by the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional, and is enough of a threat that the state should interpose itself to protect its citizens' liberties.

 

[MadDawg]

hensch-
you see it your way and that fine. nullification isnt going to be anymore valid in these times as back when it was attempted for the civil war. Yes the two were dead but their 'ground breaking' work was attempted to be used again and it died. Try reading about Madison's later years where he is against any attempt by South Carolina to revive nullification in 1832.

Now let us ask the basic question- what did the two state's resolutions actually do? Dis any other states follow suit? Did our long term Constitutional system change?

No sir, they did not. Nullification is D-E=D dead. Like in Arkansas, a state MAY say anything, but the feds trump any attempt to rewrite federal law at the state level and in the end the fed wins.

And if you look at our history, in times of war and national crisis the government and people have gone along with various restrictions placed on the general population. (even BushII liked that concept) The alien and sedition act was dropped because the crisis as such passed.

GTG and red-

nit picking are we? I used the Prohibition one to show the quick version, but the amendments have been truncated and modified for quite awhile.

I'd say the 2nd A has a better chance of being dropped than the 'defense of marriage' has of being passed. ratification will be the sticking point but as we all see the number of men enducted into the service, the voluntary programs that introduce young people to the safe and fun use of firearms pales compared to the gun violence splashed on TV 24/7.

I am not saying this is going to happen overnite, too many like me have to die off first. more urbanization still needs to occur.

But the long term trends are not in gun ownership favor. I see a carrot and stick approach. give some ground on what maybe owned and amend the 2nd A to be strictly by registered owners without a right for private ownership without permission.

Scoff if you want, but the fundimentalist trend to restrict individual rights in other areas can easily open the door to restrict rights we kind of like.

I'd much rather see the traditional trend to open individual rights that are guaranteed by the US Government, than purely state guarantees that would still have us seperate but equal.

except to puff up on the Interwebz being cocky over the 2nd A is not useful. NO Amendment is safe from repeal and we should remember that.