The NRA expanded its scope. How this relates to the thread I have no idea. They still strongly support training and gun safety and to environmental conservation to a lesser degree.
Every legislature; every judge, every law enforcement officer, every other public servant, on taking his position, swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. This is his obligation, above all else.
He agrees to this as a condition of the job.
To have any willing role in committing any obviously unconstitutional act is to violate this oath, and to commit what ought to be recognizes as criminal-level malfeasance.
In practical terms, the consequence of a public servant having a role in enacting, upholding, or enforcing an unconstitutional law, is that an honest citizen, for no other “crime” than legitimately exercising a Constitutionally-affirmed right, can be arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned, and generally have his life ruined.
Don’t you think that any corrupt public official who willfully has any role in allowing this to happen ought to face consequences of a similar scale? I do.
So, there’s no way to disintinguish between criminals and non-criminals? Gee, I guess we just need to lock everyone up then!
That’s true, but the impetus for the change didn’t come from thin air. The NRA was founded in 1871. There were no federal gun control laws until 1934, and that one, the National Firearms Act, enjoys (in my experience) general support from gun owners; it’s opposed only by fringe absolutists like Bob Blaylock. The NRA’s switch to political activism began after the Gun Control Act of 1968, before that there was no need for political action. And once the leaders are being chosen for the political views, of course they will bring various political theories to bear.
The NRA obviously lobbied for the legislation – if they even had to, the way things are in NC right now – and the OP includes a cite from an NRA spokesman. The NRA’s nature, and history, are relevant.
Pre-purchase background checks even at gun-shows might help a bit.
No it doesn’t. There have been a number of attempts to repeal the infringements in that law.
Whether it is unconstitutional is a thing unknown until the courts have ruled.
His pushing for something you consider unconstitutional is not a form of corruption. For that matter, his pushing for something the courts consider unconstitutional, based on previous case law, is not a form of corruption, he might be pushing it in hopes the courts’ interpretation will change; that’s all perfectly legitimate, to push for a new test case.
Clearly I am missing something then, please explain how what the NRA did in 1871, 1934 or 1977 did has anything to do with the OP.
You bringing up what the NRA membership fought for 100 years ago as some sort of “gotcha” attempt or something has me baffled.
There are some areas in which the Constitution is absolutely clear. The right to keep and bear arms is such an area. The Second Amendment explicitly affirms that the peopel have a right to keep abnd bear arms, and that any infringement of thsi right is forbidden.
There is no excuse for any legislator, president, governor, judge, police officer, or other public servant to ignore this.
All gun control laws, without exception, infringe the right to keep and bear arms. All gun control laws, without exception, are unconstitutional and illegal. Period.
Any public servant who willingly has any part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is a criminal, and should be subject to criminal penalties at least comparable to to those to which an honest citizen might be subjected for the “crime” of exercising his right to keep and bear arms as a result of the criminal act of which the corrupt public servant is guilty.
For a public servant to push for something that is unconstitutional absolutely is an act of corruption. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. He agreed to this as a condition of taking his job. Why are you so eager to forgive public servants for willfully violating this oath?
Not at all. Some regulation of any and all constitutional rights is within the scope of the document. For instance, you can’t sell a gun to a minor. In some places, felons can’t own guns even after their release from prison. Some restrictions on characteristics of guns is fully constitutional: laws against armor-piercing rounds, or expanding-head rounds, are constitutional.
There are no wholly unregulated rights.
Pure-D bullshit. The Constitution is more than a piece of paper but less than carved in stone. Everything is subject to interpretation. The same applies with any statute or any case-law precedent. It cannot be otherwise. Any lawyer will tell you the same.
There have been a number of attempts to repeal the 16th Amendment too; that doesn’t mean that the concept on income tax isn’t generally supported.
Also, note that I wrote “gun owners”, not “NRA members”.
In the real world, SCOTUS determines what is constitutional and what is not. Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional pending a final decision from the courts. If you think that Congress should have to positively justify each and every action to show how it is constitutional and then and only then could such actions be undertaken that would be different entirely. You could you know, advocate for that.
It’s fine to say you oppose any and all gun control laws. To say they are all unconstitutional and illegal is factually wrong.
How do you think any constitutional amendment is proposed? It’s argued both for and against. Until it’s passed, should that advocacy also be criminalized as you have stated? Why do you not respect the first amendment along with the 2nd?
Look - I’m on your side…sorta. We have at least overlapping goals. Your approach is not effective. At a minimum at least know the law. You are not the arbiter of what is constitutional. Even better yet, stay on topic. This thread is (was) about gun buybacks. Turning any gun related thread into a general treatise on your own philosophy of how the government should operate is a surefire way to turn off anyone that could be on the fence on any particular issue.
Especially WRT legislators. In Congress, and in all states AFAIK, they all have immunity from civil suit or criminal prosecution WRT anything they say on the floor. There might be exceptions for classified information, but in general they have immunity. E.g., they can’t be sued for libel or slander. WRT Congress, this is in the Constitution.
Who made you a representative of either?
I also notice you supplied no cite for your ridiculous claim.
When did I make myself out to be a “representative”?
[QUOTE=pkbites]
I also notice you supplied no cite for your ridiculous claim.
[/QUOTE]
I said it was my personal experience, and nothing more.
By all means, overwhelm me with cites that gun owners oppose the NFA. I’ll wait.
you’re kidding?
There are zillions of sites with posts by law abiding gun owners who think the prohibition on new auto weapons and silencers should be repealed.
You are aware that it is not illegal to own either, right? But the hoops one must jump through and the taxes one must pay can easily be defined as an “infringement”.
Unless it can be compared to the number who don’t think that, it’s rather useless. Not all opinons are represented on the Internet in proportion to their actual numbers.
The prohibition on post-'86 fully automatic weapons isn’t part of the National Firearms Act, it’s from the Firearm Owners Protection Act, a separate law.
The Supreme Court gets to define infringement, and they defined it rather differently.
Further, to my point, if the NFA was such a burden, why wasn’t there organized opposition to it? The gun-rights movement didn’t arise until 40 years later, after the passage of a different law.
You were around in 1934?
By your own admission at that time the NRA was not an activist group. It took a couple of infringements to get them to change.