Supreme Court / Right to Keep & Bear Arms

[Liberal]

Well, you can see the Board of Directors on their website.

I think it goes without saying that firearms manufacturers contribute to the NRA (and probably to the dozen other major gun safety organizations in the US). At least one has contributed land for a shooting range. I can find where MidwayUSA contributed $160,000 in the form of merchandise (they make ammunition). But as you can see from the financial statements, the combined contributions from all sources are relatively small compared to revenues from investments.

But other than bits and pieces like that, I doubt you’re going to get a list of contributors, per se. They are not obligated to release such a list, and there’s no reason they should. But a lifetime membership costs $700, and they have a lot of lifetime members.

[Czarcasm]

@Mr. Moto

There’s a fine line between asking an honest question and having others do your research for you.

Instead of insinuating things about the NRA leadership, why don’t you find out for yourself whether they are stooges of the firearms industry. Whatever you find, bring it here for us to discuss.

Not insinuating anything, just trying to find out what the purpose of the NRA is. Is it to protect the rights of people to keep and bare arms, the rights of firearms manufacturers to make a profit, or a combination of the two? Knowing the makeup of the board and the actual makeup of the donors might help in finding out the answers.

[Liberal]

Their mission statement and history is on their site. Their purpose is education about firearm safety. Aside from the police and military, whole families take courses offered by the NRA.

[Stealth_Potato]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There’s that pesky comma, though. Grammatically speaking the intent of the 2nd Amendment is not crystal clear, and that’s always been the problem. A strict, constructionist reading arguably shows only that it permits the existence of citizens’ militia and that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” is only a figurative reference to militias.

I don’t know how the Court will decide this. My guess is that it’s stacked with enough right-wingers that they’ll rule in favor of a Wild West interpretation but you never know. I don’t really care, personally.

You know, if it said anything besides “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” I might believe your interpretation. The commas are a weak source of information at best - which one were you referring to specifically? Two different versions of Article II of the First Amendment were ratified by the states and by Congress, each with different punctuation.

The way I see it, the first half of the amendment establishes that the second half is so instituted because of the need for a militia - I don’t think too many people will argue with this. But it does not then go on to assert any right of the states to have militias, but of the people to keep and bear arms. I honestly don’t see what is so hard to understand about this.

I don’t know why you think a constructionist reading would imply a collective right and not an individual one. The opening phrase establishes a circumstance that gives reason to what follows, and the declarative clause asserts a right of the people that “shall not be infringed.” That the opening phrase establishes a justification does not imply any restriction on the scope of the declaration, unless you presume such to be the intent, which seems rather at odds with the idea of constructionist interpretation.

Further, I have to take issue with your characterization of the pro-rights view as the “Wild West interpretation.” What exactly does the right of individuals to be armed have to do with the “Wild West”? We’re debating a serious civil rights issue here, not some Hollywood fantasy. :dubious:

@Little Nemo

I can see their point of view; they feel if they don’t take an absolute view on the issue, that gun control advocates will use a procedure like this to get their foot in the door and then start chipping away at further gun ownership rights. But I think it’s also true that by taking some an extreme stance, anti-gun control groups are helping to create opposition to their position among the undecided genral public.

I think this is a pretty insightful view of the issue - rights advocates like myself tend towards the absolutist view to counter the alarmingly authoritarian views held by some in the opposition. There’s a bit of reactionism there, but it’s hard not to react when you have some extremely vocal people trying to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed to own anything except low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles, and even then you should be licensed, registered and watched because even wanting to own a gun probably makes you dangerous and unstable. :dubious:

But on the other hand, I also feel that an absolute view of civil rights is an ideal in itself, and that any measures supposed to improve safety that degrade or impair the ability of the innocent to exercise their liberty are odious and should be resisted. I don’t think it’s right to punish everybody for the misdeeds of a few, and that’s what I see most gun control as doing. I know ideals aren’t always realistic, but that’s the philosophical position I’m coming from.

[DanBlather]

@Stealth Potato

There’s a bit of reactionism there, but it’s hard not to react when you have some extremely vocal people trying to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed to own…

alcohol, mushrooms, marijuana, cocaine, certain kinds of pornography, radioactive material, anthrax, cars without seatbelts, …

Not sure what makes guns so special.

[Bricker]

@Liberal

But a lifetime membership costs $700, and they have a lot of lifetime members.

I’m one.

Not only that, but I am an Endowment-level contributor to the NRA Institute of Legislative Action (NRA/ILA) yearly.

I suspect the vast majority of their funding comes from people like me.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@DanBlather

alcohol, mushrooms, marijuana, cocaine, certain kinds of pornography, radioactive material, anthrax, cars without seatbelts, …

Not sure what makes guns so special.

Of the above, only one is guaranteed in the Constitution. That’s what makes it special.

[DMC]

@Liberal

I don’t see any reference to the NRA’s position in that. That’s what **Bricker ** asked Little Nemo about — where he got his ideas about the NRA’s position.

That code is from FOPA. Do you really want a cite that states NRA doesn’t like FOPA? Hell, they helped write the damned thing. The NRA has their handprints all over the various “relief from disabilities” text. They just recently helped Coburn with H.R. 2640, which includes the same for mentally ill persons who have had their right to possess removed.

Again, are you serious?

[Bricker]

@Little Nemo

I think their position is that they’re reluctantly willing to concede that currently incarcerated prisoners cannot carry guns but they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony.

@Bricker

…Where in heaven’s name did you hear [that]?

@Little Nemo

From here:

In 1986, the National Rifle Association-drafted McClure-Volkmer firearms decontrol bill dramatically expanded the universe of convicted felons who could once again legally possess firearms.

The McClure-Volkmer bill:

• Extended relief privileges to those who had been convicted of crimes involving a firearm, involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or who had violated the Gun Control Act of 1968.

• Added wording expanding the ability of federal courts to review decisions by ATF to deny relief.

• Amended federal law so that restoration of civil rights by a state automatically restored the privilege of firearm possession unless the state law or individual pardon expressly excluded the ability to possess firearms. Prior to McClure-Volkmer, the federal “relief from disability” mechanism was the only way for a convicted felon to regain his firearms privileges.

I don’t see where the McClure-Volkmer bill says that “…ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony.”

It says only that there’s a relief process – that a convicted felon may petition to show good reason why he should have his gun rights restored, in much the same way he may petiton to have his voting rights restored – and that he may ask a court to review a negative decision on that question by the BATF – and that a state’s decision to restore civil rights was as effective as a federal decision.
It does NOT say that “…ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony” – does it?

The NRA’s actual position may be found here.

@The NRA

Does NRA feel that anybody should be allowed to own a firearm?

NRA believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and that the government should not interfere with any law-abiding citizen’s private decision to own, or not to own, a firearm. Felons, particularly those convicted of violent offenses should, as a result of their own actions, have their right to own a firearm abridged.

[silenus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There’s that pesky comma, though. Grammatically speaking the intent of the 2nd Amendment is not crystal clear, and that’s always been the problem. A strict, constructionist reading arguably shows only that it permits the existence of citizens’ militia and that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” is only a figurative reference to militias.

A simple reading of the papers of the Founding Fathers gives a very clear picture of what they meant by the 2nd Amendment:

‘‘And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.’’

— Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’

— James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’

— George Mason

‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’

— Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’

— Patrick Henry
Seems kinda obvious to me what they meant.

[JR_Brown]

@Stealth Potato

There’s a bit of reactionism there, but it’s hard not to react when you have some extremely vocal people trying to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed to own anything except low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles, and even then you should be licensed, registered and watched because even wanting to own a gun probably makes you dangerous and unstable. :dubious:

Well, what else do you need? Since the Constitutional model of the armed forces as “private citizens with their own weapons” is now a bit out of date, there are basically two legitimate reasons for gun ownership that I can think of: self-protection and hunting.

(Prejudices on the table: I heavily discount the “self-protection” angle, since my reading of the cost-benefit calculations is that having a handgun in the house, especially in a state where it can be put to use quickly enough to make a difference about the guy climbing through the window, makes you less safe overall.)

Unless you are fighting a gang war, or hoards of post-Apocalypse scavengers, “low-powered, low-capacity” guns are all that is required for self-defense (although I presume a handgun would be more suitable than a rifle), and for hunting what do you need besides a gun that will humanely and efficiently kill the animal in question?

Give me one reason to own a high-power, high-capacity gun that is applicable to general civilian purposes, aside from “it’s cool and I want it”; in the absence thereof I support bans on anything above the “low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles” of which you seem to think so poorly.

JRB

[control-z]

@silenus

A simple reading of the papers of the Founding Fathers gives a very clear picture of what they meant by the 2nd Amendment:

‘‘And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.’’

— Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’

— James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’

— George Mason

‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’

— Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’

— Patrick Henry
Seems kinda obvious to me what they meant.

Nice post silenus!

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@JR Brown

(Prejudices on the table: I heavily discount the “self-protection” angle, since my reading of the cost-benefit calculations is that having a handgun in the house, especially in a state where it can be put to use quickly enough to make a difference about the guy climbing through the window, makes you less safe overall.)

Indeed, it’s your prejudice, and you are entitled to it. The problem comes when 60 people (the US Senate) or 5 (SCOTUS) exercise their own prejudice and enact or interpret laws that abridge my rights.

Unless you are fighting a gang war, or hoards of post-Apocalypse scavengers, “low-powered, low-capacity” guns are all that is required for self-defense (although I presume a handgun would be more suitable than a rifle), and for hunting what do you need besides a gun that will humanely and efficiently kill the animal in question?

What is “low-powered”? What is “low-capacity”? Do you propose that guns be single-use items that can never be reloaded? If not, it is a simple matter indeed to reload. And since power is a function of pressure, how do you propose to mitigate the laws of physics?

Give me one reason to own a high-power, high-capacity gun that is applicable to general civilian purposes, aside from “it’s cool and I want it”; in the absence thereof I support bans on anything above the “low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles” of which you seem to think so poorly.

Give me one reason why you need an explanation from me defining my need? While you’re at it, you can feel free to address my questions above.

[DMC]

@Bricker

The NRA’s actual position may be found here…

I’m fully aware of what they state their position is in their FAQ (we won’t even go into the weasel wording they chose in the second sentence), but I’m not arguing that they don’t make such claims. I’m arguing that they are full of shit when they do.

You’re a lawyer, so tell me.

1. Does the code cited above give felons an avenue to have their gun ownership privileges returned?

2. If so (it does, but I’ll play along), does the NRA support that code?

3. Was the NRA involved in the actual writing of the act?

Heck, just read their friend of the court submission (warning: PDF) in Logan v. U.S. and tell me that they think we should deny all felons the right to own firearms.

Look, I could care less if you want to stick five handguns down your pants to attend weekly church service. If the government says go for it, fine with me. That doesn’t mean I’m going to sit back and pretend the NRA isn’t full of shit in those cases where they are.

[UltraVires]

@JR Brown

Give me one reason to own a high-power, high-capacity gun that is applicable to general civilian purposes, aside from “it’s cool and I want it”; in the absence thereof I support bans on anything above the “low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles” of which you seem to think so poorly.
JRB

I don’t mean to offend or pick on you personally, but I hear this all of the time from anti-gun people.

Hunting firearms are not “low-powered”. In fact, most modern, common hunting calibers are the highest powered rounds out there. The 30-.06 will really ruin your day, while a 7.62mm round from an AK-47 pales in comparison. Please give me a cite on how hunting rifles are “low-powered” compared to military weapons.

High-capacity is another red herring. If 10 rounds are good, then 20 is better. I’ll make my own decisions on how much ammo to carry for protection, as I will leave it to you to choose how much you will carry. And trying to limit capacity has been proven to make no difference in crime rates.

[E-Sabbath]

@DanBlather

So define “arms”. Does the state have the right to limit anti-tank weapos, land mines, grenades, poison gas, flame throwers?

Those are ordnance. Generally. (It is possible to use a pistol as an anti-tank weapon. Especially against one of those riveted 1918 french tanks)

Our friend JRBrown is exactly why the NRA is so tooth and nail about things. Imagine the ACLU, if every time free speech was brought up, someone went, “Well, as long as you only limit unpopular speech. Like nazis. You don’t want people saying good things about nazis, do you?”

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=DMC]

1. Does the code cited above give felons an avenue to have their gun ownership privileges returned?

Yes. (And if Little Nemo had said, “The NRA supports giving felons an avenue to have their gun ownership privileges returned,” I would not have said a word in correction).

2. If so (it does, but I’ll play along), does the NRA support that code?

Yes.

3. Was the NRA involved in the actual writing of the act?

Yes.

Heck, just read their friend of the court submission (warning: PDF) in Logan v. U.S. and tell me that they think we should deny all felons the right to own firearms.

But I haven’t said that. I said that they don’t support all felons owning firearms. I trust you see the distinction here. They favor – as do I – a process where the denial is not irrevocable; where a person laboring under that civil disability can petition and show good cause why it should be lifted, rather than a blanket, non-discretionary, never-can-happen rule.

That’s reasonable. Little Nemo’s characterization (“…they’re reluctantly willing to concede that currently incarcerated prisoners cannot carry guns but they have argued that ex-convicts should have all their gun ownership rights restored - even if they were convicted of using a gun in the commission of a felony…”) is wrong, and it’s that error I am correcting.

Correct?

[JR_Brown]

@Airman Doors

What is “low-powered”? What is “low-capacity”? Do you propose that guns be single-use items that can never be reloaded? If not, it is a simple matter indeed to reload. And since power is a function of pressure, how do you propose to mitigate the laws of physics?

Well, I was quoting Stealth Potato, so maybe he should respond to that one ( ); although he used the terms in reference to hunting rifles. In terms of self-defence, a gun that can scare off, and if necessary wound or perhaps kill, a person in ordinary street clothes at short range under the relatively low-performance conditions of the average living room is probably towards the low end of the handguns (and hunting rifles) now being sold.

@Airman Doors

Give me one reason why you need an explanation from me defining my need? While you’re at it, you can feel free to address my questions above.

I only saw one question above…

As for why I need you to define your need, unless you hold the opinion that you should be able to own absolutely any sort of weapon you want (maybe a small tactical nuke would look nice on the lawn?), there has to be some sort of regulation of what is and is not permitted; wouldn’t the logical place to start negotiations be “tell us what you want to be able to do with your gun and what capacity / features you need for that use”?

I stated what I felt to be the viable civilian uses (hunting and self-protection), and I don’t see any reason why you would need, for instance, a fully-automatic machine gun for either purpose. As I said, if you think people should be freely permitted to own high-performance weapons, tell me what purposes you have that require that capability and I’ll consider your argument. Otherwise I’ll continue to vote for “restrictive” regulations.

@Airman Doors

Indeed, it’s your prejudice, and you are entitled to it. The problem comes when 60 people (the US Senate) or 5 (SCOTUS) exercise their own prejudice and enact or interpret laws that abridge my rights.

I view the 2nd Amendment as granting to all the right to own a gun with abilities comparable to those available in 1787. They seemed to be able to kill intruders and deer just fine. Anything beyond that must be for some special purpose and thus requires special justification.

JRB

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

I’m one.

Not only that, but I am an Endowment-level contributor to the NRA Institute of Legislative Action (NRA/ILA) yearly.

I suspect the vast majority of their funding comes from people like me.

You suspect-and I’d like to know if those suspicions are true.
Wouldn’t you?

[JR_Brown]

@jtgain

I don’t mean to offend or pick on you personally, but I hear this all of the time from anti-gun people.

Hunting firearms are not “low-powered”. In fact, most modern, common hunting calibers are the highest powered rounds out there. The 30-.06 will really ruin your day, while a 7.62mm round from an AK-47 pales in comparison. Please give me a cite on how hunting rifles are “low-powered” compared to military weapons.

High-capacity is another red herring. If 10 rounds are good, then 20 is better. I’ll make my own decisions on how much ammo to carry for protection, as I will leave it to you to choose how much you will carry. And trying to limit capacity has been proven to make no difference in crime rates.

As I said in the post just prior, I was quoting Stealth Potato, who said:

@Stealth Potato

it’s hard not to react when you have some extremely vocal people trying to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed to own anything except low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles

So if hunting rifles are in fact high-powered, that means Stealth Potato wants an anti-aircraft missile launcher?

And as for capacity; if you wake up in the middle of the night to find, say, 3 people stealing your TV, do you really think you will need to fire 20 rounds before they are all wounded and/or running away?

JRB