NRA shows signs of decline, even in Trump’s America

I keep hearing the "what has the NRA done for me" chant.
I ask what have you done for the NRA? And our sport in general?
How is the NRA or GOAL supposed to keep fighting against anti gun liberals that we keep putting into office? The message to the NRA is clear. Massachusetts does not want 2 A freedom.
It's just like the 400lb diabetic that is pissed at the doctor for cutting off his legs. You have to do your part if you want to walk.
Get off your f***ing keyboard and get your f***ing ass out there and do something.
Or shut the f*** up.
I do get my ass out there! I’m also a paying customer of the NRA so I can say whatever the f*** I want! Let’s meet at the State House, I will talk to my Rep and u can talk to yours and we can make a productive day out of it. If not, keep hitting your f***ing keyboar
 
I do get my ass out there! I’m also a paying customer of the NRA so I can say whatever the f*** I want! Let’s meet at the State House, I will talk to my Rep and u can talk to yours and we can make a productive day out of it. If not, keep hitting your f***ing keyboar
And what do you think talking to your Rep. will do?
 
NRA called me the other day and asked me a bunch of questions about a bunch of pro gun shit. I said "I suppirt all that but until you idiots grow a spine and stop compromising, aka ceding ground to the enemies of the second amendment, you will not see another cent from me.". Guy on the other end goes "Ok. You have a nice afternoon, sir. Click". Dipshits.
 
Ok, so when u say “get off your ass and do something about it and stop typing” what are u referring to?....what are u doing personally that is making a difference? I would luv to know.
Being a member of the NRA, Comm2A, GOA, SAF, GOAL. Are your Senator, Rep pro 2A? Even if they are they're outnumbered 10-1 in Ma. My new State Senator, Dean Tran is pro 2A as was his predecessor Jen Flanagan who I emailed with about 2A bills. I contributed to their campaigns.
 
Ok, I’m doing everything u are so I don’t understand your point or your rant. Your lucky enough to have a pro 2A Rep. I’m in constant contact with my Rep about 2A. He has an LTC, he is a Veteran but he tows the party line cuz that’s where the votes are.
 
Ok, I’m doing everything u are so I don’t understand your point or your rant. Your lucky enough to have a pro 2A Rep. I’m in constant contact with my Rep about 2A. He has an LTC, he is a Veteran but he tows the party line cuz that’s where the votes are.
No rant, just commenting that this is a lost State when it comes to our rights. WE are a hated minority that most citizens fear and loath. If they could get a bill thru banning guns and authorizing confiscation they would be dancing in the streets. Remember, according to Dem talking points WE are the threat, not gangbangers and violent criminals. They truly believe if they could eliminate firearms to the masses and toxic masculinity we'd all live in Utopia.
 
Ok, I’m doing everything u are so I don’t understand your point or your rant. Your lucky enough to have a pro 2A Rep. I’m in constant contact with my Rep about 2A. He has an LTC, he is a Veteran but he tows the party line cuz that’s where the votes are.
then he's a hypocrite, maybe he should change parties and grow a pair.
 
then he's a hypocrite, maybe he should change parties and grow a pair.
That's the problem we have with many if not most of the politicians and not just in Ma. They promise one thing and than they do something else which usually is stabbing us in the back.
 
then he's a hypocrite, maybe he should change parties and grow a pair.
What does party have to do with it? Trump is a Republican and he likes taking the guns first then going to do process . They are both the same. Think about it your rep is Republican and he’s voting for 2A because that’s how he’s going to get his votes. What if all of a sudden his district got loaded with soccer moms which way do you think he’s going to go with his 2A stance?
 
No rant, just commenting that this is a lost State when it comes to our rights. WE are a hated minority that most citizens fear and loath. If they could get a bill thru banning guns and authorizing confiscation they would be dancing in the streets. Remember, according to Dem talking points WE are the threat, not gangbangers and violent criminals. They truly believe if they could eliminate firearms to the masses and toxic masculinity we'd all live in Utopia.
You absolutely put it perfectly, great post . At least your Rep is one of us few, us band of brothers few.
 
So even if Sleepy Jeff had refused to defend the civil rights suit
and made it easier for the 3rd Circuit to rule that
the Brady Act FPP provisions did not apply to Tint Boy,
what would happen if Tint Boy moved to (say) the PRM?

Would the 1st Circuit honor the Get Out Of Jail Free card
issued by the 3rd Circuit?

Or is Tint Boy confined to his part of the Archipelago?

Can he even so much as continue to reside in Eastern PA
but take a Cape Cod vacation (unarmed) without risk of the
Boston Feds jacking him up for possession of Guns'n'Ammo back in his hometown?
 
So even if Sleepy Jeff had refused to defend the civil rights suit
and made it easier for the 3rd Circuit to rule that
the Brady Act FPP provisions did not apply to Tint Boy,
what would happen if Tint Boy moved to (say) the PRM?

Would the 1st Circuit honor the Get Out Of Jail Free card
issued by the 3rd Circuit?

Or is Tint Boy confined to his part of the Archipelago?

Can he even so much as continue to reside in Eastern PA
but take a Cape Cod vacation (unarmed) without risk of the
Boston Feds jacking him up for possession of Guns'n'Ammo back in his hometown?
What you drinking or smoking?[laugh]
 
What you drinking or smoking?[laugh]
The plaintiff in the civil rights case referenced by the Ammoland article:
Trump Administration Breaks Campaign Pledge, Places Gun Owners under Siege
sued the Feds to establish that the misdemeanor crime of
submitting a forged windshield tint permit as defense against a ticket
did not rise to the level of violent crime which can constitutionally
be used to deny him his RKBA under the 2nd Amendment
.

The 3rd Federal circuit agrees that he is not an FPP -
notwithstanding the plain language of the Brady Act.

However, if Tint Boy travels outside the 3rd Circuit (say, to New England),
can another Federal prosecutor charge him with
being an FPP in possession of guns/ammo?

After all, no other part of the country recognizes
the Forged Tint Certificate exception to the Brady Act.
 
Everyone in this forum complainz about people not being educated when voting, not knowing about economics and so on...

Yet, most of you dont bother to educate yourselves with groups such as the NRA and how they help with your rights.

I used to be an NRA hater just like many here, until I spoke with some guys at Comm2A and GOAL and they told me what the NRA was doing.

Now STFU and go do some research. Then open your mouth, and if you want to hate, then hate, but at least you will be educated.

I still disagree with how the NRA approaches some issues, but you dont see me talking sh*t about them.
 
I keep hearing that the country is on the brink of communism and all are attacking the rights of Americans. Why would I spend money on the NRA and not buy ammo? Like I hear the other half of the time.
 
The plaintiff in the civil rights case referenced by the Ammoland article:
Trump Administration Breaks Campaign Pledge, Places Gun Owners under Siege
sued the Feds to establish that the misdemeanor crime of
submitting a forged windshield tint permit as defense against a ticket
did not rise to the level of violent crime which can constitutionally
be used to deny him his RKBA under the 2nd Amendment
.

The 3rd Federal circuit agrees that he is not an FPP -
notwithstanding the plain language of the Brady Act.

However, if Tint Boy travels outside the 3rd Circuit (say, to New England),
can another Federal prosecutor charge him with
being an FPP in possession of guns/ammo?

After all, no other part of the country recognizes
the Forged Tint Certificate exception to the Brady Act.
I don't know about the rest of New England but we do know that in Ma. everything legal is illegal unless it's illegal than it's legal.[wink]
 
Last edited:
Yet, most of you dont bother to educate yourselves with groups such as the NRA and how they help with your rights.
Actually it's research that has led me and others to the conclusion that when it comes to the 2A they've not done that good a job. As I've said before I've supported them for their support of hunting and shooting but there have been instances where they've actually come out in support of gun control. No pro-gun organization should be supporting gun control and there is plenty of evidence on our side to give the reasons why gun control is not a good idea. They should be pushing criminal control instead.
 
The 3rd Federal circuit ruled that
the plaintiff in the civil rights case
referenced by the Ammoland article ... is not an FPP ...
However, ... can another Federal prosecutor charge him with
being an FPP in possession of guns/ammo?

After all, no other part of the country recognizes
the Forged Tint Certificate exception to the Brady Act.
Unless he's protected by double jeopardy.

Still not sure that suffices:
if he buys a box of ammo at Rileys,
does that give a 1st circuit prosecutor
something new to charge him with?
 
Unless he's protected by double jeopardy.

Still not sure that suffices:
if he buys a box of ammo at Rileys,
does that give a 1st circuit prosecutor
something new to charge him with?

First of all, I don't know whose bright idea it was that this case created binding precedent on the whole 3rd Circuit. Read the articles you posted about "Tint Boy." They don't talk about the 3rd Circuit at all, but rather one judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A Federal district judge/court is below a circuit court of appeals and a district court's ruling does not create binding precedent on the whole circuit. That needs to be dispelled first.

Second, in a Federal prosecution, the prosecutor is the United States government. The Government (big G for a reason) was enjoined (stopped) by the court from enforcing the PP rule against "Tint Boy." That means that another Assistant United States Attorney/United States Attorney cannot press charges based on that same case/controversy because all US Attorneys represent the same client: the Federal Government. There would need to be a new "misdefelony" to re-make TB a PP.

Third, all courts respect each others' judgments. By judgment, I mean a specific judgment for a specific party in a specific case, not a general principle. If TB were to go to the Middle or Western Districts of PA, or Delaware, or NJ, he wouldn't magically become a PP by crossing a Federal court jurisdiction line because he received a judgment removing his PP status. Other courts are bound to respect that judgment, state included in most situations.

IANAL

e20c1ca089e026a1ec4b7d6450a475e5.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... I don't know whose bright idea it was that this case created binding precedent on the whole 3rd Circuit. Read the articles you posted about "Tint Boy."

My bad.

Judge Robreno's one page ruling makes the result much clearer.

... the articles you posted about "Tint Boy." ... don't talk about the 3rd Circuit at all, but rather one judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The 25 page memorandum by Judge Robreno of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania makes it clear that
he applied the Binderup test devised by an en banc panel of the 3rd Circuit.

... the United States government ... was enjoined ... by the court from enforcing the PP rule against "Tint Boy." That means that another Assistant United States Attorney/United States Attorney cannot press charges based on that same case/controversy because all US Attorneys represent the same client: the Federal Government. There would need to be a new "misdefelony" to re-make TB a PP.
That's helpful, thanks.

(And BTW, the bare majority of uses on the Intarwebs spell it "misdafelony".
You should feel free to conclude, "only in Massachusetts").
 
My bad.

Judge Robreno's one page ruling makes the result much clearer.

The 25 page memorandum by Judge Robreno of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania makes it clear that
he applied the Binderup test devised by an en banc panel of the 3rd Circuit.

That's helpful, thanks.

(And BTW, the bare majority of uses on the Intarwebs spell it "misdafelony".
You should feel free to conclude, "only in Massachusetts").

As he should. The circuit sets the applicable law for the district courts underneath them. Although, a district court judge is free to apply "persuasive authority" if there's a gap in coverage. He would just have to not commit an "abuse of discretion" and make a decision contrary or inconsistent with the circuit's position.

When reading opinions/orders/decisions/judgements, every sentence involving law should have a citation to an authority. Every sentence involving facts had an internal citation to a brief or something before being published and removed.
 
Back
Top Bottom