NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Philadelphia

[drgrant]

FWIW, to put things in perspective a bit... Philadumpia is one of the WORST anti gun cities in the entire US. If the NRA can punch mayor Street (or whoever the hack that is in office there) in the nose, it would be a big win for gun owners as a whole. It would be almost as good as doing the same thing to someone like Menino or Bloomberg.

I know this from indirect experience- a fellow on sigforum (who used to live, and works in the city) was accosted by a bum wielding a knife and almost drew down on him, but the bum backed off at the last second. The city came to his house, arrested him, took all his guns, and took his CCW permit away. They also ended up trying to charge him with assault or some crap like that, despite the fact that his gun never even cleared leather. To add frosting to this, the bum that accosted him had previously been CONVICTED of doing the same thing to someone else. (armed robbery or somesuch. ) So the guy had an obvious record, but still, the local judicial system tried to persecute him. He eventually was cleared, after much legal wrangling, etc, but still hasn't gotten his guns back, IIRC, although I think he eventually got another CCW from another locality. All this despite the accused being a lawyer himself and knowing, and retaining one of the best defense attorneys around. That should give you a small taste of the bullshit going on in Philadumpia. I wish it was still posted over there or I'd link to the whole saga. It would make your blood boil, that's how bad it was. Basically, anyone carrying a gun, even with a clean record, in Philadumpia, is considered "guilty by default" by the city, because they are so rabidly anti gun.


-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

such as the MA ag's BS wrt mail order ammo vendors and the like.

I contacted NRA legal about this, suggesting a federal action based on an FOB sale taking place at the point at which the merchandise is delivered to the common carrier.

After several initial responses consisting of nothing other than a regurgitation of MA policies and laws well understood by any regular reader of this forum, they finally understood that I was actually making a suggestion, not coming them to with ignorance of MA law.

The NRA reply was "not interested, some dealer would have to fund it - we won't".

 

[drgrant]

The NRA harbors much institutional cautiousness. The Bob Ricker fantasy that the NRA wants gun control so that it can raise money and stay in business should reside with the 9/11 Truthers.

IMO the NRA pussied out big time initially with Parker/Heller. I think some of it was about what you discuss, but I don't think the so called "fanatsy" was that far from the truth. It would not surprise me if there was at least a small contingent inside the NRA that feared a precipitous drop in the organizations relevance post a sweeping SCOTUS ruling, however improbable that would be. If that notion existed I can tell you it's been wiped away, more than likely due to the dumptrucks full of hate mail the NRA got from members and others for not supporting Gura. The NRA got caught red handed trying to intentionally derail the case and I think there was some backlash for that. I think most folks agree that if the battle is not fought now, it will NOT be easier to fight it later.

-Mike

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

I'm probably not going to win any friends here with my post. Oh, well.

I used to be an NRA member. I let my membership expire when they purged Neal Knox.

My feeling was that if they didn't want Neal cause he was too hard core and inflexible, then they didn't really want me, either.

These days, I send my money to my state Association (and yes, I know it's an NRA affiliate) and to Gun Owners of America.

In my opinion, the NRA doesn't do nearly enough to encourage their members to become members of their state association. They pay lip service to the idea, but I wonder what percent of NRA members actually join their state association also, and why the NRA doesn't do anything (beyond publishing the state associations name and address in their magazines) to push the idea.

My suspicion is that the NRA sees the pool of pro-2nd money as a zero-sum game. Every dollar sent to a state group is one less that will get sent to them.

IIRC, there was an attempt a few years ago to change the NRA's BoD from 75 members elected at large to 25 at-large members, plus the presidents of the 50 state associations.

Needless to say, the current powers-that-be hated the idea and were able to get it shot down.

As for why they took on the Philadelphia case, my guess is that they look for the easy, winnable cases. Then they can do press releases that "prove" they're doing something useful for the money that gun owners send them.

Losing tough cases is bad publicity.

Regards
John

 

[LoginName]

When I'm looking for an objective view of the NRA, the first place I look is the American Bar Association Journal.

The differences between Gura (for Heller) and the NRA were over tactics and probability of success.

There was(?is) serious fear that a bad for RKBA decision would be impossible to correct. Certainly, before Alioto replaced Sandra Day a bad decision was likely. When Parker won at the DC Appeals level, nobody was betting the farm on Anthony Kennedy support.

Even now, we don't know what 5 of the Justices will deem to be "reasonable regulations".

The NRA harbors much institutional cautiousness. The Bob Ricker fantasy that the NRA wants gun control so that it can raise money and stay in business should reside with the 9/11 Truthers.

Objectivity aside... the article does provide an accurate timeline and facts about the NRA's blunder.

 

[M1911]

The NRA has limited money, so they must carefully consider where they invest that money. Should they invest it in MA, where the legislature, governor, judiciary, congressional delegation, and populace are overwhelmingly anti-gun and they have no realistic hope of achieving much? Or should they invest it in WI where they've come very, very close to getting shall-issue CCW enacted?

They put their money into places where they think they can make a difference. The political climate in MA is such that there isn't much hope of a return on their investment.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Should they invest it in MA, where the legislature, governor, judiciary, congressional delegation, and populace are overwhelmingly anti-gun and they have no realistic hope of achieving much?

A federal suit challenging the AG's redefinition of FOB sales actually taking place inside MA would, according to some attorneys I have spoken to, have a realistic chance of success.

 

[WILDCATT]

NRA bash

I love reading the Mass forum as an NRA member since 1939 I have seen quite abit.the NRA is the official records keeping organization.The ILA is the legal political front.money for brady group is 10 times as much as the NRA can collect.over 1,500,000 mass gun ovners never did a thing to help over throw the gun laws.how many gun owners support GOAL.I have been a member of GOAL since the first.the Mass state ass died and GOAL took it over.do any of you know how many schools in Mass had rifle teams/clubs?
How many of you know what is taught in your schools???I dont have to worry
about shooting as I do it on my own land.every one has at least a shotgun here.we raise our own vegtables and the freezer is full of deer meat.7 deer and my son 2.we are waiting for the turkeys to become a flock.
and if you dont all agree you will sure hang together.