The NRA has a 19-page ‘blacklist‘ of groups, associations, companies and individuals known to support gun control legislation posted on their website. Feeling left out ’cause you’re not on it? Sign up to be added!
Bonus link: The truth about the Second Amendment.
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the High Court wrote that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. The Court added that the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment in two cases. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1969), the Court dismissed the appeal of a state court ruling upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control law, finding the appeal failed to present a “substantial federal question.” And in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court upheld the federal law banning felons from possessing guns. The Court found no “constitutionally protected liberties” infringed by the federal law.
In addition, in Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965) and Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), cases not involving the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has affirmed that today’s militia is the National Guard.
Since Miller was decided, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, the courts have decided that the Amendment guarantees a right to be armed only in connection with service in a “well regulated Militia.” The courts unanimously have rejected the NRA’s view that the Second Amendment is about the self-defense or sporting uses of guns. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote, the courts “have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights.” United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988).
(via [fold_and_mutilate])
I don’t support any blacklists. I don’t give money to the NRA. I don’t currently own a gun. I have hunted. I belivve in freedom.
I find it odd that in earlier posts you point to the scary trend that our country has been taking to a more powerful police state. Where our rights are being eroded to protect us from ‘terrorists’. Further, I conceed that the courts have decided that the ‘militia’ is now the national guard.
But, when our new ‘police state’ goes out of control and you are on the receiving end of it, you sure as hell are gonna want a gun to defend yourself from opression. The militia was and will always end up be groups of citizens who take up arms to defend that which is closest to them when the system breaks down around them. The army and the national guard are a part of that system.
God willing our system will never break down and go out of control. I mean, political systems have never done that before… Have they?
Of the ten amendments called the Bill of Rights only one is designated to the states — Article Ten. Article One through Article Nine are personal rights. This is all described in clear detail in the Federalist Papers.
It is easy to see that both Article One and Article Two are under attack from certainly segments of society, including the courts. The courts are overly aggressive, attempting to pass laws from the bench. They sometimes forget they are but one of the three branches of government. All are equal. The courts are not the final decision makers. That was never the intent.
They is no need for the executive or legislative branches to abide by wrong decisions from the courts. Case law should not bury the timeless structure of the Constitution, a document designed for a free people. The push, pull and conflict among the branches is there by design. It is a wonderful system with the people on top. The power comes from governed.
Attacks on the other Articles of the Bill of Rights will follow, if the first two fall. Many in power today are afraid of Free Speech, Free Press, Freedom of Religion and Freedom to Bear Arms. What do they have to fear? Perhaps they are projecting their own power-hungry attitudes on those they wish to overpower.
I am your humble Populist, being not Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Conservative nor Liberal, but being a free human, and wishing to stay that way.
i think it would be a great honor to be on the nra blacklist! i am not black so do you have a white list?
Cliff — as far as gun control goes, I’m somewhere in the middle ground. I don’t believe that guns should be out-and-out outlawed, nor do I believe we should be restricting access to weaponry used for hunting, etc. While I’ve never gone hunting (and, to be quite honest, have no interest in doing so), I don’t have a major problem with hunting in general. Admittedly, I’d generally prefer it if they were hunting for subsistence, and not just going out to kill animals for the sheer thrill of it, but that’s that.
However, I also don’t see the need for easily available semi- or fully-automatic assault weapons, and other such things, for the general public. For the military, sure. But for “hunting”? “Personal protection?” I find those arguments, when used as a defense for that kind of weaponry, to be flat-out ridiculous.
A handgun or shotgun, for personal protection and/or hunting, I have no problems with — as long as the owner has gone through the appropriate background check and is trained on how to use and care for the weapon, and isn’t going to leave it loaded and lying around for their children to play with. But Uzi’s and the like? Sorry, no — that just doesn’t work for me.
You couldn’t be more wrong… If I didn’t have this gun the King of England could come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Huh? ::poke, poke, poke:: Do you?
Hehehe, no but seriously :) I think gun ownership rights is one of those issues that just isn’t going to be settled to any one’s satisfaction in the near future because of the
emotional aspect of it. It’s like the abortion issue. It’s a big hot potatoe. Even given the legal/constitutional framework to base arguments it still boils down to feelings…
guns=freedom from tyranical governments, guns=violence, etc., etc….
Myself, I am not a hunter or a gun owner (presently at least) but I firmly support and believe in the notion that law-abiding citizens have the right to own firearms for sporting and defensives reasons. Background checks, sure. Training/safety requirements, OK. Fully automatic weapons (machine guns), tactical explosives (grenades, etc.)… yeah, we’ll draw the line there.
The semi-automatic assault weapon issue is kind of nebulous area. In general, I don’t have a problem with them. They are not machine guns. You pull the trigger and only one round is
expended. Can they do a hell of a lot of damange in a short period of time? You betcha. Still, I think we need to draw the line at this level and say that, within the margin of
reasonable regulation (i.e., thorough background checks), we need to prevent the government limiting what weapons you choose to employ for DEFENSIVE or SPORTING purposes.
Anyway, I guess that’s just my quick two-cents. BTW, good luck with your job hunt!
Don’t trust foldy further than you can throw him. He kind of defines ‘rabid ideologue’.
The legislation creating the National Guard explicity states that the Guard does not replace the militia. The courts have been wrong in the past, and are certainly wrong on this. As for Miller, the case merely established that certain weapons that are not suitable for military use can be controled, the weapon in this case being a short barrel shotgun. But even there the court was wrong, since such weapons were used in WWII. The purpose of the Second Amendment was not to protect the rights of sport hunters. It is solidly based on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Governments do not last forever. Even an elementary school student of history knows that governments, even and especially democratic ones, are capable of descending into tyranny. FOr this reason, the right to bear arms was established. Also at issue is the right to self defense, which is grounded in the right to life. Anyone who wishes to deprive you of your rights forfeits their natural rights. You have every right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary.
The oddest thing to me is that the same groups who are upset about the Patriot Act and civil liberties are usually the most vocal about depriving people of the first civil right. I don’t understand it personally.
Your language and opinions seem to indicate that you misunderstand some things about guns.
For example, were you aware that due to laws dating back to 1934, fully-automatic guns are nearly impossible to possess? They are very expensive, they are completely banned in many states, they require permission from a local chief of police or sheriff to buy, and you have to submit fingerprints and photo, and undergo an annual inspection of your house by the BATF.
Semi-automatic weapons are not easily converted to fully-automatic. You need to be an expert gunsmith and machinist to accomplish such a thing. Anybody who tells you differently doesn’t understand what they’re talking about, or is a gun control spokesperson.
Semi-automatic weapons use the same ammunition as hunting weapons. They differ from hunting weapons only in cosmetic appearance and magazine capacity.
But what difference does that make, from a practical perspective? A crazy person bent on carrying out a mass shooting just needs to bring more magazines, or reload his or her magazines during the course of a mass shooting. And for any other type of shooting, magazine capacity doesn’t matter.
The fixation of gun ban organizations on mass shootings needs to be questioned. Such shootings are very rare, although the huge volume of attention that any such incident receives in the press might make you think otherwise.
Do we really need to be writing laws that restrict ownership of firearms by millions of peaceful, law-abiding people, in order to try to prevent a rare type of violent act that is responsible for at most a few dozen deaths per year?
And when such violent acts continue on at the same rate, unaffected by the Prohibition, do you think that the correct response should be more Prohibition? Think about the “War on Drugs”– do we really need a similarly unsuccessful “War on Guns”?
Let’s consider “need”. Should possession of dangerous tools, in general, be forbidden unless someone can prove a “need”?
Semi-automatic weapons are, essentially, the Hummer SUVs of firearms. They’re less-capable knockoffs of their military counterparts, and they’re disliked by some people who think that “no one really needs something like that.” You can also liken them to drag racing cars– a large number of law-abiding people use them responsibly, at a race track or gun range, but a much smaller number of irresponsible persons use them to break the law.
Should we ban all sports cars? Or maybe even ban any car that can go faster than 70 miles per hour? There are more deaths caused by automobile collisions than there are by guns– look up the data here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
I think that we should not– arrest and punish people who use them to do harm, but leave peaceful, law-abiding users of them alone.
In the end, though, none of the arguments that I make above have any chance of swaying you if you possess superstitious, prejudicial attitudes towards guns and gun owners.
What I’m trying to tell you is this: Semi-automatic weapons are not the problem that gun control advocates would have you believe. They are harping on the subject for three reasons only:
These are the Violence Policy Center’s own words, on their own website.
Brian, Anthony —
Obviously, this is neither an easy, clear-cut issue, nor one that I’m incredibly familiar with, which I’ll freely admit. I’ve never had any real interest in guns, and have very little personal experience with them (I think I remember firing a BB rifle when I was in cub scouts at one point in my youth). At some point I would like to take a gun safety course to ensure that I know how to operate and take care of a firearm, on the (hopefully highly unlikely) chance that I may someday need that knowledge.
As I stated above, I am neither an across the board “anti-gun nut”, nor can I see myself swinging the other direction and becoming an across the board “pro-gun nut”. Having grown up in Alaska, where for many people in the bush hunting is a subsistence issue, and not just a sports issue, I’m fully aware that the majority of people who own and use firearms do so in perfect legality, without endangering anyone else. At the same time, incidents such as the apparently frightening ease with which last year’s Maryland sniper was able to acquire an illegal firearm do frighten me.
While I don’t see my point of view (hazy though it may be) changing immediately, I’ll certainly try to take the time to become a little more informed on the subject.
At least you recognize that you should become more informed on this topic.
Try asking yourself why celebrities who are outspoken advocates of gun control hire armed guards?
Is their life or that of their children more worth protecting then mine?
I also have to question why a public “blacklist” is automatically bad.
I assume you have some convictions about something, let’s say you support, I don’t know, Anti-Whaling efforts.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to know which organizations and individuals have positions that are counter to yours? Would you feel good if you knew that you were doing business with an organization that advocated against and lobbied against the whales?
This “blacklist” simply fills this purpose for the 4+ Million NRA members who have a problem with losing their freedoms under our constitution.
You could also use this as a list of poorly run businesses. I would never consider investing in a business that was funneling it’s profits into any contraversial non-business related areas. It boggles my mind that Sprint (yea, the long-distance company) pays for anti-gun efforts. (In the same way it would boggle my mind if Apple started pouring money into the pro or anti abortion arena.)
Really, if you want to talk “blacklists” how about the effects of being labled a conservative in Hollywood?
Dan
Government is slowly chipping away our rights one generation at a time. Our children and grandchildren will never realize what they have lost because they never had it. Therefore they’re not motivated to fight against it. We need to remind our children of this so they will take a stance instead of becoming accustomed to what is offered to them by time they vote.