NRA hurting gun rights by pushing CC over OC in lawsuits?

g21sfpistol · Mar 16, 2014

deepdiver said:
This topic makes me think of many things that may sound trite at first such as:
The perfect is the enemy of the good/better.
A diffference in strategy is not necessarily a difference in objective.
Someone not your enemy is not necessarily your friend and just because they're not your friend doesn't mean they're your enemy.

As I pointed out in another thread, we have made massive progress with CC as shown by these maps: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

I am obviously a supporter of OC, but I do see some wisdom in pushing CC first. Women generally are more anti-gun than men. The fastest growing group of firearm owners are women and the number of women CC continues to grow. Which women are more likely to react negatively to OC? The woman who has never even shot a gun or the woman who has a 380 sitting in her purse or on her hip? People who are marginal about seeing OC are ok with CC. Increasing CC helps normalize the ownership, use and posesssion of firearms. Normalizing citizen gun ownership and carry is part of our oft stated reason for OC.

Certainly most of us would like to see national constitutional carry. But we have even made progress on this front. That's not perfect but it certainly is better. I don't see being able to OC in NYC or SF in my lifetime, but I do see MO becoming a gold star OC state, maybe even constitutional carry. I also think it not impossible that I would CC most anywhere under some type, even if limited, national CC reciprocity.

I also think of the whole Starbucks thing. Many of us were concerned that some of the over exhuberance in "supporting" Starbucks was a mistake as their libertarian "not our enemy" was confused with their being our friend. That obviously backfired to some extent, although I do give credit to Starbucks for asking for restraint rather than going with a national ban. That whole thing was an unforced error on OC supporters. By the same token, the NRA, while not always (to some not often) OC's friend, they also are not necessarily an enemy. Political realities in some states means either getting nothing or gettingCC with stupid restrictions. But everywhere we get CC, the blood in the street fantasies of the anti-2A crowd are proven to be nonsense and we almost always end up slowly loosening up the CC restrictions. Several states moved into the OC column to varying degrees. The NRA wasn't necessarily an ally through the entire fight, but once CC was well established and without need of further immediate support, they were not necessarily the enemy of moving the bar towards more 2A.

The bigger the organization, the more compromise they need to make because of diversity of membership. The NRA is quite large and that's their political reality. Also, they don't have an unlimited war chest and have to pick and choose what they deem the best bang for the buck for their average membership. Not all 5 mill will agree, but not all will disagree either.

We need to find common ground where we can, fight fairly with each other when we can't and keep the common aspects of our goals always in mind.

agreed. this is a point i have been trying to make.

solus · Mar 16, 2014

g21sfpistol said:
agreed. this is a point i have been trying to make.

oh my goodness...are you for real? TRULY?

ipse

WalkingWolf · Mar 16, 2014

FUQ

In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA’s leaders helped write and lobby for the first federal gun control laws—the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny. The 17th Amendment outlawing alchohol became law in 1920 and was soon followed by the emergence of big city gangsters who outgunned the police by killing rivals with sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—today called automatic weapons.

In the early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

WalkingWolf · Mar 16, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
FUQ

In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA’s leaders helped write and lobby for the first federal gun control laws—the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny. The 17th Amendment outlawing alchohol became law in 1920 and was soon followed by the emergence of big city gangsters who outgunned the police by killing rivals with sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—today called automatic weapons.

In the early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

The sole purpose of the modern NRA is to make money, and make fools of gun owners. They are doing well at accomplishing both.

color of law · Mar 16, 2014

deepdiver, I, in general, don't disagree. But, as I said, getting more states in line will go further than national issues. I don't mean to ignore national issues.

Wyoming constitutional carry was, for the most part, single handily accomplished by one guy. And with no help of the NRA.

Texas is suppose to be a great gun state. NOT!!!! Cant open carry.

These state issues can be overcome with a little help, but I don't see it happening.....

deepdiver · Mar 16, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
FUQ

In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA’s leaders helped write and lobby for the first federal gun control laws—the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny. The 17th Amendment outlawing alchohol became law in 1920 and was soon followed by the emergence of big city gangsters who outgunned the police by killing rivals with sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—today called automatic weapons.

In the early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it—two provisions that the NRA opposes today.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

So during the first nationwide gang warfare outbreak when mobsters were running around shooting up urban America with full auto Thompsons and BARs and Bonnie and Clyde types were doing the same across rural America, the NRA thought, hey if we control some if these full auto weapons maybe regular folk will be better off and stuff. In '68 they were involved with the NFA some good some bad. And then crime rates did no go down. Limiting good people did nothing to stop bad people - which is easy to say DUH to today, but on the surface the gun control made sense to a slim majority of people back in the day and to many still today. The difference is that we now have 80+ years of data about how much the restrictions backfired so, those people and organizations from back in the day probably had some common sense thoughts on why that would be good without being too restrictive whereas those who still push those policies today are doing so in the face of all data and evidence.

So how about the NRA? Their positions 80 years ago are " the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny" because they see that the data proves the past to be misguided. So we are too hold this against the modern NRA? How many NRA members who supported the '34 act do you think are in an NRA leadership/policy position today? How about even alive? The NRA had been around about 80 years when that was ongoing and now has had anothher 80 years to think about it. To hold the current NRA responsible for the policy positions of the NRA 80 years ago is ludicrous being that they have updated their positions based on evolved data, experience and realities, as stated in your own quote.

deepdiver · Mar 16, 2014

color of law said:
deepdiver, I, in general, don't disagree. But, as I said, getting more states in line will go further than national issues. I don't mean to ignore national issues.

Wyoming constitutional carry was, for the most part, single handily accomplished by one guy. And with no help of the NRA.

Texas is suppose to be a great gun state. NOT!!!! Cant open carry.

These state issues can be overcome with a little help, but I don't see it happening.....

I don't disagree with you either. I think that is where the differing strategy comes into play though. It is my impression that the NRA is not willing to spend its resources to move Wyoming into the constitutional carry column when it was still fighting to force IL to have any kind of carry, Chicago residents to even buy a guy without having $100k in disposable income and get DC to quit arresting people for just having an empty casing in their vehicle during a traffic stop among numerous other fights.

That's why, when the economics of my business world improve, I will only continue maintaining my basic NRA membership but start being more financially supportive of other organizations such as GOA.

It is a bit selfish on my part. I can now be armed in my vehicle while driving through IL which makes it no longer a complete and utter pain in my rear (it is not worth $300+ dollars to carry in IL - I will just continue to gas up and eat before and after driving through). Frankly, I really can't work up much of a give a care of sympathy for the remaining may issue staters as they are all deep blue states politically and the people they have elected for the last 40+ years are the ones costing the most waste or resources to fight natinally. I'll still pay for the NRA membership and get all internet angry for them, but I would rather put my resources into turning every shall issue state to constitutional carry, or at a minimum a gold star open carry, before spending one thin dime or 30 seconds helping NJ or MA get shall issue and I'll giggle all day long if those 8 may issue states suddenly had to co-exist with 40 or so constitutional carry states. It'll keep 'em from moving next door if nothing else.

MAC702 · Mar 16, 2014

color of law said:
I'm going to try to get this subject back on track.

If the NRA concentrated on the true meaning of the Second Amendment, supporting open carry and conceal carry equally, then maybe they would garner more support. But alas, they are to busy feeding their ego...

Lots of states (like NV) require NRA instructor credentials to teach the required CCW permit class.

Follow the money.

WalkingWolf · Mar 16, 2014

MAC702 said:
Lots of states (like NV) require NRA instructor credentials to teach the required CCW permit class.

Follow the money.

Exactly, whether intentional or not, NRA has spent a century cultivating gun control laws, that later put HUGE amounts of money in their pocket. Unlicensed open carry, and constitutional carry is kryptonite to their plans to be even bigger. It is not hard to see what they are up to. Make a system where the gun owning public needs them to save them from the very laws they brought into existence.

Conceal carry with a privilege card is not, and never will be the intent of the RKBA. It is shameful that they continually LIE and claim that they support the 2nd amendment when they know damn well they do not.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 17, 2014

deepdiver said:
So during the first nationwide gang warfare outbreak when mobsters were running around shooting up urban America with full auto Thompsons and BARs and Bonnie and Clyde types were doing the same across rural America, the NRA thought, hey if we control some if these full auto weapons maybe regular folk will be better off and stuff. In '68 they were involved with the NFA some good some bad. And then crime rates did no go down. Limiting good people did nothing to stop bad people - which is easy to say DUH to today, but on the surface the gun control made sense to a slim majority of people back in the day and to many still today. The difference is that we now have 80+ years of data about how much the restrictions backfired so, those people and organizations from back in the day probably had some common sense thoughts on why that would be good without being too restrictive whereas those who still push those policies today are doing so in the face of all data and evidence.

So how about the NRA? Their positions 80 years ago are " the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny" because they see that the data proves the past to be misguided. So we are too hold this against the modern NRA? How many NRA members who supported the '34 act do you think are in an NRA leadership/policy position today? How about even alive? The NRA had been around about 80 years when that was ongoing and now has had anothher 80 years to think about it. To hold the current NRA responsible for the policy positions of the NRA 80 years ago is ludicrous being that they have updated their positions based on evolved data, experience and realities, as stated in your own quote.

Hysteria jumped on by politicians. The fact you believe it was a massive problem shows how much their propaganda worked.

The other thing you left out is why all of sudden the jump in crime.....oh yea government prohibition helped create massive amounts of money to made by "gangsters" providing something the public still wanted.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 17, 2014

g21sfpistol said:
comparing a victim to OC it makes no sense what so ever. i got bashes for comparing cops to OC which would have more merit than your comparison. cali is hardly a state when it comes to peoples gun rights. you think thats the best place to be shoving you gun i someones face KNOWING they would shut you down. such a great tactic. i could have told you that was coming. the arrogance of some people here, psh no one would listen.

LOL...you are the one who blamed OC'ers for what happened in California, you are not to bright are you?

Like I said blaming someone for exercising their rights as the cause of loosing them is idiotic. Do you also think some women deserve to be raped because they walked alone?

sudden valley gunner · Mar 17, 2014

g21sfpistol said:
since thats your argument i would assume you are at a lost for words and have no rebuttal. i like it. continue you comment that lead to no where.

LOL....I didn't make an argument or rebuttal , just pointing out that your statement was nonsense, it was dishonest and logically a fail.

deepdiver · Mar 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Hysteria jumped on by politicians. The fact you believe it was a massive problem shows how much their propaganda worked.

The other thing you left out is why all of sudden the jump in crime.....oh yea government prohibition helped create massive amounts of money to made by "gangsters" providing something the public still wanted.

I wasn't attempting to discuss the political agenda that led to the situation but rather the public perception that seems to have led to the then NRA position. The matter was not "left out" but rather beyond the scope of my point. I could write page upon page of comment on the destructive "progressive" political agenda of pre/post WWI.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 17, 2014

deepdiver said:
I wasn't attempting to discuss the political agenda that led to the situation but rather the public perception that seems to have led to the then NRA position. The matter was not "left out" but rather beyond the scope of my point. I could write page upon page of comment on the destructive "progressive" political agenda of pre/post WWI.

Gotcha, subtleties of conversation often lost through the internet.

bushwacker · Mar 26, 2014

g21sfpistol said:
they will eventually succeed. the OC movement isn't doing the greatest, just look at what happened in cali. its hard for libs to complain about what they can't see. i believe CC helps more politically than OC does.

I have to disagree alittle look at all of the problems that texas was having when they first doing open carry ,all the call ins,police spazing , and folks getting wrongfully arrested. and now that all the rallies and gatherings and marches , I can tell that there is a great deal less alarm to the site of ocing of at least long guns altho I haven't seen or heard any info how the progress of ocing pree 1899 bp pistols. Has anyone any info or links on updates of the pre 1899 issues in tx....anyway there is less tension to citizens with guns in tx now

Saxxon · Mar 30, 2014

CC is not always practical. Warm weather makes all but the smallest (and lest effective) firearms concealable.

Making it the only option also is discriminatory as reliable, effective pocket guns are often more expensive than reliable full size counterparts. This adversely affects the poor who many be able to only afford one gun at best.

Bikenut · Mar 30, 2014

Saxxon said:
CC is not always practical. Warm weather makes all but the smallest (and lest effective) firearms concealable.

Making it the only option also is discriminatory as reliable, effective pocket guns are often more expensive than reliable full size counterparts. This adversely affects the poor who many be able to only afford one gun at best.

The entire concept of requiring permits is discriminatory simply because it discriminates against those who cannot afford to pay for the permit and/or pay for the classes required to qualify for the permit and/or pay for travel expenses to get to where the classes are offered.

And... anytime the government is in control of setting the criteria as to what is required in order to get a "permit" the government is also in control of how strict those criteria are. Taken to the extreme the government could (and I have no doubt would like to) require specific classes offered in only one place costing thousands of dollars just for the training, not to mention travel/lodging/required equipment and supplies, along with a permit fee in the thousands of dollars.. for a permit that has a renewal requirement of repeating the whole process... every year.

And the truly poor have to decide if they will spend the money to buy a gun/take the training/pay for the permit............... or buy winter coats for their kids. I strongly suspect the winter coats win out every time.

I wonder if a class action lawsuit representing the financially disadvantaged brought by a civil rights organization (or even an individual attorney?) because of the discriminatory nature of permit systems would have any chances?

WalkingWolf · Mar 30, 2014

I find it funny how progressives get so upset over a simple ID for the privilege to vote, yet allow the pay for right to continue. That is some good kool aid they have been drinking.

NRA hurting gun rights by pushing CC over OC in lawsuits?

g21sfpistol

Banned

solus

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

bushwacker

Regular Member

Saxxon

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

WalkingWolf

Regular Member