PDA

View Full Version : NRA just called,


mj1
01-12-2010, 2:11 PM
they say NATO is at it again and at this moment we are getting screwed.

What is the take on this?

caduckgunner
01-12-2010, 2:13 PM
Que?

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 2:15 PM
Did Wayne tell you how the kids were doing or was this just a telemarketing call asking for more money?

Cpl. Haas
01-12-2010, 2:31 PM
They've been telling me that for the last 7 years to try to get me to give more money... it's always sounded like BS to me.

frankym
01-12-2010, 2:32 PM
details?

jazman
01-12-2010, 2:33 PM
Sure they didn't want cash for the INTERPOL bologna? If so they didn't get the memo, this from the NRA website:

INTERPOL Rumors

Friday, January 08, 2010

Over the past year, we have reported several times on the abundance of rumors being circulated regarding firearm issues. Among other things, we've heard phony tales circulating about such things as guns being banned for the elderly, ammunition with expiration dates, a requirement that guns be listed on tax returns, and a prohibition on gun and ammunition imports. The latest scuttlebutt has to do with a recent Executive Order by President Obama concerning the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).

Some have argued that the order would make INTERPOL and its officials immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, and that it would therefore allow INTERPOL personnel to seize firearms, kidnap Americans, and otherwise violate U.S. citizens' rights. Our legal staff has reviewed this order and does not believe it poses any of these threats.

President Obama's order amends a 1983 order by President Reagan, in which the U.S. recognized INTERPOL as an international organization that is entitled to certain legal immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).

One of those immunities is immunity from civil lawsuits. Under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," foreign governments generally can't be sued, and the IOIA extended that protection to international organizations. This has been applied to block suits against the United Nations, Organization of American States, and other international bodies.

This means that articles on the recent order are incorrect in claiming that the order made INTERPOL immune from civil suits; INTERPOL was already immune.

Some have also suggested that under the order, INTERPOL agents would receive diplomatic immunity, so they could violate Americans' rights without fear of criminal prosecution. There are several misconceptions here.

First, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats, and the IOIA specifically says it does not confer diplomatic immunity on international organization employees.

Second, while the IOIA does provide a limited type of immunity for international organization employees, this is only immunity "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity." U.S. courts have interpreted this narrowly. In one case, a court found that a U.N. employee was not immune to a local speeding ticket even though he was actually driving the Secretary General of the U.N. to an official conference. In other cases, courts have found that employees of international organizations can be prosecuted for espionage, because espionage is not among their official duties.

Law enforcement officers working with INTERPOL are detailed from agencies in various countries, such as the FBI or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have no power of arrest outside their own countries. Therefore, a seizure of an American (or of an Americans' firearms) would likely not fall within the official duties for which INTERPOL officials would be immune from prosecution.

Now don't take any of this to mean that we underestimate our anti-gun opponents, or that we don't believe they would happily and readily seize the opportunity to adopt and enforce measures that would limit our freedom. We know full well that they would. Rather, our message is this: Rumors abound, so don't believe everything you read. If it's a legitimate concern, rest assured your NRA-ILA will promptly address it and will give you the straight story.





Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

bodger
01-12-2010, 3:27 PM
I get that same pitch every 30-45 days. I got tired of donating. And not for nuthin', but the NRA needs to hire some telemarketers that have more talent than just reading a drone script.

mj1
01-12-2010, 3:52 PM
Thought so, they were a bit pushy about getting a CC today or they even offerd to take a check over the phone.

G17GUY
01-12-2010, 4:10 PM
Do to cc theft, I don't give out any info unless I made the call. If you don't have caller ID, you don't know who is calling.

yelohamr
01-12-2010, 4:18 PM
Interpol immunity does not make them immune to the projectiles from U.S. gun owners.

Satex
01-12-2010, 4:21 PM
Do to cc theft, I don't give out any info unless I made the call. If you don't have caller ID, you don't know who is calling.

Even if you have caller ID, it can easily be spoofed.

mustang454
01-12-2010, 4:27 PM
Here is some info that i was a part of....NRA members Councel of Santa Barbara, CA. Hope these pdf files post that you can see and read them. Only can post 1 as the other are too large and i don't know how to reduce the size.No longer a member. I like this group. My money goes here and other groups that get things done here in California!.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=253099&page=5

Swatguy10_15
01-12-2010, 4:27 PM
This really doesnt have to do with interpol. Its about NATO trying to take away friearms from americans "personal firearms are weapons of mass destruction" theyre trying to strip away our independance as america,create a world government and therefore overstep and nullify the constitution (and second amendment).. Check out the nato meetings on youtube. Atleast try to ..Every time someone comes out with a decent youtube channel that tells the truth about what nato is doing the channel gets mysteriously closed for "violations of the user policy"

Alex$
01-12-2010, 5:58 PM
:TFH:

Sinixstar
01-12-2010, 9:55 PM
This really doesnt have to do with interpol. Its about NATO trying to take away friearms from americans "personal firearms are weapons of mass destruction" theyre trying to strip away our independance as america,create a world government and therefore overstep and nullify the constitution (and second amendment).. Check out the nato meetings on youtube. Atleast try to ..Every time someone comes out with a decent youtube channel that tells the truth about what nato is doing the channel gets mysteriously closed for "violations of the user policy"

Google is your friend. This topic has been beaten to DEATH in gun messageboards all over the internet.

Bottom line is, NATO can pass whatever the hell they want. The president can even sign it and agree to it. Doesn't mean crap here unless it's a treaty ratified by congress, which would cause a constitutional conflict. In such a case - the treaty would essentially be null and void since the constitution takes priority. Treaties cannot override the constitution. Period. End of Story.

This doesn't even get into the meat of the treaty it's self - which isn't about legal gun ownership or legal transfer of weapons between COUNTRIES. It has to do with the illegal arms trade between countries. Stuff like smuggling weapons to guerilla fighters in foreign countries. Since we already essentially have a progress of authorizing gun ownership and transfer in the united states, and american citizens already have the protection of the 2nd amendment which says we are all allowed to own guns* - this treaty would essentially mean absolutely nothing to us - even if it were ratified by congress, and even if it were to be unchallenged in SCOTUS.

For this to have any effect on anyone in the united states - they would have not to only authorize the treaty in congress, but also strip the 2nd amendment out of the constitution, and essentially ban guns outright in the united states.



/rant

Sinixstar
01-12-2010, 9:55 PM
:TFH:



x10000000000000000 for sure.

Sinixstar
01-12-2010, 9:59 PM
On a side note - THIS is why I don't like the NRA. The NATO Treaty in question has nothing to do with American gun owners, as the system we have in place in the US is 100% in compliance with the proposed treaty already. Even if it were ratified, there would be zero effect on the American gun owner. The NRA knows this, and yet they still use it to try to drum up some fear, some political points, and more importantly - MONEY for themselves. It's scare tactics and fear mongering at it's absolute worst.

forgiven
01-12-2010, 10:42 PM
It takes a lot of money to fight a war and make no mistake we're in a war.

Colt-45
01-12-2010, 10:46 PM
Interpol immunity does not make them immune to the projectiles from U.S. gun owners.


+100000:cool:

gotgunz
01-12-2010, 10:51 PM
Did they ask for money too?

AndrewMendez
01-12-2010, 11:52 PM
On a side note - THIS is why I don't like the NRA. The NATO Treaty in question has nothing to do with American gun owners, as the system we have in place in the US is 100% in compliance with the proposed treaty already. Even if it were ratified, there would be zero effect on the American gun owner. The NRA knows this, and yet they still use it to try to drum up some fear, some political points, and more importantly - MONEY for themselves. It's scare tactics and fear mongering at it's absolute worst.

Seems like every other company in the US.

have you ever tried buying Metals?? I had a guy give me a speech about how the US Economy would crumbled within 2 years, and I should cash out my 401k to buy his Companies Gold.

Sinixstar
01-13-2010, 12:04 AM
Seems like every other company in the US.

have you ever tried buying Metals?? I had a guy give me a speech about how the US Economy would crumbled within 2 years, and I should cash out my 401k to buy his Companies Gold.

Yea, so when you go to cash it in down the road, they'll buy it back from you at 60% of wholesale value. :D

cbn620
01-13-2010, 12:45 AM
They gotta make their snaps some way. Most Americans won't lay down some ducats unless they're scared out of their mind about something. There's a syllogism here somewhere...basically it goes without saying, they gotta come up with some really scary stuff to get the serious cheddar. Ain't no money like fear money, folks!

Seriously though, have they ever done anything about this whole NATO situation? I never hear about any planned law suits or anything. I don't doubt the NRA has done a lot for gun owners and continues to do so, even despite mistakes here and there. But what are they doing about this one particular issue to the degree that would justify them trying to sell the scenario to me every other month of the year?

Sinixstar
01-13-2010, 1:04 AM
They gotta make their snaps some way. Most Americans won't lay down some ducats unless they're scared out of their mind about something. There's a syllogism here somewhere...basically it goes without saying, they gotta come up with some really scary stuff to get the serious cheddar. Ain't no money like fear money, folks!

Seriously though, have they ever done anything about this whole NATO situation? I never hear about any planned law suits or anything. I don't doubt the NRA has done a lot for gun owners and continues to do so, even despite mistakes here and there. But what are they doing about this one particular issue to the degree that would justify them trying to sell the scenario to me every other month of the year?

What exactly is there for the NRA to do? There is nothing for them to really act on, or push for? There isn't even a cause to take up there yet. Nevermind that again - this treaty really has zero effect on american gun owners. It has quite literally absolutely nothing to do with us, at all.

I read the proposed treaty start to finish some time ago. There's links to it floating around if you care to look. There is some scary stuff in there if you don't bother to read the whole thing. If you only read portions of it - it's like pissing on the 2nd amendment. When you read the whole thing - it very explicitly spells out that it applies to transfer of small arms between countries outside of channels authorized by both countries.

The treaty is designed to give countries some level of recourse against illegal gun running. Right now - if I'm running guns into some crap hole country that's in a civil war and has no strong government - there's nobody to stop me. If when the war's over - I can go run off to some other craphole country, hide out - and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. This treaty is designed to put some agreements in place that would give countries the cover to go after people who do stuff like that.

Since we already authorize the importation and sale of small arms, and components, and all that stuff as part of the customs process, and we already have laws governing the importation, production and sale of small arms, ammo, components, etc - this stuff doesn't really apply to us. Even if this treaty were to be taken up by the US - we already exceed the standards put in place. It would literally change ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as it relates to the United States and guns.

So again - my question is - what exactly is there for the NRA to do? What exactly are they fighting against in relation to this? What action should we expect them to take?

tba02
01-13-2010, 5:17 PM
What action should we expect them to take?

Ask for money (?) ...
... and , uhm ...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=256399&highlight=gura%2Bnra .. not get it for now.

jazman
01-13-2010, 6:50 PM
Interpol immunity does not make them immune to the projectiles from U.S. gun owners.

You may want to actually read the post.:rolleyes:

VW*Mike
01-13-2010, 6:55 PM
I got to "Listen" to Wayne tonight while renewing my membership. Unfortunately I didn't have $500 for a lifetime membership, but I did get to hear about how Hillary Clinton and the UN want to have an international gun ban treaty. LOL. They will have to take mine by force.