Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-14-2019, 1:09 AM
squeeze squeeze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 588
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthBay Shooter View Post
Perhaps, there is some thought to taking / closing the NRA range in the golden gate rec area? I shot trap there as a kid, right under the GG Bridge at Fort Point.

On a side note, if the NRA wins and takes property, perhaps a big range in the center of the city....
Sorry-no such thing.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-14-2019, 2:59 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case has been assigned to Judge Richard Seeborg.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-14-2019, 5:31 AM
offrdmania's Avatar
offrdmania offrdmania is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Nominated by Obama, wonderful
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unnamed Liberal
"Gator Monroe posts are like a good fart, sometimes they make you laugh but they always stink".
***FS Long Slide CZ75 SA***
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:17 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What the F what's next the Scouts of America deemed a Terrorist Organization. This is just another ploy to make the uneducated more ignorant. Being a former Democrat I am more afraid of the Democratic Party than ISIS as ISIS is on foreign soil and the Democratic Party is in charge in government on domestic soil. This should scare the crap out of every American Democrat, Independent, and Republican alike no matter what your skin color, gender, or religion. You should be very afraid if you love anything about the current freedoms you enjoy now. You can drive yourself to any destination you like as well as fly anywhere that you can afford to. Eat whatever you want, purchase anything you can afford. But all this will not be possible once the socialist become those in charge of every aspect of your life Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World coming true.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-14-2019, 2:43 PM
Dmerrell Dmerrell is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They should have also sued for Slander and Defamation. Branding the organization and therefore any member as a terrorist is going to create a predjudice against any gun owner. Not that the libs haven't already done this.
Whether just in declaration or not it still creates a mindset that if you own a gun you're a terrorist... keep saying it. gun's = terrorist.

If they get property they should take the bridges and then remove them and turn the Presidio into a shooting range. hopefully the rest will fall off into the ocean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Two questions that pop up after a cursory review of the complaint.

How is the resolution not government speech?
And more importantly how is the NRA harmed by a symbolic resolution?
If I am not mistaken the resolution is more of an aspirational document and does not compel any specific action.
I.e how is there a case or controversy for the Court to rule on that is redressable by Court action.

I see they are trying to allude to a chilling effect on speech because San Fran vendors will stay away from the NRA. However, I don't see any facts alleged demonstrating that.

The NRA may win this but those are questions I'd be ready to answer.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:13 PM
Supersapper's Avatar
Supersapper Supersapper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 898
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

See below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Two questions that pop up after a cursory review of the complaint.

How is the resolution not government speech?
---I don't think it matters whether or not it's government speech. Government agencies can not just brand someone or a group a "domestic terrorist organization" without fact. Moreover, free speech does NOT allow you to libel or slander another party. Government agencies are not allowed to play that kind of politics.

And more importantly how is the NRA harmed by a symbolic resolution?
---Because of the slanted bias of a government agency and loss of revenue generated by the moniker "terrorist organization". Would you do business with a known ISIS agency?

If I am not mistaken the resolution is more of an aspirational document and does not compel any specific action.
---Well, if what they're saying is true, it DOES compel an act. Get rid of your NRA ties or you lose business and are blacklisted. The "chilling of a firm person" is a very real thing and can cost a business untold dollars.

I.e how is there a case or controversy for the Court to rule on that is redressable by Court action.

I see they are trying to allude to a chilling effect on speech because San Fran vendors will stay away from the NRA. However, I don't see any facts alleged demonstrating that.
---You're kidding me, right? The "chilling effect" is a very real thing and I can ASSURE you that there is at least one arena where this goes on every day. An arena I am personally in and this exists. It's called being a high school teacher. We have legal actions just to protect our right to speech everyday and any time you're called into the principal's office, you have to take the Union Rep with you or you get screwed. If it's a conservative thought that got you called in, then the Union Rep is iffy.

The NRA may win this but those are questions I'd be ready to answer.
__________________
"I see dumb people. They are walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dumb."

"How often do you see them?"

"All the time. They're everywhere." ***in tears***


Ask me about low cost Commander memberships to Frontsight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Don't attempt to inject common sense into an internet pissing contest.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-15-2019, 8:01 AM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 10,992
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

The statement from SF has one positive result... It further isolates SF (and CA, by association) from a large segment of Americans. This resonates when CA politicians run for Federal Government positions.

The message they will receive from MANY voters across the county is "state out of National politics".

It is not uncommon for local radio and TV news to report on (some) things happening in CA - with a WTF tone... Seriously, everyday news stories get reported as CA is bonkers. This SF statement helps perpetuate that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Dignity, Respect, Purpose - Live It!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-15-2019, 6:06 PM
Ugly Hombre Ugly Hombre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Banned from O.T. Territory.
Posts: 1,105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you want to P.O. the Neo- Bolsheviks up in Sac-Town. Join the NRA or give the NRA some money.

NRA is a terrorist organization? Sure, sure it is Comrade.

They don't harbor and enable hard corps illegal alien career criminals- who murder, rape, torture and kill innocent American citizens.

They don't peddle dope to the citizens of the late, great, golden state.

Etc etc et al.

Use a mirror ****-birds.

You are what you accuse others of being.

Think about it.

The NRA has never committed any gun crimes nor has its members- that I know of. It is a force that stands with and protects the Constitution and the bill of rights.

Therefore it is a deadly enemy of the New Democrats, most esp, the radical leftist California Neo- Communist ruling elite.

Hence the false flag "Terrorist group" label. Right out of- "Rules For Radicals"

"Accuse your enemy of being- what you are."

Last edited by Ugly Hombre; 09-15-2019 at 6:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-15-2019, 8:27 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

CASE: You are notified that the Court has scheduled an Initial Case Management Conference before Judge Richard Seeborg upon reassignment. For a copy of Judge Seeborg's Standing Order and other information, please refer to the Court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov. Parties or counsel may appear personally at 10:00 a.m. or file a request to appear by telephone at 11:00 am. If any party files such a request to appear by telephone, the Case Management Conference shall be moved to 11:00 am to be held telephonically. All parties shall appear telephonically and must contact Court Conference at 866/582-6878 at least one week prior to the Conference.Case Management Statement due by 12/5/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document a
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-15-2019, 8:30 PM
itr1275 itr1275 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 159
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You all have good points and I don't care, make it hurt!

They have crossed a line and labeled us as villains and are now trying to inhibited us from feeding our families. It's classics Marxist/Totalitarian tactics.

There have been others in history that have labeled political opposition groups as hazardous, undesirable, dangerous, or even subhuman. This is not an mere comment, it was a thought out and documented as a doctrine by the city. What's next all gun owners should where yellow arm bands so the good people of SF will know who to hate? Then we have get on trains to Fresno and the seize my house?

I'm not easily offended; however, this is not just words anymore. Just the audacity of making a statement like that is offensive to anyone that is an NRA member in what ever capacity. This is a test for statewide initiative and if it is not stopped now, the blatant discrimination will not only continue but spread.

The NRA accepts everyone regardless of who they are or what they believe. I wish I could say the same thing about a city that is supposed to be about peace, love and acceptance of all.
__________________

Action Pistol Club
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:28 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
As much as I am a critic of the NRA due to it's management but not the reason it exists I pray they win big on this case. This could be the win that could turn me in to a dues paying member.

Another "2A Welfare Recipient" heard from.

Not an NRA member. Yet publicly criticizes NRA for not doing [what/how] he wants them to do things, WITH MEMBERS MONEY.

If you, and all the 2A WELFARE RECIPIENTS, would get off your collective whiney duffs, pick up your wallets, and phones, become NRA LIFE MEMBERS. Then, and only then, can you influence NRA policy by being "VOTING MEMBERS", of the org you complain about.

Until you do that, STFU about what the NRA is doing.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-16-2019, 1:02 AM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 9,461
iTrader: 116 / 100%
Default

My first reaction was to go to the NRA page a re-up my lapsed membership.

Given how little money it costs, and how much they do for gun owners, you're an idiot not to be a member. Especially after what SF just did and what Beto just said.

Presidential candidates are talking confiscation and crowds are cheering rather than booing.

Just exactly how bad do things have to get before you open up your wallet and support those few organizations defending your rights?

It costs less than a night out at a restaurant for one.

Doesn't matter how broke you are.

You can't skip a meal to join the NRA?

Or more accurately....you can't buy a box of cheap range ammo instead of a box of match grade?

Last edited by tacticalcity; 09-16-2019 at 1:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-17-2019, 9:30 AM
The Original Godfather's Avatar
The Original Godfather The Original Godfather is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,263
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
My first reaction was to go to the NRA page a re-up my lapsed membership.

Given how little money it costs, and how much they do for gun owners, you're an idiot not to be a member. Especially after what SF just did and what Beto just said.

Presidential candidates are talking confiscation and crowds are cheering rather than booing.

Just exactly how bad do things have to get before you open up your wallet and support those few organizations defending your rights?

It costs less than a night out at a restaurant for one.

Doesn't matter how broke you are.

You can't skip a meal to join the NRA?

Or more accurately....you can't buy a box of cheap range ammo instead of a box of match grade?
This
__________________
Military Decals, Apparel, and More


Quote:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-17-2019, 5:10 PM
THBailey's Avatar
THBailey THBailey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 478
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
My first reaction was to go to the NRA page a re-up my lapsed membership.

Given how little money it costs, and how much they do for gun owners, you're an idiot not to be a member. Especially after what SF just did and what Beto just said.

Presidential candidates are talking confiscation and crowds are cheering rather than booing.

Just exactly how bad do things have to get before you open up your wallet and support those few organizations defending your rights?

It costs less than a night out at a restaurant for one.

Doesn't matter how broke you are.

You can't skip a meal to join the NRA?

Or more accurately....you can't buy a box of cheap range ammo instead of a box of match grade?
...X2...
__________________
THBailey


As Will Rogers once said:
"Everyone is ignorant, only in different subjects."
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:09 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Mayor Breed reiterates the reason that I think William Brewer is going to lose this case. The resolution does not compel anyone to do anything.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...edNRAmemo.html
Attached Files
File Type: pdf BreedNRAmemo.pdf (137.0 KB, 32 views)
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-01-2019, 12:44 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,522
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Some lawyer wrote that for Breed. Fortunately for the NRA the federal precedents interpreting the 1A give it protection against “nod nod wink wink” attempts to chill speech and free association in addition to protecting it against outright bans.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-16-2019, 6:05 AM
f1tzg3r4ld f1tzg3r4ld is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: California
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Antifa are the terrorists. Don't see San Francisco doing anything about them.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-16-2019, 7:27 AM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,153
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

pacrat is right in that no one who is not a member of the NRA should offer it good luck on it's lawsuits nor should we be telling the NRA how to spend it's money. after all it sounds like pacrat hates all gun owners who won't bow down to his blind obedience doctrine. so be it and this kind of hatred and name calling will further insure no one outside the current membership supports the NRA or it's fights. we are losing just fine without NRA help. And STFU? Are you against the first amendment as well?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:43 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
pacrat is right in that no one who is not a member of the NRA should offer it good luck on it's lawsuits nor should we be telling the NRA how to spend it's money. after all it sounds like pacrat hates all gun owners who won't bow down to his blind obedience doctrine. so be it and this kind of hatred and name calling will further insure no one outside the current membership supports the NRA or it's fights. we are losing just fine without NRA help. And STFU? Are you against the first amendment as well?
Thank You, your projectionistic deflections are now noted for all to see. And further support your status as a "2A WELFARE RECIPIENT".

"Blind obedience doctrine" Really, aren't you embarrassed by your own gross exaggerations based on nothing but imagination.

Last edited by pacrat; 10-17-2019 at 12:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-17-2019, 7:48 AM
MrTokarev's Avatar
MrTokarev MrTokarev is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
pacrat is right in that no one who is not a member of the NRA should offer it good luck on it's lawsuits nor should we be telling the NRA how to spend it's money. after all it sounds like pacrat hates all gun owners who won't bow down to his blind obedience doctrine. so be it and this kind of hatred and name calling will further insure no one outside the current membership supports the NRA or it's fights. we are losing just fine without NRA help. And STFU? Are you against the first amendment as well?
If you aren’t donating to the NRA’s political or legal fights or have your name on the member rolls, then what value is your support?
__________________
NRA-ILA Lawmaker Contact Tool

“When you want to kill a man, you must shoot for the heart and the Winchester is the best weapon."
-Ramon, A Fistful of Dollars

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKinzey
The chuckleheaded tinfoil-asshatter racist (yes! that's a couple of names and a label!)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-17-2019, 3:27 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,522
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

The legislative immunity issue is the most interesting on their table of contents, and the Ex Parte Young analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-17-2019, 7:38 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

they lose on standing simple as that
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-18-2019, 7:04 AM
Ki6vsm Ki6vsm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,603
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Thank You, your projectionistic deflections are now noted for all to see.
How do you know he works in a movie theater?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-30-2019, 4:57 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE BRIEFS RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(1) AND 12(B)(6)

Quote:
Based on the stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby APPROVES the stipulation, and modifies the briefing schedule as follows:

Plaintiff’s Opposition Due: November 7, 2019
Defendants’ Reply Due: November 21, 2019
Hearing: December 5, 2019 at 1:30 p.m
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:10 PM
WingDings's Avatar
WingDings WingDings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: OC / LA
Posts: 535
iTrader: 96 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-05-2019, 7:50 PM
natman natman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersapper View Post
I think what gets me in this is the sheer audacity of SF to throw this out there. If I give them full credit for thinking this through, they knew their own side would decry this. I can't imagine those who authored and voted this into being were so stupid as to not know what would happen.
Don't underestimate the stupidity of the SF Board of Supervisors. They put a proposition (Prop H) on the ballot in 2005 to ban handguns. They KNEW it wouldn't stand up because it conflicted with state preemption laws. A nearly identical proposition had been previously overturned on those grounds. After it passed, the NRA took it to court, just like everyone knew they would. The NRA won on state premption grounds, just like everyone knew they would. Then SF appealed it. And lost, just like everyone knew they would.

San Francisco squandered nearly a million dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned.

But at least they "made a statement".
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-07-2019, 5:54 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by National Rifle Association of America

Quote:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiff the National Rifle Association of America voluntarily dismisses without prejudice the above-entitled action against all Defendants. This notice of dismissal is being filed with the Court before service by Defendants of either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-07-2019, 6:48 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,719
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

Err, why?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-07-2019, 8:23 PM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ah yes, the NRA once again playing games with politicians (just like when they got open carry banned in CA)
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:18 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,153
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

any positive feeling/future memberships they may have gotten by filing the lawsuit they lost with this decision and SF won.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-08-2019, 9:13 AM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,834
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick237 View Post
Ah yes, the NRA once again playing games with politicians (just like when they got open carry banned in CA)
You do understand that the banning of "open carry" laid the foundation for the Peralta v San Diego CCW litigation decision right?
__________________
NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:59 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I told you guys this case had no merit
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-08-2019, 2:40 PM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post
You do understand that the banning of "open carry" laid the foundation for the Peralta v San Diego CCW litigation decision right?
You mean Peruta vs San Diego? The case that got overturned on appeal en banc and got us nowhere?

Peruta was heard in 2014, open carry was banned in 1967. You're saying it was ok to ban open carry for almost 60 years just to get a court decision that would end up getting overturned on appeal anyways?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-08-2019, 3:05 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,280
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick237 View Post
Ah yes, the NRA once again playing games with politicians (just like when they got open carry banned in CA)

Redundant whining complaint again duly noted.

The Mulford Act happened 10 yrs before the NRA became a NATIONAL 2A RIGHTS ORG.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-08-2019, 3:52 PM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Redundant whining complaint again duly noted.

The Mulford Act happened 10 yrs before the NRA became a NATIONAL 2A RIGHTS ORG.
Redundant whining? Oh boy... The NRA has played other political games since then.


Need you be reminded that they pushed Regan to sign FOPA into law because they deemed it to be too important even though it came with the Hughes' Amendment (which supposedly was not voted on properly)? They promised they would fight it and they lost on the appeal level. They since stopped caring.


They also tried to derail Gura when he was fighting in the Heller vs DC suit (bet you didn't know that). They did not want Gura to fight the Heller decision on the Supreme Court level because they were concerned with their politics on the national level and would rather push their own case. They almost killed the Heller case (and that in extension would've meant the McDonald case would've never happened thereby making handgun bans constitutional). They were planning to fight a similar case to Heller (and you can bet their case would've lost; it was sham litigation from the get-go to interfere with Gura).

If the Heller decision never would've happened our gun rights in California would be far, far more restricted than they are now. You can thank Gura for giving the finger to the NRA and fighting on. The NRA did NOTHING but cause problems with Heller (and by that extension, McDonald), they did practically nothing to ensure its victory. It was all SAF and Alan Gura.



You have to be naive if you think the NRA has the back of gun owners. They are flip-floppers and shady (also have a wonderful racist background). SAF and FPC are the ones that actually do the fighting, the NRA piggy-backs on their work and then cries for "donations" when SAF/FPC win or lose the case (you can bet when this case wins they will be talking some more about donations and how they helped win the case when they can't be arsed to get involved in California). Don't even think about saying "they file lots of amicus briefs!" because anyone with a checkbook can file an amicus brief. They have to keep up appearances after all.

If you are really concerned about gun rights you should be looking at SAF and FPC, not the NRA. Alan Gura hates the NRA, SAF supports him. Which organization do you think is worth supporting? The one that almost killed the Heller case and opposed the lawyer who won us the two most important gun cases of our time? Or the one that supports that very same lawyer?


Sources:
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...-gun-bans-fate
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03bar.html
https://www.cato.org/blog/nra-cares-...ional-courtesy
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.