New York AG Seeks to Dissolve The NRA

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by alsaqr, Aug 6, 2020.

  1. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,392
    4,783
    113
    Depends on the states. On both counts.
    The school thing is a fed reg which states are free to not enforce and ignore. Like my own state.
    I can carry without a permit in almost any other state that has permitless carry .
     
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,177
    5,226
    113
    The federal regulation allows for carry in school zones by folks holding a permit to carry. Under an anti-gun administration the feds could charge folks without permits who carry in school zones.
     

  3. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,547
    2,264
    113
    Assuming the state in question doesn't, itself, criminalize it.

    A nasty little "loophole" these "progressive" types would no doubt love to ditch, if they finally gain a stranglehold over things.
     
    primer1, Ghost1958 and bluez like this.
  4. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    3,167
    2,618
    113
    Hmmm.. These DA never went after obvious other NGOs I can think of huge issues that are inherent to their very nature.. SPCL, moveon.org, BLM, Antifa, former acorn (which was brought down by a conservative activist not the leftist DAs).. etc etc..

    But the lefts DAs will never "go after" them .. why?
    Because Evil always protects Evil.
     
    primer1 and Ghost1958 like this.
  5. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,392
    4,783
    113
    Yep. Could now. Assuming one thinks there are enough fed agents to go rushing about searching people on school property in a state the doesnt enforce that particular unconstitutional decree.

    We both know that ain't gonna happen.
     
  6. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,877
    1,662
    113
    As written?
    If you want to use that as a point of contention be careful.
    AS WRITTEN.....there were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
    AS WRITTEN.... there were no magazines with multiple rounds.
    If you want to base a point of view on a specific statement then be prepared to consider the context of that statement.....AS WRITTEN.
    What about the First Amendment, AS WRITTEN?
    It clearly doesn't allow lying and passing it off as truth. But turn on just about every MSM outlet and that's what you see and hear.
    It isn't about what was written, when it was written and who interprets it.
    It's about politics...pure and simple. Who can get the most mileage out of an opinion, a law or a point of view. Right and wrong are a grey area.....it has been that way for decades if not centuries.
    AS WRITTEN just doesn't mean a thing. It is worthless unless everyone agrees.
    And if that ever happens it is more worthless.
     
    Mercator and primer1 like this.
  7. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,392
    4,783
    113
    Ok.

    When it was WRITTEN. The most destructive weapons at the time. Canno . Warships, were held by private citizens.
    There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong .

    Your argument comes right out of the moderate NRA playbook. Reeds waving whichever way the political wind blows.

    Kind of like a statement I once read that gun regulations ENHANCE the RTKABA . Which is total lunacy.
     
    G66enigma and bluez like this.
  8. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,547
    2,264
    113
    Indeed, it has become about politics and nothing but. It has become a war of attrition as to who'll bury which part first.

    But "as written" means just that. As primary prohibitions part of the original Bill Of Rights that were expressly crafted to disallow misconstruing the liberties the people held unto themselves and which they would not allow to be taken from them.

    As written, the 1A specifies no law shall be created by impede speech, association, one's religious choices, etc. Of course, that doesn't hardly absolve anyone of infliction of harms because of such, which is something else entirely. Others' rights have equal standing, too, and as such the moment someone else is harmed by someone's speech (via libel, slander, lies, deceit, etc), then that person has every right to have his/her right supported in defiance of it. That this area of law is off-limits.

    As written, the 2A specifies that the people hold the right to keep arms and to carry them. It disallows any encroachments into the liberty. It refuses to specify limits to that liberty. It does not indicate these or those implements of "arms" shall be infringeable by the hired staff. It says people shall not be constrained in their carrying of arms and their ownership (keeping) of arms. Which, of course, doesn't hardly absolve anyone of unjustifiable harms created via possession or use of such. That this area of law is off-limits.

    Sadly, we've largely handed off almost all controls to the hired staff, and we've allowed most every encroaching impediment under the sun to be applied to the liberties. As this past few months shows, almost to the point of allowing our towns to be burned down around our ears.

    No infringements. No encroachments. No misconstruing by the hired help. No limits, where no express limits are specified. No absolving of someone of unjustifiable harms inflicted upon others via abuse of such liberties.

    Once was, we had an appreciation for it. These days, not so much. To the point they're all but constrained out of existence (in many places), as compared to what people once held.

    The political agenda motivations of a staffer in one state are but one example of such abuses. The belief that a company can be buried outright, by force, simply because of abuses of some of its staffers. All because of such a vile hatred of what the organization stands for, knowing that so long as it and others like it stand firm then they'll be in the way of the elitists who seek destruction of what those groups stand for. Not what that silly little paper with pretty signatures was crafted for, back in 1789-1791. Not by the longest yard.

    People need to develop a spine, again. And act like it. Particularly where our hired help is concerned. Else this past few months is going to appear like a garden party by comparison to what comes.
     
    bluez and Ghost1958 like this.
  9. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    80
    77
    18
    I have seen this shift happen in many threads in many places. The real issue in New York is not guns. That's it. The real problem is the leadership that ran the NRA ship aground. The extent of the money problems is surfacing with the investigation in New York. Does the NRA being the most powerful 2A defender make misuse of funds by the leadership OK? I don't think it does. It is important to me to keep 2A concerns separate from the corruption. The answer is a good housecleaning.
     
    Mercator, G66enigma and alsaqr like this.
  10. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,547
    2,264
    113
    Yup.

    If they can actually find the integrity and "grit" to clean that house, and to seriously get back to its roots and the primary cause, then they'll have a prayer of remaining intact and capable. Otherwise, I suspect they'll be buried as the floodgates open when people jump ship to the SAF, GOA and effective state-level groups like VCDL (in Virginia) and OFF (in Oregon).
     
  11. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    80
    77
    18
    Just suppose...: What if we could take a poll of former members of the NRA. Given some numbers what do you think if those people came back. The refugees from the corruption could make a difference. I think so. I would see the financial disaster and being a serious barrier to reviving the NRA. Also, does a seventy member board of directors flunk the smell test?

    I would take a look at the lobbying. Was there some influence peddling or other unsavory stuff going on?

    What would happen if new people came into officer in the NRA. An open agreement would be made with the membership. Transparency would be basic. What would a close look at political affiliations bring up? Did the NRA under the old regime hang a "kick me" sign on their back. I think a true conservative organization would be attractive to many former members. This post is about the organization and not the 2A.
     
  12. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,547
    2,264
    113
    ^ If the "core" of the NRA took a severely firm stance and took all steps to really clean the house, they might well earn such a respite from current and former members, and might well attract millions more.

    But not so long as they show one iota of interest in retaining such lack of transparency, lack of oversight, and such finagling and malfeasant people.

    Time will tell, whether they've got the integrity to do such a "cleaning."

    It's about time.

    Their survival probably depends upon doing so, doing it effectively, and doing it now.

    I, for one, might well rethink their prospects, if only they'd find their integrity again. And, when it comes right down to it, only if they'd swear, 'til death do they part, that they would never again engage in "silly buggers" with the Devil in our midst (those people in state and fed government who'd sell the RKBA to the butcher if given half a chance).
     
  13. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,708
    7,694
    113
    The NRA seems to have suffered the same afflictions as some government administrations.
    People in charge, either elected or appointed, using the power and funding of OPM (other peoples money) for their own selfish and nefarious purposes rather than fulfilling the responsibilities of the job (office) they hold.

    The possibilities of "house-cleaning" depend upon finding and empowering persons of integrity and purpose with the expertise, desire, time and focus to do it.

    It won't be an easy task.

    The first question, the one that would determine the success of such a venture, would be:

    "To whom does the responsibility fall to designate the new team?"

    ellis
     
    alsaqr, Missouribound and G66enigma like this.
  14. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    80
    77
    18
    Don't be fooled any time by former "bad guys" having a spiritual awakening.
     
  15. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,877
    1,662
    113
    My argument? I'm not arguing anything. I am just suggesting that when you take a statement, a commandment or an amendment and you try to hold it verbatim to suit YOUR argument you have to be careful it doesn't backfire.
    No argument from me......just pointing out something you clearly gloss over in your 2nd amendment reference.
     
  16. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,102
    2,834
    113
    People who wrote and enacted the constitution knew it had potentially contradicting clauses. They probably believed in dialectic. Checks and balances can be seen within the constitution itself.
     
    alsaqr and primer1 like this.
  17. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    80
    77
    18
    Personal opinions and experience: It's hard for me to believe there are no people of principle left in the organization. Surely there must be one individual who is not a turd with leadership skills. If the answer is no then we are stuffing hay down a dead horse. Overall, I think we have named the problem. We need to come up with some solutions. I suspect there will be more coming out in the next several months. What is happening in New York is not about guns it's about misuse of money. There may be all kinds of smoke screening going on these events.
     
    alsaqr and primer1 like this.
  18. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,877
    1,662
    113
    Welcome to the forum Mowgli.
    And you are right. But money is the common denominator for most things, politics, success, sex, acceptance...etc.
    Take away money and you have poor people who really want the job and want to stay poor.
    Not too many of those around.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  19. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,392
    4,783
    113
    I read what is plainly written in the 2A.
    The founders of a nation were quite capable of writing one clear sentence .

    It means what it says. Theres no wiggle room in the 2A to excuse bans, bc, permits or limits . Unless of course one simply makes up things it does not say nor even imply.
     
  20. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,877
    1,662
    113
    Perhaps you should rethink that comment.
    Clearly it's you that is making up things that fit your idea of what the second amendment means. All of us can read here. Most of us can comprehend.
    Most of us.
     
    alsaqr likes this.