Reposted from RedState. Any NRA supporters out there should read this. Is it bad enough that I would quit membership? Mmm, it's getting close, but they still have a lot of pull to do good in the legislature. I do prefer GOA and I'm told JPFO are upstanding as well.
You know things are bad for the National Rifle Association when it has to get the New York Timesto run a puff piece on it.
But in their zeal to get a puff piece out there as well as their collaboration with the left on the DISCLOSE Act, the NRA has angered a number of people on Capitol Hill.
Shocking new e-mails obtained by RedState show that the National Rifle Association actively opposed and sought to undermine gun-rights legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).
The New York Times article contains this paragraph:
With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
This is referring to legislation by Senator Tom Coburn, which would have allowed rifles and pistols into national parks — legislation the NRA actively tried to undermine. In other words, in getting their puff piece written by the New York Times, the NRA is taking credit for things the NRA actively tried to stop. That is not the whole story.
A congressional aide tells me, “You’re absolutely right that many conservatives view the NRA as an organization that represents itself rather than the 2nd amendment. For instance, the NRA was livid when Senator Coburn introduced the guns in the park amendment without their permission. The NRA worked to undermine the amendment.”
Specifically, the NRA tried to weaken the guns in parks language working with House Democratic leadership (after it passed the Senate overwhelmingly). The Coburn language returned to the states complete authority to determine firearm possession laws in national parks and refuges. This change mirrored similar regulations governing firearm possession for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In some instances, this would result in park and refuge visitors being allowed to carry handguns and rifles in national parks. Ironically, the National “RIFLE” Association wanted to change it so that Coburn’s legislation did not include “rifles” or other long firearms.
In this video clip from History Channel, Gunny puts his Springfield M1903 up against the British 1907 Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk III. Once getting soundly trounced, he has to break out the trusty 1936 M1 Garand. "Well that's hardly sporting, is it old boy?" Heh.
Wow. From her own testimony in the hearings for confirmation, Elena Kagan has basically said she has no idea what rights people have outside of the Constitution. What that says is, in essence, if it's not written down it doesn't exist. In this particular instance Sen. Coburn is asking the question in relation to an individual's right to defend themselves. However, her answer really transcends that arena and brings into question her basic viewpoint on whether natural rights, any of them, exist.
Her answers seem appropriate on the surface but she is clearly avoiding the deeper issue raised. She goes so far as to not comment on whether she embraces the words in the Declaration of Independence.
It is scary to imagine how this could play out if she were to actually make it onto the bench.
"In all my years of observing hearings in Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Joseph Farah, spearhead of the "Stop Kagan Campaign," which has generated nearly 60,000 letters to members of the Senate. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated this week for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' –- those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."
...
"Kagan is a radical antimilitary and pro-abortion zealot," said Farah. "This selection by Barack Obama reveals once again his extremist agenda of leaving America undefended, elevating alternative lifestyles to sainthood and exterminating the most innocent human life with reckless abandon and persecuting anyone who tried to stand in the way. In a nutshell, that's who Elena Kagan is."
Hot off the presses. The SCOTUS has ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding the right to keep and bear arms. From the Washington Post:
The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.
The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws in place, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.
I recently commented on a press release from the Mexican embassy in D.C. The first section of their statement said, in part,
...the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.
Again I say it's pretty convenient to blame the U.S. as the source for all of these weapons in the hands of criminals. Last Monday, however, mexidata.info published an article with some interesting tidbits from the Mexico City paper El Universal. So what is the real deal? Kurt Hofmann at the St. Louis Gun Rigths Examiner does a good job of tying it all together.
The fable of the U.S. civilian gun market being responsible for "arming" Mexico's brutal drug cartels has become so deeply entrenched, that to question it is to be labeled a "right wing gun lobby shill." The claimed numbers, though, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea points out, have continued to drop, as more light is shed on the actual facts.
Hence, the Brady Campaign's and Violence Policy Center's claims of "95 to 100%" of Mexican "crime guns" coming from the U.S. civilian market first dropped a bit to "over 90%," and now Mexican President Felipe Calderón has settled on 80% (with Brady Campaign backing).
What those who toss these numbers around rarely mention, if not pressed, or under oath, is that whatever the percentage they're currently quoting, that's the percentage of guns submitted to the BATFE for tracing (and successfully traced). We've discussed the fact that Senator John Kerry (D-MA)--no friend to gun owners--admitted once that only about a quarter of the seized guns are ever submitted for BATFE tracing. Go to Mr. Codrea's piece to see the details (here's the link again), especially the National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) explanation.
