Post by: MicroBalrog on June 28, 2008, 05:29:49 AM
Court's ruling is just opening salvo in NRA's bid to extend gun rights.
By Wayne LaPierre
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for any lawful purpose. Period.
The Founding Fathers meant it, 4 million NRA members defend it, and the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it.
For three decades, lawful residents of the District of Columbia had no right to possess a handgun in their own homes. Today, they do. That's a good thing, because good people should be able to protect themselves, especially at home.
The court firmly, and rightly, upheld that basic right to self-defense and declared the gun ban unconstitutional. This historic decision cements the individual right to bear arms as a cornerstone of American constitutional law.
"We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans," the court ruled.
This case was, simply, about the basic human right to a firearm for personal protection. The right to bear arms an individual right just like the basic human rights to free speech, to worship and to vote.
Basic, human freedom for all law-abiding Americans. That's worth fighting for and we're not done, yet.
This monumental decision is just the opening salvo. The court declared the individual right to own a firearm, but not every American can exercise that right. While Washington, D.C., residents can now possess a handgun, lawful residents of San Francisco and Chicago cannot.
Would we stand idly by if Washington residents could vote, but not those of Chicago? Or if Georgians could freely practice their faiths, while Californians had no freedom to worship? There would be outrage and there is, from 80 million gun owners and every American who values freedom.
The NRA is filing lawsuits against cities in which gun ownership is banned, to restore individual freedom for the lawful Americans who live there. Because freedom for some Americans, and not for all, isn't freedom it's discrimination. And it's wrong.
The freedom to bear arms belongs, individually, to every law-abiding American. It always has, and the NRA will keep fighting to preserve that fundamental right.
Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America.
Post by: seeker_two on June 28, 2008, 05:40:22 AM
Now quit "compromising" and start earning those membership dues by taking back some ground....
Post by: AJ Dual on June 28, 2008, 06:26:47 AM
We're just glad to see you getting started for a change......
Now quit "compromising" and start earning those membership dues by taking back some ground....
Now quit "compromising" and start earning those membership dues by taking back some ground....
Well, write a check to the NRA-ILA as well. Because by law, the "NRA" can't give a dime of it's dues to the lobbying side.
I wonder how many people know that.
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 28, 2008, 04:28:02 PM
I'd still rather send my contributions to the NRA-ILA than the frothing-at-the-mouth GOA. (And I do, actually...)
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 28, 2008, 08:50:12 PM
Post by: Nick1911 on June 29, 2008, 04:38:35 AM
I think I'll fund people who get results. I'll fiscally reward action, not words.
Post by: El Tejon on June 29, 2008, 05:15:37 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on June 29, 2008, 08:30:29 AM
Since when?
Post by: El Tejon on June 29, 2008, 11:21:31 AM
Post by: lupinus on June 29, 2008, 04:47:27 PM
There is a reason they wouldn't touch this as they knew how bad it could have been. We won 5-4 if it had been 5-4 the other way, just one more judge, we would all be knee deep in *expletive deleted*it right now.
The NRA now has all the ammo it needs to fight similar bans and will do so as demonstrated already.
Post by: Manedwolf on June 29, 2008, 04:50:49 PM
Nitro, you can buy one is San Fransissyco but you cannot have it in public housing.
How do they resolve the contradiction there?
Liberal: There is no more crime in public housing. Crime cuts across all income levels. You can have the same crime in a neighborhood of rich people as you do in housing that assists the economically disadvantaged. Rich people kill each other too!
Liberal: No guns in public housing.
Why is that, then, hmmmmmmmmm? Do they just not want to admit that public housing is where a law-abiding person is most likely to NEED a gun for self-defense, so they cover up the failure of public housing by sacrificing the lives of the innocent with that sort of ban?
Seems like it to me. What despicable hypocrisy.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 29, 2008, 05:10:07 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on June 29, 2008, 06:32:33 PM
Nitro, you can buy one is San Fransissyco but you cannot have it in public housing.
Ah, gotcha.
From what I knew of public housing in CA (A friend of mine spent some time in some after his wife left him) that'd be one of the PRIMARY places I'd want a gun for protection.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 29, 2008, 07:45:51 PM
Post by: seeker_two on June 30, 2008, 03:46:42 AM
I think this image is appropriate to the thread:
Based on that, maybe it was a good thing NRA didn't take up Heller, after all.....