How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

Over the time since 1791, when the Bill if Rights was ratified, the Supreme Court has given its blessing to an entire governing edifice that regulates First Amendment rights: the laws of libel and defamation, limits on publishing secret military strategy, regulation of “obscene” and “indecent” expression, and limits on “hate speech.” Famously, the court has said that one has no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Even the right to worship freely sometimes is curbed by laws that regulate conduct that has religious meaning.

In contrast to the First Amendment, there is very little constitutional history about the meaning of the Second Amendment. In fact, until just five years ago, the “right to keep and bear arms” was not generally understand as a personal right to have a gun, even for self-defense. It was only in 2008 that the Supreme Court declared that such a personal right does, indeed, exist.

That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.” But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulation” on that right.

Is a “reasonable regulation” of gun rights, then, an “infringement” on those rights? If the word “infringement” means to encroach on something, as one does when one “trespasses” on someone else’s private property, that does not support the idea that Second Amendment rights are absolutes. Government can “trespass” on private property to put out a fire, for example.

Still, the debate goes on about when, or if, government should have the power to regulate gun rights. The statements quoted above, from two gun rights enthusiasts, suggest that even within that community, there can be disagreement about whether the time has come to agree on some “rational points” about the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court, of course, could re-enter into that national debate if it felt a need to clarify just what kind of “regulation” of gun rights is allowed without being found to violate the Second Amendment.

Up to now, however, the Court does not seem to sense that need. It has issued only one significant gun rights decision since the 2008 ruling, and that 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago expanded the personal right to a gun to exist at the state and local level, as well as at the federal level. The court did not go further to explain what it would allow in gun regulation by state and local governments.

It has been asked, every year since then, to take on a variety of new cases, to answer some of the lingering questions: does the personal right to have a gun extend beyond one’s own home, who can be forbidden to have a gun at all, when can a gun be carried in public in a concealed way, what types of guns or ammunition can be regulated or even banned, what places in a community are too sensitive or too prone to violence to allow guns in them, how can the government trace a gun that has been used in a violent incident, how freely should gun shows be allowed to operate?

However, the Court has resisted giving an answer to any follow-up questions. And what that has meant, in the national conversation over gun rights, is that anyone’s argument about the extent of those rights is just as good as anyone else’s, and neither side needs to listen to the arguments that the other side makes.

Gun control will go on being an issue in politics and in government, at all levels, but the constitutional rules that could shape how for government may go remain unmade.

Who Does the NRA Represent?

How the NRA hijacks gun control debates

Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights?

Does the NRA Represent Gun Owners or Manufacturers?

if you can somehow vilify the NRA, then you have successfully vilified guns and gun owners.

There seems to be this idea floating around that if you can somehow vilify the NRA, then you have successfully vilified guns and gun owners.

No, There’s No 2nd Amendment Right To AR-15s

HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Commonwealth Court determined Act 192, which allowed legal gun owners to sue municipalities if they enacted gun ordinances that were more stringent than state laws and then put those municipalities on the hook for legal fees as well, is unconstitutional and therefore void.

The controversial law sparked several lawsuits against dozens of municipalities, including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lancaster and Harrisburg. Today’s ruling would appear to bring those actions to a stop.

The Pennsylvania legislature passed Act 192 late last year.

The Greedy Gun Lobby

Protecting civil rights is hardly greed.

What are you whining about now?

I'm a gun owner, but the NRA doesn't speak for me: Guest opinion

I am a rural person and have owned guns for more than 60 years. I was a licensed hunting guide and outfitter and I value my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. However, the debate about guns has become bizarre, in large part due to the National Rifle Association. Common sense gun owners have to speak up. We must find ways to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit violence.

The debate has been hijacked by the NRA, an organization whose success has been based on stirring up paranoid fears and controversy - often by supporting a string of myths:

Myth 1: The government is trying to take our guns away. Not true. Recent Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia vs. Heller, McDonald vs. Chicago) affirm an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense.

Myth 2: Because of our frontier history, all Americans are good with guns. Not true. The population of the United States has more than doubled since 1950 and most of those new people are from urban areas. Gone are the days when most young people lived a rural lifestyle and grew up hunting. Today a young person's only experience with guns is likely from a video game.

Myth 3a: This one is widespread. I call it the Hollywood myth, in which a bad guy is vanquished by a good guy with a gun. It seems everyone wants to be John Wayne. Fact: John Wayne wasn't really John Wayne. He was Marion Morrison, an actor. In real life, even well-trained police personnel have difficulties making the correct decision on when to use deadly force. Most people don't have the training, judgment or instincts to make the right decision in a split second, chaotic situation.

Myth 3b: The way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers. Read 3a and add the fact that many teachers do not want to carry a gun.

Myth 4: The NRA speaks for all gun owners. Not true. The NRA doesn't speak for me. The NRA wants license -- the ability to do what they want when they want no matter the effect on others and society. Freedom requires responsibility for your actions. License does not.

In the early 1980s, the NRA opposed outlawing Teflon-coated bullets known as "cop killers." These bullets are not for sporting use or self-defense. They're for killing a person wearing a bulletproof vest. Today, the NRA opposes banning someone on the terrorist no-fly list from passing a background check. The NRA also opposes bans on bump stocks and assault weapons.

We have a violence problem in America. Guns aren't the reason for the problem, but ready access to guns by people who would commit violence makes the problem worse. Gun owners and all citizens should work to find common sense approaches to keeping guns away from the mentally ill, felons, people with convictions for domestic abuse and people on the no-fly list.

The second amendment does not confer unlimited rights. It states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders acknowledged the need for regulation.

It is up to us, as a society, to craft common sense regulations. First steps should include making assault weapons with huge magazines illegal. These are weapons of war not self-defense or for sporting use.

We should close the gun show/personal sale loophole on background checks and upgrade the process to better ensure the mentally ill, stalkers, felons, people on the no-fly list or who have convictions for domestic abuse cannot pass them. We need a system that uses modern technology to track who has passed a current background check and issues cards stating that fact. The card could be valid for a number of years and be amended if the person commits an act that disqualifies him or her.

Prospective gun buyers also should be required to show evidence they've taken a gun safety and proficiency course, or they could be required to pass a gun-safety test.

Violence is a cancer in our society and there are many things we must do to address it. One step is to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do violence. If that inconveniences me, I'm willing to put up with that. Regulations are coming -- most likely state by state since Congress is toothless and hasn't acted.

It makes sense for gun owners to be involved in the development of those regulations. If we gun owners don't get out in front of this, we won't like the results.

I value my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Common sense gun owners have to speak up.

The debate has been hijacked by the NRA,

the NRA, an organization whose success has been based on stirring up paranoid fears and controversy - often by supporting a string of myths:
Myth 1: The government is trying to take our guns away. Not true. Recent Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia vs. Heller, McDonald vs. Chicago) affirm an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense.

Myth 2: Because of our frontier history, all Americans are good with guns. Not true. The population of the United States has more than doubled since 1950 and most of those new people are from urban areas. Gone are the days when most young people lived a rural lifestyle and grew up hunting. Today a young person's only experience with guns is likely from a video game.

Myth 3a: This one is widespread. I call it the Hollywood myth, in which a bad guy is vanquished by a good guy with a gun.

In real life, even well-trained police personnel have difficulties making the correct decision on when to use deadly force. Most people don't have the training, judgment or instincts to make the right decision in a split second, chaotic situation.

Myth 3b: The way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers. Read 3a and add the fact that many teachers do not want to carry a gun.

Myth 4: The NRA speaks for all gun owners.

In the early 1980s, the NRA opposed outlawing Teflon-coated bullets known as "cop killers." These bullets are not for sporting use or self-defense.

Today, the NRA opposes banning someone on the terrorist no-fly list from passing a background check.

The NRA also opposes bans on bump stocks

The NRA also opposes bans on assault weapons.

The second amendment does not confer unlimited rights.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders acknowledged the need for regulation.

Regulations are coming -- most likely state by state since Congress is toothless and hasn't acted.
It makes sense for gun owners to be involved in the development of those regulations. If we gun owners don't get out in front of this, we won't like the results.