• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA-ILA: The more things change...


Regular Member
Nov 5, 2015
"Ass"?? "Association"? Most of the flyers and emails received from Moore and NAGR have not only bashed other groups but acted as if the house is on fire and they are trapped inside. They make the NRA's fund-raising seem mild by comparison.
The only orgs I've seen then critize deeply deserved it.

As far as the house being on fire, the RTKABA house burned to the ground long ago with the NRA in the lead half the time.
If the NRA will finally get out of the way and just shut up, GOA, NAGR will fight to actually get the RTKABA back instead of giving it away slice by slice.


Regular Member
Aug 22, 2013
here nc
So good to see Karr’s 1848 adage, Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, still holds true today...
Ollie’s out
Wayne’s still in
Donald’s weighing in with an investigation
Firearm advocates’ still a-whining & complaining

Life in this here great Country & the NRA [of course so does the apple pie] continues to roll on as it always had...


Regular Member
Dec 5, 2012
Corruption kills an org's effectiveness and distorts its perception of reality. NRA just needs a regime change and cleanup, but that looks unlikely. I like NAGR's stated positions. Previously there was a lot of attention on whether they were actually getting results, but their recent involvement in Constitutional Carry looks good. The way they mirror NRA stuff is weird - just be yourself! My favorite is GOA, but NAGR looks double the size.

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Oct 7, 2007
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"National Association for Gun Rights" basically has a good understanding of the Second Amendment.

But, it bears repeating:

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

OC for ME

Regular Member
Jan 6, 2010
White Oak Plantation
Whoop-de-doo!! Like Heller is doing anything to nullify any laws repugnant to the constitution.

Want proof? Strap a gat on your hip and walk down Fifth Ave. in NYC.