• 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.

President DONALD TRUMP TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT NRA ANNUAL MEETING NEXT MONTH

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
NRA-ILA just sent me the following, FYI:
I'm including only portions relevant to my counterpoint:

Not only does NRA oppose Senator Rubio’s bill, but we have not supported ANY of the 14 “red flag” bills that have been enacted into law.

...

Our opposition to all these legislative proposals is steeped in our steadfast commitment to protecting the due process rights of law-abiding Americans; something that these bills to date have failed to do. In keeping with our commitment to upholding the constitutional due process rights of all Americans, NRA will continue to strongly oppose any proposal that does not fully protect these rights.

...

As noted previously, NRA fights for the constitutional freedoms, including the due process rights, of all law-abiding Americans, every day in Congress, the statehouses and the courts. Our record on this is clear. Due process of law is a bedrock of our constitutional freedoms.

...

All 50 states currently have civil commitment procedures and many lack basic due process protections. This is unacceptable. The NRA believes that no one should be deprived of a fundamental right without due process of law.

...

The NRA opposes any effort to create a federal ERPO law, in which federal agents would be tasked with seizing firearms after a hearing in federal court. As states consider ERPO laws, the NRA will continue to fight for the inclusion of strong due process protections.

Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights.

...

NRA-ILA Grassroots
Does anyone else see the NRA's major malfunction, here? Whoever wrote this drivel has "due process" on their brain. They are missing the MAIN POINT: The Second Amendment is NOT about "due process." It's an absolute moratorium against any and all infringement against the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No room either exists nor is needed in the Second Amendment for "due process" because the Second Amendment contains absolutely zero conditions, either stated or implied.

Due process comes into play in the Fourth Amendment, where the people are free from search and seizure unless a judge-issued warrant is based on sworn affidavit adhering to certain requirements.

That's due process.

The Second Amendment needs zero due process because is expressly and without condition utterly bans/prohibits any infringement on the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms.

The Second Amendment is the result of several earlier versions and a number of counter-proposals which did include such provisions. They were thoroughly discussed and rejected due to their introduction of various slipper slopes which our Founding Fathers knew would result in its quick erosion. Therefore, they decided the only way to protect it was to make in an absolute imperative, with zero room for exceptions.

NRA-ILA doesn't realize what it's doing by focusing on "due process." They are undermining our Second Amendment, allowing law enforcement and the courts to quickly erode it. Oh, sure, they'll nail the due process all right, and before long, you'll find all sorts of case law soon to be cited to allow law enforcement to confiscate your firearms every time you make a disparaging remark in public, including online.

The NRA-ILA's over focus on "due process" will quickly erode our First Amendment rights, as well. Soon, no one will be able to protect our Second Amendment because such comments can be seen by some as sufficient justification to confiscate one's arms.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I've said it for a long time: "The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect them all." Attempts to erode either the First or Second Amendments, even if it's by the NRA-ILA itself, even when done unwittingly, dramatically undermine both amendments.

The NRA-ILA's focus is DEAD WRONG. They need to re-focus before they open wide the gates of destruction to BOTH our amendments.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Due process is THE issue in protection order laws, all of them.

By disallowing the taking of Life, Liberty, or property without due process, the Constitution is implicitly conceding that our most fundamental Rights can be removed after due process—even Life! So, yes, even one’s RKBA can be removed with due process per our Constitution.

If, after due process, during which the prospective victim is represented by counsel and (as another wisely added) has the opportunity to face his or her accuser, a court finds that he or she is a danger to self or others, then it is incumbent upon the court to restrict behavior in a way that lessens the danger. That could include commitment to a mental health facility or the simple removal of firearms.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,867
Location
here nc
eye95 as stated many times, MH professionals have had the judicial mandate to have citizens placed on immediate 3 day medical holds w/o due process for years.

Get wrapped up in a DV charge and watch your due process disappear instantly as well as your ability to purchase firearms or maintain those you currently own. Oh ya there's due process as your derriere stands in front of the judge who doesn't listen to a word you or your legal beagle, if fortunate to have one, tells the sheriff's deputy to accompany you home to collect your firearms!

ya jump up and down but this has been going on for years and absolutely nobody has been able to extract themselves from loss of firearms nor has NRA, et al., gone against these areas...

oh btw what in sam's hill does this have to do with DJT attending the NRA's AM?

Further why are all the threads where you post being taken off topic to your pet theme ~ now that would be a cause célèbre to complain about, eh eye95?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
I'm including only portions relevant to my counterpoint:



Does anyone else see the NRA's major malfunction, here? Whoever wrote this drivel has "due process" on their brain. They are missing the MAIN POINT: The Second Amendment is NOT about "due process." It's an absolute moratorium against any and all infringement against the right of the people to keep and bear arms:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No room either exists nor is needed in the Second Amendment for "due process" because the Second Amendment contains absolutely zero conditions, either stated or implied.

Due process comes into play in the Fourth Amendment, where the people are free from search and seizure unless a judge-issued warrant is based on sworn affidavit adhering to certain requirements.

That's due process.

The Second Amendment needs zero due process because is expressly and without condition utterly bans/prohibits any infringement on the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms.

The Second Amendment is the result of several earlier versions and a number of counter-proposals which did include such provisions. They were thoroughly discussed and rejected due to their introduction of various slipper slopes which our Founding Fathers knew would result in its quick erosion. Therefore, they decided the only way to protect it was to make in an absolute imperative, with zero room for exceptions.

NRA-ILA doesn't realize what it's doing by focusing on "due process." They are undermining our Second Amendment, allowing law enforcement and the courts to quickly erode it. Oh, sure, they'll nail the due process all right, and before long, you'll find all sorts of case law soon to be cited to allow law enforcement to confiscate your firearms every time you make a disparaging remark in public, including online.

The NRA-ILA's over focus on "due process" will quickly erode our First Amendment rights, as well. Soon, no one will be able to protect our Second Amendment because such comments can be seen by some as sufficient justification to confiscate one's arms.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I've said it for a long time: "The First protects the Second and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect them all." Attempts to erode either the First or Second Amendments, even if it's by the NRA-ILA itself, even when done unwittingly, dramatically undermine both amendments.

The NRA-ILA's focus is DEAD WRONG. They need to re-focus before they open wide the gates of destruction to BOTH our amendments.
Agree completely with one caveat.

The NRA knows exactly what the 2A means and they know exactly when they are purposefully undermining it.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Due process is THE issue in protection order laws, all of them.

By disallowing the taking of Life, Liberty, or property without due process, the Constitution is implicitly conceding that our most fundamental Rights can be removed after due process—even Life! So, yes, even one’s RKBA can be removed with due process per our Constitution.

If, after due process, during which the prospective victim is represented by counsel and (as another wisely added) has the opportunity to face his or her accuser, a court finds that he or she is a danger to self or others, then it is incumbent upon the court to restrict behavior in a way that lessens the danger. That could include commitment to a mental health facility or the simple removal of firearms.
All due respect, horse pucky.
Until a person actually DOES or attempts to do something criminal the gov has no right nor constitutional authority to deny the rtkaba, and then only to those locked up.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Neither due process clause even touches on criminal behavior.

We routinely use due process to commit dangerously mentally ill people without them having committed any crime.

We should ground ourselves in reality, rather than just use clever ways to say, “Nuh-uhh!”
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,867
Location
here nc
Neither due process clause even touches on criminal behavior.

We routinely use due process to commit dangerously mentally ill people without them having committed any crime.

We should ground ourselves in reality, rather than just use clever ways to say, “Nuh-uhh!”
Who/whom is this ‘WE’ you so cavalierly banter about mate?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Neither due process clause even touches on criminal behavior.

We routinely use due process to commit dangerously mentally ill people without them having committed any crime.

We should ground ourselves in reality, rather than just use clever ways to say, “Nuh-uhh!”
What the gov does and what it has constitutional authority to do are two wildly different things.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Neither due process clause even touches on criminal behavior.

We routinely use due process to commit dangerously mentally ill people without them having committed any crime.

We should ground ourselves in reality, rather than just use clever ways to say, “Nuh-uhh!”
With no crime committed a court can commit one for 90 days if it determines the person is a danger to self or others. The hospital must refile for another hearing to keep one for another 90 days.

The court can order a non criminal held for a Max of 2 yrs. And after the 2nd 90 day filing to be released one can refile for release by a court every 180 days.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Neither due process clause even touches on criminal behavior.

We routinely use due process to commit dangerously mentally ill people without them having committed any crime.

We should ground ourselves in reality, rather than just use clever ways to say, “Nuh-uhh!”
Commit means involuntary commitment as described above.
The person is locked up.

There is no authority to remove weapons from their home.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Back on topic. After his dismal performance he should not be allowed to speak at a, pro gun org Convention.
Using pro gun loosely in this casem
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Back on topic. After his dismal performance he should not be allowed to speak at a, pro gun org Convention.
Using pro gun loosely in this casem
Good to be back on topic! But "he" and the "org" still means Trump and NRA, correct? If so, from NRA point of view it was not "dismal" at all. Trump followed the NRA script almost to the letter. He pursued their recommendations at the time and turned their ideas into policy. That is not opinion; evidence has been posted here before. So of course they are delighted. Why shouldn't he be THEIR speaker? The dismal performance was a shared experience between them.

That's already proven fact, not much wiggle room to differ there. Where legitimate difference of opinion comes in is (1) who bears the primary responsibility and (2) how to improve things.

For myself, I put the primary responsibility on NRA because they were the cause or source of the policy. Either they originated it or picked it up as an early supporter. Trump was the catalyst or actor that relied on orgs like NRA for recommendations and made them happen. Trump is a president with a background in business, not a 2A activist with a background in guns. He is not a specialist in each area, so it's reasonable to rely on think tanks and orgs. He relied on Heritage which is a leader on conservative policy - and we got actual conservative policy. He relied on NRA, also a leading and "biggest" org - and we got anti-2A policy. Is that Trump's fault? In my opinion Trump's ignorance and blame is secondary to NRA's - they are the specialists and did a lousy job promoting policy.

What to do about it - again opinion since we're predicting the future, but I see voting against Trump as literally protest by suicide. Interesting, meaningful, emotive? Yep. Deserves popcorn or maybe mourning? Yep. Useful? Not at all! :giggle:

Your political and Constitutional suicide will barely be noted in history; if socialists win they have indicated they want to control guns, other rights, and speech. So enjoy your pre-suicide freedom of speech briefly, and take one last trip to the range. But if the goal is to win and retain or expand rights, I would vote Trump and put strong pressure on NRA to fly straight as well getting serious about making another org besides NRA the biggest. It's not that huge of a membership lead that they have, so considering the cost of guns and ammo and accessories, I think gunowners could easily fix the situation by purchasing a different membership if they wanted to.

Feel free to disagree on the points that are not already proven fact, but remember opinion should be at least realistic. We know where the top Democrats stand currently on gun control - if you haven't heard, look it up, it's not a secret. We know the squirrelly kind of gun policy concessions that the NRA comes up with, the idea that we give up bump stocks and encourage ERPO but keep most of our guns most of the time! Which the NRA is trying pretty hard to backtrack and deny, and we could keep pressure on them. So your choice is between those two, Dem policy + lib judges or NRA policy + conservative judges. Voting or not voting, one of those two will happen. And Trump's approval is higher than ever, with fairly good reasons considering all policy areas and alternatives. So any dream of unseating him is just that.

I'll be interested to see what Trump says in this speech. We need to influence him and NRA. Or at least Junior! Trump actually does listen to people sometimes, probably more than the NRA ever does. We could pressure Trump if we had the numbers. But Trump likes the "biggest" so when NRA claims to speak for us, it's not good and make us look like accessories to their Constitutional assaults. Maybe I will permanently end my NRA membership if they don't shape up within a few months. I can use that money for GOA and if many others did the same there's no reason why NRA has to remain the biggest. Meanwhile we're also getting more judges. So take heart, don't give up hope, don't commit political suicide in an impotent act of protest. We can win this thing. (y)
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Trump can say what he wants. Pander to the NRA, take US signature off a treaty that was and never was going to be ratified. And yep the NRA has its blame in all the anti gun crap that happened under Trump.
But Trump isn't an idiot. He knows what the 2A says. He didn't have to sign fix NICS, or support a bump stock ban, nor support red flag and stop and frisk. That rests squarely on him.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,867
Location
here nc
Ah, whomever wear the crown is the fall person...

Least we forget previous crown wearers...
Under one...mandated social security to report mh claimants, limit mag capacity & expand bk gnd cks, ammo was in short supply and the rumor prior to both election/reelection forced a run on firearms.
Under another pushed bk gnd cks & raising the age > 21, supporter of lawsuits against firearm manufacturers
Under another, instituted bk cks, ban’d ‘assault rifles’

Shall i go on...

Interesting link w/all presidents listed at the bottom of whatever page comes up... http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_Bush_Sr__Gun_Control.htm
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
254
He:who - Him:whom

Folks have an odd infatuation people with whom—and not for good reasons. At its worst, the use of whom becomes a form of one-upmanship some employ to appear sophisticated.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
724
Location
Kentucky
Ah, whomever wear the crown is the fall person...

Least we forget previous crown wearers...
Under one...mandated social security to report mh claimants, limit mag capacity & expand bk gnd cks, ammo was in short supply and the rumor prior to both election/reelection forced a run on firearms.
Under another pushed bk gnd cks & raising the age > 21, supporter of lawsuits against firearm manufacturers
Under another, instituted bk cks, ban’d ‘assault rifles’

Shall i go on...

Interesting link w/all presidents listed at the bottom of whatever page comes up... http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_Bush_Sr__Gun_Control.htm
Oh in the past many presidents supported and a few actually got more gun c9ntrol.
But what happens under Trump lays on him. Unless he vetoes it and gets overruled by Congress. Don't see that happening though.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,867
Location
here nc
Oh in the past many presidents supported and a few actually got more gun c9ntrol.
But what happens under Trump lays on him. Unless he votes it and gets overruled by Congress. Don't see that happening though.
Yepper, which was the point...tis on whomever wears the crown to uphold the buck stops here mentality
 
Top