Speaking of firearms freedom acts
The NRA is sitting it out:
The nation’s most influential gun-rights group is conspicuously absent — and nearly silent — in a growing battle between states and the federal government over gun control.
The National Rifle Association has been taking a low profile when it comes to the firearms freedom acts that have been passed by seven state legislatures and spawned a growing legal fight between those states, some gun advocates and the U.S. Justice Department.
Probably because it’s just not a winner. I don’t know of any prominent legal types in the gun rights world who really think this thing has a shot at anything. I hope they’re wrong but I tend to doubt it.
April 19th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Typical NRA they sit around with their thumbs up their butts unless they think it is sure thing. Like 1968 and 1986. They only fight for winner not go down fighting for what could possibly lose. One reason they were not in the DC case was because they thought it was a lost cause. Could not let that happen again so then they went after the chicago case. Now they are back at it the other way again. I really hate lukewarms. You can never figure where they stand. At least with an enemy like the bradys you know exactly what their position is.
April 19th, 2010 at 10:37 am
I agree with you.
Plus, the FFAs don’t really give most gun owners any new tangible rights. Unless you live next door to the Marlin factory, your state probably doesn’t offer a wide range of quality firearms (although I’ve heard that Marlin is looking for a new place to relocate, and Anchorage would love ’em, I’m just saying…) to buy exempt from federal regulation. The best outcome would be a legal way to get around NFA restrictions on SBRs and such, but that seems even less likely than overturning GCA 68.
This is about making a statement about the commerce clause and 10th amendment. Which isn’t entirely a bad idea, given that the federal courts and executive branch seem to be in no hurry to check the power wielded by Congress using Article I/Section 8. The NRA is a single issue organization (rightfully so) and is pragmatically focused on one issue alone: gun rights for law abiding citizens. They shouldn’t get involved in a broader controversial nullification battle that would distract time, brain bytes, and money away from their primary objectives… A battle which has little immediate payoff for their issue, and is unlikely to succeed.
Cheers,
Chris
April 19th, 2010 at 10:38 am
(Just to be clear, I’m agreeing with Uncle on this one, not John — sorry!)
April 19th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Chris,
SBR restrictions aren’t the only possibilities. Here in GA, a machinegun is not defined at the state level until it fires more than 2 rds with a single pull of the trigger.*
I would suspect it to be a simple thing to modify an M-4 three-rd burst ratchet (illegal in GA) into a two-rd burst ratchet (legal in GA).
Wouldn’t bother me at all to have two-rd burst capability, without going through the NFA.
Additionally, since state facilities could start taking 80% (or less) receivers and finish the manufacturing process (‘making’ the firearm within the state).
So, here I am …. in GA. The state says I can have a weapon that fires 2 rds per trigger pull. Now suppressors are legal to own without federal blessing if it’s made in the state (and there’s a class III manufacturer in my town).
Now I can buy a 2-rd burst AR lower, stick on a 300 Whisper upper and slap a suppressor on it, all without visiting an FFL.
This sounds like a Good Thing to me.
* IIRC
April 19th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
This seems to be a pattern with the NRA – they back the right thing only if it looks like it will win. Without trying to denigrate what they have accomplished, “fair-weather friends” like the NRA are only helpful when the weather is good. Their refusal to back controversial issues or issues they don’t think will win can actually hurt those issues, because then the anti’s can point and say “See! Event the NRA doesn’t support this!”
NRA needs to worry less about their reputation for winning and more about their reputation for supporting our Second Amendment Rights.
April 19th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
So chris if that is what they do why did they fail to support HELLER? Being that they defend law abiding gun owners rights. Please,they only fight what they think they can win. They had to save face from Heller by getting a lead on the chicago case because they got caught with their pants down. Showing their true colors hurt their popularity among cities where guns are banned. You cannot say you support the people but only support them when it is convenient for you. That makes them look like politicians rather than a gun rights support organization. You said it yourself. GUN RIGHTS FOR ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. 99.999% of NFA weapons holders are law abiding citizens. The statement that they support law abiding citizens but leaving out NFA sounds like something the brady bunch would say. It implies that NFA is not law abiding since they are being left out of the NRA legal battles….
April 19th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I hope you have a good lawyer and lots of money, Packetman.
Because even if Georgia allows it, unless you can get a federal court to uphold the new interpretation the ATFE and the local US Attorney won’t go along with it. So you’ll end up going to jail and fighting the charges for years anyway.
If you got the money and patience for that, then be my guest.
These FFA are perfect examples of what some have called “Far Right Ghost Dancing”, or the idea that simply waving the Constitution and telling the Feds they can’t do something will be enough to stop them in their tracks (much like the Lakota Ghost Dancers at Wounded Knee were sure their special coats would stop .45-70 slugs).
April 19th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Not many of us were around in 1968, when the NRA was still primarily an interservice/police commissioned officers club. It has changed enormously for the better since then, but it is far from perfect. Largely because people who could change it for the better do not stand for election – while the people who like it just fine as it is do.
That is not to say the NRA is not generally correct in its approach to problems. I will only cite the Justices comments in the McDonald case to support that but I could write a good sized book had I time.
But it appears to me the present management wants the NRA to be the “moderate choice.” Let us extremists beat the drums and get the media attention. Lawmakers look at what we want (I want almost all Federal and State firearms laws preempted, and most gun laws post 1938 repealed) and take what the NRA suggests as the “moderate choice.”
That works. Frustratingly slowly but it works. And I will take what I can get.
Stranger
April 19th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
So chris if that is what they do why did they fail to support HELLER?
Because they thought it was going to lose, and I would note that it almost did. Heller was a huge gamble, but it worked out. It worked out largely because we had some retirements on the Court. Would you have trusted O’Conner was going to be in your corner? At least with the changes on the court, Kennedy was really all that had to be worried about.
April 19th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
NRA isn’t supporting FFA’s because they are a waste of time and energy. They have only symbolic value, because legally they are a complete non-starter. In a different circumstance, I think the various FFAs would be highly valuable, but we’re not in this circumstance currently.
Health Care is currently in that circumstance where I think such things would be useful. But it all depends on how serious the states are about standing up to the feds. In the current circumstances, on the topic of guns, I don’t think the states are very serious.
April 19th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
So did you guys say the same about Heller? That it was not worth supporting. What you are saying is that a case is not worth pursuing unless it has already been won. Nice, sounds very much like circular reasoning. In order to get support they have to win,but to win they need support.(I do not trust the supreme court in any way shape or form. They are a federal court and are only trying to keep the maximum amount of power with the federal government. There is always risk going there.) So if the NFA Guys win will it be worth supporting? The answer is NO! If they do win the NRA support will not be needed. The NRA realized after the Heller that they were obsolete in more than a few ways. If someone could win a case without them that would mean they are not needed. They had to jump on chicago for survival not because they care. Bottom line is that the Nra for the right is becoming like the brady bunch is for the left. Desperate opportunists. Who else you know rides on the laurels of others so well. Oh,perhaps the states would be more serious if they did not have the fair weather pro second amendment crowd saying they are going to fail….
April 19th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
So did you guys say the same about Heller?
I supported Heller (then Parker) before NRA did, but I have a higher tolerance for risk than most NRA folks. Ultimately what won me over was Gura’s argument that someone was going to take a Second Amendment case forward, and it could either be his case, or someone else’s. He was right, and his case was very very well done. NRA also switched from opposition to backing it once its chances looked better after we got some new faces on the Court. Let me ask you this, if NRA had a good faith belief that Heller was going to lose, would you expect them to support it anyway? I don’t.
I do not trust the supreme court in any way shape or form.
Then why do you fail to understand why NRA didn’t want to touch Parker initially? Maybe you’re not alone in this.
The NRA realized after the Heller that they were obsolete in more than a few ways
I’ve never met one person at NRA who think they are in any danger of becoming obsolete. They laugh at the notion, to be honest.
Bottom line is that the Nra for the right is becoming like the brady bunch is for the left. Desperate opportunists. Who else you know rides on the laurels of others so well.
Everyone in the gun rights issue is very good at doing this. It’s not limited, by any means, to NRA.
April 19th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Am I the only one who thinks the FFA’s could be a long-term political winner even if they initially lose in the courts? Seven states passed these things. That’s majorities in seven state legislatures and seven governors’ signatures, not a manifesto from a dozen libertarians. If/when they go down in the courts, that at least tells us where we stand. If it’s used properly that could drive further political action at the state level, or even in Congress if there’s a big enough swing in representation. In the long run, this could be the start of a move to bring federal legislation in line with the original understanding of the commerce clause. Or maybe even a new constitutional amendment reasserting the 10A and commerce clause in modern plain language (tho I’m ambivalent about new amendments).
In other words, the “non-starter” crowd are probably correct… one step out. But based on that one step out, they’re denigrating a very positive political movement. They’re playing checkers while the cutting edge crowd is at least trying to play chess.
I’m okay in principle with the NRA sitting this one out, given it’s as much about the 10A and the commerce clause as it is about guns. I just don’t have much trust left for them after Heller, when they not only didn’t support it but actively tried to sabotage it, because again, they were thinking only one move out.
April 19th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Am I the only one who thinks the FFA’s could be a long-term political winner even if they initially lose in the courts?
It could be, but it’s hard to see what they accomplish if the states aren’t really serious about it. I don’t think the FFAs are bad, per se, it’s just that I can see a point that they aren’t worth expending a lot of energy on right now.
I kind of wonder if floating a constitutional amendment to define in greater detail, exactly what Congress’ commerce powers are, wouldn’t be the better solution here.
April 19th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Packetman,
True, I’d include autos in the “items regulated by the NFA such as SBR’s and such.” The problem is that most of the FFAs require everything to be manufactured solely in the state. So, let’s hypothetically assume that the FFAs are actually upheld (hah!). You’d have to build your AR from solely sources in GA. That might be ok because you have some companies in GA but many states do not; hence this being largely a symbolic act (unless you’re willing to pay a boat load to a local smith, of course).
Get a good lawyer first, though! 😛
Jake & John,
I’ve got to agree with Sebastian on this one. The NRA only expends resources when it thinks it has a decent chance of winning and when the victory would be a worthwhile gain. It is better to stay aloof out of some of the most contentious issues and keep piling up your war chest than to waste money and credibility on issues that are unlikely to succeed. Heller was debatable, but on something like this where the potential gain is pretty small and the costs/risks are huge, they definitely shouldn’t get involved.
You know how the antis have been slowly ratcheting it up over time? That’s the same thing the NRA is doing, in reverse. Chip away and make small gains. Force the other guy to make “reasonable, common-sense” compromises. It may not be exciting or ideologically satisfying but it works.
Plus, none of these FFAs are really well crafted for a sound legal challenge. As I discuss over at Arma, I think that a FFA should specifically target the GCA ’68 (commerce clause) or the NFA (taxation). Don’t pick a fight with both at once.
I find the FFAs to be interesting when you combine them with the healthcare freedom acts and the state-based medical marijuana initiatives. When you add all those three categories together there are a significant number of states making 10th amendment challenges.
Cheers,
Chris
April 19th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
There is a huge difference between FFA and Heller. In the case of the Second Amendment, we had a situation with no Supreme Court precedent clearly ruling on the scope of the constitutional right. The NRA’s argument was essentially a conservative one, of not taking a case to the Supreme Court that might go bad, and end up with a clear interpretation that was against us.
The FFA’s are not at all similar. We have a lot of very clear, unambiguous Supreme Court opinions on the scope of the commerce clause. Precedent that a lot of legislation has been adopted relying upon that precedent. And that precedent clearly and unambiguously holds that legislation like the FFA’s are simply nonsense. There is no way that the Supreme Court is going to overturn Filburn v. Wickard.
Anyone who thinks that these FFA’s have any meaning at all is really delusional.
April 19th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I’m in the camp that these states’ rights things are fine as far as they go, but they’re not earth-shaking world-changers all by themselves.
I can’t fault the NRA for laying back on this one; there’s only so much money and so much lobbying and so much political capital, and it’s a reasonable conclusion to draw that the cost-benefit ratio is low.
As for Heller…
I still shudder thinking about it and what a loss- and it was indeed very, very close- would have done to the gun rights situation across the whole world.
A loss and a declaration that gun rights aren’t rights would have been the worst event since GCA”68, or worse.
So, while the NRA turned out to be wrong, it was only so by a fortunate whisker, and their stance was reasonable and within the bounds of thoughtful caution.
It’s still not clear to me where I would have taken the organization on Heller if it had been my hands on the wheel.
April 19th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
FFA’s are the way that the states are telling the feds to take Raich (and the chain of cases that Raich build on), fold it until it’s all corners, and deposit it someplace painful. Without having to get into the baggage of drug legalization. More power to them, but not something the NRA needs to be dabbling in right now.
April 20th, 2010 at 2:04 am
FFA’s can’t win. Nope, not as long as nobody means it. When they mean it, they will provide for penalties for marauders on the federal payroll who violate those laws. And certainly not if they were all pre-emptive surrenderers, like so many I see.