Pro-gun and have a disagrement with the NRA/GunLobby? Get destroyed by your own

[Thorgrim]

Before today's presidential candidates go courting the National Rifle Association for support (witness Mitt Romney's sudden enrollment), they should be aware of the case of Jim Zumbo. One of nation's most famous and respected hunting and outdoors journalists, Zumbo was professionally assassinated by NRA hysteria for simply uttering a single and — many hunters would say — reasonable point of view.

Returning from a weekend hunting trip in which he witnessed people using semiautomatic, military-style weapons to hunt varmints, Zumbo dashed off a column for his blog on Outdoor Life in which he played devil's advocate, suggesting these weapons are not appropriate for hunting.

The reaction was swift — and brutal. The NRA whipped up a frenzy on the blogosphere, where a rabid fringe element of the hunting community denounced Zumbo in the harshest terms, even attacking his patriotism. Bowing to the intense pressure, Outdoor Life magazine fired Zumbo from his writing job, where he had won a huge following. The gun-company sponsors of Zumbo's highly rated weekly television show promptly pulled their support, thus killing the program. The NRA very publicly suspended all ties with Zumbo and cited the incident as a warning to anyone — "even fellow gun owners" — who might cross its powerful lobby.

This incident is regrettable not only because it publicly humiliated an honorable sportsman, but also because it suggests that hunters and shooters are vindictive, close-minded zealots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunters and shooters are passionate about the Second Amendment, but we are not fascists. We recognize that reasonable people can disagree on reasonable issues.

...

For instance, in a 2003 hunters poll by Field & Stream, the majority of hunters (67 percent) considered assault-styled rifles as not legitimate sporting arms. The NRA knows this, which is why it moved so quickly to preempt any debate — and threaten any sportsman who dared express another opinion.

...

The character assassination of Jim Zumbo — whether you agree or disagree with him — is an outrage. The attacks on his patriotism were un-American. And the silencing of legitimate debate is the latest evidence that the NRA puts its own political power over the interests of its members.

Hunters and shooters don't like to be bullied, silenced or sold out. But that's what has happened. We cannot let it pass. The Zumbo case is a call to arms for every hunter and outdoorsman. Let's raise our rifles in defense of our freedoms, and speak out against any body — whether government or the NRA — that stifles honest discussion.

Opinion | Real hunters and shooters need to stand up to the NRA | Seattle Times Newspaper

This is exactly why I think organizations like the NRA and other gun lobby movements are bad for America, they couldn't care less about gun owners, all they care about is their political power

If the NRA came across a lost record of a private debate between the founding fathers on several issues, including (hypothetically) an agreement that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with personal home defense, but only joining a militia, there is no doubt in my mind the NRA would burn them

[RMNIXON]

Imagine a political lobby frightening people, getting them fired, or just plain shouting them down? I suspect the NRA behaved badly in this case, not they have magical control of what Outdoor Magazine does. But as soon as we clearly include "any body" "that stifles honest discussion." I can't get too worked up about it.

[Diamond Cross]

Why should military weapons be inappropiate for hunting? All firearms have only one purpose: to kill. So what if one firearm can fire faster than another or is much more powerful than another? The difference is about the same as the difference between somebody who likes dirt bikes and somebody else who likes Harley Davidson street bikes. I view it as nothing more than a matter of style of how one prefers to hunt.

[thomez]

I read an article today in Discover magazine about how PETA behaves very similarly, putting their influence ahead of their cause.

I'm a gun owner and I don't think I'll ever join the NRA

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Why should military weapons be inappropiate for hunting? All firearms have only one purpose: to kill. So what if one firearm can fire faster than another or is much more powerful than another? The difference is about the same as the difference between somebody who likes dirt bikes and somebody else who likes Harley Davidson street bikes. I view it as nothing more than a matter of style of how one prefers to hunt.

For example, a bolt-action .223 is a much more reasonable weapon to hunt groundhogs than is an M16 - cheaper, more accurate, etc.

If someone wanted to hunt them with an M16 however, I could care less. I'm just saying that many people would view the bolt-action as the hunting rifle, where the M16 is obviously built for other purposes, no matter what else it is capable of.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

I read an article today in Discover magazine about how PETA behaves very similarly, putting their influence ahead of their cause.

I'm a gun owner and I don't think I'll ever join the NRA

I think people view PETA as a fringe organization of crazies, while the NRA can send one email and change an entire vote (03-04 a vote about to be passed protecting gun companies was going to go through after the NRA said it'd be ok that the assault weapon ban was extended then the next morning right before the vote they changed their minds and told senators to change their votes)

Thats REAL POWER, besides AIPAC I don't see a more powerful lobby in Congress

If PETA had that kind of power even I'd be

Now, this organization, that destroys people as part of its daily routine, has that kind of power...it deserves at least a brief examination

[Diamond Cross]

I don't agree. The 2nd was to guaruntee individual rights so that the individual may be able to fight back against a corrupt government should peaceful attempts fail.

Here are some articles for you from an excellent site on firearm rights:

GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

Excerp;


Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.

(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)

Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

Further articles:

GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The original intent of the framers of the Constitution in the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right to the states for purpose of the maintenance of state militias. It was not a grant to individuals.

So the founders were too stupid to actually write something to the effect of "the right to militas shall not be infringed" ?

as made clear by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller

good job, use a case where the federal govt out right LIES. "shotguns arent military weapons" Bullshit, they used them in nearly everywar

[Diamond Cross]

I Don't agree:

U.S. v. Miller (1939)
Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.
Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,

while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)

Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:

This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )
Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! Miller was murdered in April of 1939 (one month before the Court's decision). After the decision, Layton pleaded guilty to transporting a sawed-off shotgun, and received five year's probation. [http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html] ) And so even though the case had been remanded, it was never tried in the lower courts.
In its brief the U.S. government argued the "collective rights" theory. (See GunCite's rebuttal to the U.S. government's brief.)

More importantly please read how the Miller case has been mis-cited by some federal courts and how some rulings are simply based on judges own feelings, desires, and values rather than the rule of law and valid evidence.

Though some circuit courts have adopted a "collective rights" theory of Miller (see the link in the previous paragraph), the first circuit court to analyze Miller held a weapon centric view of the case. However, it did not feel "that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases" because it would "in effect hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute." (Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943).)

Many years later, Justice Hugo Black (one of the judges who decided Miller), commenting on the Second Amendment said,

Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute. (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

A criticism of the Miller decision itself. Complete text of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

GunCite-Second Amendment-The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

[Diamond Cross]

And:


In Adamson v. California, 1947) the Supreme Court refers to the Bill of Rights as protecting individual rights:

"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..."

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Why should military weapons be inappropiate for hunting? All firearms have only one purpose: to kill. So what if one firearm can fire faster than another or is much more powerful than another? The difference is about the same as the difference between somebody who likes dirt bikes and somebody else who likes Harley Davidson street bikes. I view it as nothing more than a matter of style of how one prefers to hunt.

Many anti-gun people don't even know what a semi-automatic means. How it works? That you have to fire each round. The just hear the word assault rifle and go nuts!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Many anti-gun people don't even know what a semi-automatic means. How it works? That you have to fire each round. The just hear the word assault rifle and go nuts!

strange, all the best sniper rifles ive seen are bolt action even today...stupid US military!

i like how you know more about hunting than a professional

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Thats REAL POWER, besides AIPAC I don't see a more powerful lobby in Congress

four letters...AARP....the single most powerful lobby in America...

and rounding out the top three most powerful pacs...

AFL-CIO



what happened to Jim, is a shame...and a reprehensible thing...he is a good man, has hunted my families ranch...he is everything that is good about sportsmen....

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

strange, all the best sniper rifles ive seen are bolt action even today...stupid US military!

i like how you know more about hunting than a professional

first off wtf ????????

Second, the Barrett 50cal is semi auto.

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

No, you mistake the ruling in Miller.

you say that, then you quote the testimony that says the exact opposite.

The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon.



That is the entire point of the 2nd amendment. The people must have access to military weapons. Hunting and target shooting are protected only because the military weapons are protected.

This is similar to how porn is protected because free poltical speech is so vital to our freedoms.

[Diamond Cross]

Incorrect. The 2nd confers individual rights, not collective ones. You do not have to be in a militia to own a firearm. That is erroneous thinking and all other supreme court has come tothis conclusion as I have already shown.

And I have already shown why.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Case closed.

The SC said that every able bodied man is the militia. Now explain how every able bodied man can have access to weapons AND be proficient in the use of them, if the people do not have a right to bear arms.