pittspilot
Member
Filed a lawsuit, how?
Waded up to the courtroom?
Waded up to the courtroom?
NRA wimps cowering and backpedaling in N.O again!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Issuing press releases is an activity, all right, but it doesn't amount to taking action. I should know: I've written hundreds upon hundreds of them over the years.
good question - perhaps a little source of confustion to non-lawyers.
There are any number of other courtrooms, state and federal, in other parts of the state, AND other states, that COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, and most importantly, WOULD HAVE, accepted a venue-inappropriate emergency filing, in light of the exigent circumstances. Judges have that power & discretion (appropriately), and we COULD have gotten a day in court in front of a federal judge, AND a state judge, and asked for an emergency ex-parte TRO, in any number of courtrooms, and it might have been granted. But to the discredit of the gun groups (of which I am a LIFE MEMBER of both of the mentioned ones, mind you), they did almost nothing, and people probably died as a result. They should have at least TRIED to get an emergency injunction against forced disarmament from those poor citizens with the foresight enough to have been prepared and had guns, AND had already made it through the worst stuff, only to have the .gov come in when the coast is relatively clear, and then take away their means of survival. If the judge says no to the requested TRO, then so be it. But to not even TRY given the clear evidence of orders of disarmament? Ridiculous. What in the name of heck DID my $750 to NRA and $450 to GOA go for?
There are any number of other courtrooms, state and federal, in other parts of the state, AND other states, that COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE, and most importantly, WOULD HAVE, accepted a venue-inappropriate emergency filing, in light of the exigent circumstances. Judges have that power & discretion (appropriately), and we COULD have gotten a day in court in front of a federal judge, AND a state judge, and asked for an emergency ex-parte TRO, in any number of courtrooms, and it might have been granted. But to the discredit of the gun groups (of which I am a LIFE MEMBER of both of the mentioned ones, mind you), they did almost nothing, and people probably died as a result. They should have at least TRIED to get an emergency injunction against forced disarmament from those poor citizens with the foresight enough to have been prepared and had guns, AND had already made it through the worst stuff, only to have the .gov come in when the coast is relatively clear, and then take away their means of survival. If the judge says no to the requested TRO, then so be it. But to not even TRY given the clear evidence of orders of disarmament? Ridiculous. What in the name of heck DID my $750 to NRA and $450 to GOA go for?
pitts- CNN had no problem finding a federal judge in Houston, Texas (U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison) who issued a restraining order against the federal government from infringing on CNN's 1st Amendment rights. CNN filed and got a ruling within 24 hours.
During the same time period NRA did ............... nothing.
FWIW, I am a long time member of the NRA, almost 40 years. I am not a member of the GOA. I am extremely disappointed with the NRA's lack of action.
During the same time period NRA did ............... nothing.
FWIW, I am a long time member of the NRA, almost 40 years. I am not a member of the GOA. I am extremely disappointed with the NRA's lack of action.
Last edited:
JohnBT
Member
So many smart folks here. I'm impressed.
Why didn't one of YOU file it?
John
Why didn't one of YOU file it?
John
CNN based its suit on mere statements made by government officials. No one was injured or suffered monetary loss. CNN filed suit just because the STATEMENTS WERE CONTRARY to the 1st Amendment. CNN successfully obtained a restraining order against government censorship in less than 24 hours.
The order will be reviewed in a month after some time has passed and the parties can better prepare.
The important thing is that judges will issue restraining orders without complete information on the case. CNN didn't need a party claiming injury. In this 1st Amendment case, the mere words of the public officials was damning enough.
Now it is Sunday, a week later, and the NRA has done .............. nothing.
The order will be reviewed in a month after some time has passed and the parties can better prepare.
The important thing is that judges will issue restraining orders without complete information on the case. CNN didn't need a party claiming injury. In this 1st Amendment case, the mere words of the public officials was damning enough.
Now it is Sunday, a week later, and the NRA has done .............. nothing.
Hkmp5sd
Member
At least the NRA isn't standing around with the foot in their mouth after jumping off the deep end. I approve of the NRA taking time to get the TRUTH of the matter and report it ACCURATELY instead of jumping in with both feet and finding themselves up to their eyeballs in poopoo.
The NRA would have looked really stupid had they tried to get a judge to halt the mandatory evacuation and failed to do so. The media already paints the NRA as a ultra-right wing militia group. More bad publicity isn't going to help anyone. There wasn't a judge or politician in the country that was going to step up and halt the mandatory evacuation w/o firearms order.
Time to quit whinning.
The NRA would have looked really stupid had they tried to get a judge to halt the mandatory evacuation and failed to do so. The media already paints the NRA as a ultra-right wing militia group. More bad publicity isn't going to help anyone. There wasn't a judge or politician in the country that was going to step up and halt the mandatory evacuation w/o firearms order.
Time to quit whinning.
I seem to notice that some folks think that courts share our concept of the 2nd Amendment, and will, or would have, quickly supported a request for an injunction. I wonder why, given the courts past behavior concerning this issue. In any matter brought before any court a decision can go at least two ways, and more often then not things haven't gone our way.
I strongly suspect that if the NRA had requested an injunction early on they would have been told that the association had suffered no injure (in the legal sense of the word), and had no standing. If anyone thinks otherwise, please point to example(s) where the authorities have been so enjoined during a civil emergency.
I strongly suspect that if the NRA had requested an injunction early on they would have been told that the association had suffered no injure (in the legal sense of the word), and had no standing. If anyone thinks otherwise, please point to example(s) where the authorities have been so enjoined during a civil emergency.
joab
Member
In order to file suit you have to show injury, the NRA has not been injured in anyway
Kinda like that little yap dog down the street that comes out full of piss and vinegar until I pass from his sight, then he's amazingly quiet
OMG. They WERE enjoined in THIS emergency from violating the 1A, after a lawsuit was seriously threatened. The NRA & GOA didn't even do that.
The 5th circuit, where LA is located, has specifically recognized an individual RKBA!
Whether won or not, it absolutely should have been *attempted*.
The plaintiff is "The Citizens of Lousiana"
And in the meantime, people DIE from the despotic actions of the government. Who cares about what the NRA *reports* - I'm talking about DOING SOMETHING to save the lives of those who were actually disarmed.
Who said anything about halting the 'mandatory evacuation'? I'm talking strictly about a lawsuit to enjoin FORCED DISARMAMENT OF CITIZENS, in light of the fact that there was specific evidence that this WAS occurring, and this evidence could have been presented to a judge.
And if they failed, they wouldn't have looked stupid, they would have looked heroic for trying to preserve the civil liberties of the citizens.
The 5th circuit, where LA is located, has specifically recognized an individual RKBA!
Whether won or not, it absolutely should have been *attempted*.
The plaintiff is "The Citizens of Lousiana"
And in the meantime, people DIE from the despotic actions of the government. Who cares about what the NRA *reports* - I'm talking about DOING SOMETHING to save the lives of those who were actually disarmed.
Who said anything about halting the 'mandatory evacuation'? I'm talking strictly about a lawsuit to enjoin FORCED DISARMAMENT OF CITIZENS, in light of the fact that there was specific evidence that this WAS occurring, and this evidence could have been presented to a judge.
And if they failed, they wouldn't have looked stupid, they would have looked heroic for trying to preserve the civil liberties of the citizens.
Rufus Pisanus
Member
I have lots of comments so I'll skip direct quotes...
CNN is directly affected by censorship, thus they can file a lawsuit. If somebody says "you cannot report this" they are violating your 1st A rights.
That's why it was enough for somebody to say that to get the lawyers rolling.
On the other hand if the NO Major says he wants to take your guns he hasn't violated anything until he actually does. Moreover, it wouldn't have been NRA guns who were taken. They haven't raided the NRA Museum! It would take some of those whose guns were taken to file a lawsuit.
It is unfortunate but that how it is.
Regarding the NRA being more aggressive. Perhaps they could be a bit more aggressive but at the price of being seeing even more fringe and extremist. Perhaps you guys don't meet anybody with different ideas. I can tell you that, for instance, in Maryland MOST people already think that the NRA is extremist. Sooner or later what people think becomes law. We have to be careful on how we move and we must win back people in the urbanized areas who wet their pants when they see a gun.
Finally, on really going after a hearing on 2A, we should be careful what to wish for. For sure, I would like the supreme court to express a final opinion on this but first of all we need another supreme justice to be appointed as I don't feel confident enough without and second we need Roberts to think the way we do but I wouldn't bet my gun collection on it. Without that we would be toasted. Remember, this is the same supreme court that decided that the county can kick you out of your house if Target/Walmart etc wants to use your land to build something that will produce more tax revenues. It is the same supreme court that decided that McCaine-Feingold doesn't infringe the 1st A (apparently only pornographers rights are worth being defended). We lost a conservative and a moderate justice. The liberals are all still there.
Guys, we are in troubled waters ... and flailing around is not going to help us. We need cool heads, the right moves and another Republican president next term, possibly somebody better than Bush. I am saying Republican not because I love all what they say but because voting a third party will only make sure that a Democrat gets elected.
CNN is directly affected by censorship, thus they can file a lawsuit. If somebody says "you cannot report this" they are violating your 1st A rights.
That's why it was enough for somebody to say that to get the lawyers rolling.
On the other hand if the NO Major says he wants to take your guns he hasn't violated anything until he actually does. Moreover, it wouldn't have been NRA guns who were taken. They haven't raided the NRA Museum! It would take some of those whose guns were taken to file a lawsuit.
It is unfortunate but that how it is.
Regarding the NRA being more aggressive. Perhaps they could be a bit more aggressive but at the price of being seeing even more fringe and extremist. Perhaps you guys don't meet anybody with different ideas. I can tell you that, for instance, in Maryland MOST people already think that the NRA is extremist. Sooner or later what people think becomes law. We have to be careful on how we move and we must win back people in the urbanized areas who wet their pants when they see a gun.
Finally, on really going after a hearing on 2A, we should be careful what to wish for. For sure, I would like the supreme court to express a final opinion on this but first of all we need another supreme justice to be appointed as I don't feel confident enough without and second we need Roberts to think the way we do but I wouldn't bet my gun collection on it. Without that we would be toasted. Remember, this is the same supreme court that decided that the county can kick you out of your house if Target/Walmart etc wants to use your land to build something that will produce more tax revenues. It is the same supreme court that decided that McCaine-Feingold doesn't infringe the 1st A (apparently only pornographers rights are worth being defended). We lost a conservative and a moderate justice. The liberals are all still there.
Guys, we are in troubled waters ... and flailing around is not going to help us. We need cool heads, the right moves and another Republican president next term, possibly somebody better than Bush. I am saying Republican not because I love all what they say but because voting a third party will only make sure that a Democrat gets elected.
Its settled. We will NEVER WIN because we won't even try.
Don't look for a gun friendly judge in the 5th District Circuit. He might send you off to a corner someplace.
Don't hire some bigwig local lawyers who have political pull and connections.
Let fellow Americans have their 2nd and 4th Amendment rights violated. Maybe these Americans are already dead for lack of their confiscated firearms.
Let some local law rule supreme over the Constitution of the United States.
Let the despicable Oklahoma National Guard trample on John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1, et. al.
Its too dangerous to act.
Don't look for a gun friendly judge in the 5th District Circuit. He might send you off to a corner someplace.
Don't hire some bigwig local lawyers who have political pull and connections.
Let fellow Americans have their 2nd and 4th Amendment rights violated. Maybe these Americans are already dead for lack of their confiscated firearms.
Let some local law rule supreme over the Constitution of the United States.
Let the despicable Oklahoma National Guard trample on John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1, et. al.
Its too dangerous to act.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
GunGoBoom, our legal system doesn't work like that. Before you can file a lawsuit, you have to have a party who has actually been wronged. It is not enough to say "Some guy I saw on ABC News"
It was easy for CNN to do this because they were the party who was going to get hurt if the government attempted to restrict their access to New Orleans.
Notice how every single RKBA group putting out this press release has also included "If you got your guns confiscated CALL US"? There is a reason for that. They need to have a plaintiff before they will have standing to sue. This is one of the reasons the NRA has investigators on the ground in NOLA - to get that information and build a case.
It was easy for CNN to do this because they were the party who was going to get hurt if the government attempted to restrict their access to New Orleans.
Notice how every single RKBA group putting out this press release has also included "If you got your guns confiscated CALL US"? There is a reason for that. They need to have a plaintiff before they will have standing to sue. This is one of the reasons the NRA has investigators on the ground in NOLA - to get that information and build a case.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Honestly, I have to wonder, how many times to we have to rehash this?
Okay, so let's review this thread so far.
First, Hillbilly posted a sarcastic/ironic post which purported to criticize the NRA's response to the NO gun confiscation. He wrote it from the persepctive of one of these tin-hat conspiracy theorist "The NRA is Actually a Subsidiary of the Violence Policy Center" types.
A number of people don't recognize the sarcasm, and respond to Hillbilly's post as if he actually meant what he had written to be taken at face value.
The people who didn't recognize the sarcasm get blasted, because obviously Hillbilly's tirade was so ridiculous, the sarcasm was self-evident and no sane person could possibly have read it and taken it at face value.
Then we get somebody who chimes in saying that he does believe what Hillbilly originally wrote, at face value.
The moral of this story is that some folks are so far out there that they're basically immune to parody. No matter how inane, paranoid, exaggerated, and outrageous of a criticism you make towards the NRA, the tin-hat anti-NRA crowd is actually saying something even more ridiculous than what you meant to be a parody.
First, Hillbilly posted a sarcastic/ironic post which purported to criticize the NRA's response to the NO gun confiscation. He wrote it from the persepctive of one of these tin-hat conspiracy theorist "The NRA is Actually a Subsidiary of the Violence Policy Center" types.
A number of people don't recognize the sarcasm, and respond to Hillbilly's post as if he actually meant what he had written to be taken at face value.
The people who didn't recognize the sarcasm get blasted, because obviously Hillbilly's tirade was so ridiculous, the sarcasm was self-evident and no sane person could possibly have read it and taken it at face value.
Then we get somebody who chimes in saying that he does believe what Hillbilly originally wrote, at face value.
The moral of this story is that some folks are so far out there that they're basically immune to parody. No matter how inane, paranoid, exaggerated, and outrageous of a criticism you make towards the NRA, the tin-hat anti-NRA crowd is actually saying something even more ridiculous than what you meant to be a parody.
Taurus 66
Member
Sometimes I think the only reason I check in from time to time is to read your <wonderful> speeches. Some of you are in a league of your own.
Rufus Pisanus
Member
antsi, how do you know that all those who replied weren't also being sarcastic? after all if the first post was a good example of sarcasm everything else in the world can be.
xd9fan
Member
hey Rufus......
I dont think a thrid party vote will get a dem elected again. Sean Hannity ranted this crap on the radio before the CA Gov election. The GOP went ga ga over Arnold and completely ignored the best man in the race.....MCClintock. McClintock stuck to his guns and showed true leadership and grit.......and my old GOP, Sean Hannity included, went for the fame vote...........well now you have and RINO in the GOV office....suprise suprise. THIS is one of the reasons why the GOP is failing!!!!!!!!
If McClintock every ran for Prez.....he would kick a$$. But no, the party of moderates is looking at Rudy
I dont think a thrid party vote will get a dem elected again. Sean Hannity ranted this crap on the radio before the CA Gov election. The GOP went ga ga over Arnold and completely ignored the best man in the race.....MCClintock. McClintock stuck to his guns and showed true leadership and grit.......and my old GOP, Sean Hannity included, went for the fame vote...........well now you have and RINO in the GOV office....suprise suprise. THIS is one of the reasons why the GOP is failing!!!!!!!!
If McClintock every ran for Prez.....he would kick a$$. But no, the party of moderates is looking at Rudy
Rufus Pisanus
Member
that's not what I was advocating! IMHO Rudy would be a perfect candidate for the Democratic party... I respect him but I disagree with him on a lot of (most?) things...
I don't know enough about McClintok to comment but I think we need a good Republican candidate for president (no McCain, Giuliani, Powell, etc).
I don't know enough about McClintok to comment but I think we need a good Republican candidate for president (no McCain, Giuliani, Powell, etc).
joab
Member
While the original post was obviously satire, it did bring up some valid points that are being discussed on boards spanning the net.
At first read it looks like something being discussed by a bunch of brain dead lefty Aussies on another ,pro Moore, pro DU, board.
They would most likely use this as a "see even the gun nuts agree with us go look and see" link
El Rojo
Member
Ok, so why is the NRA being week by taking the action that so many people criticized them for not taking immediately? How is it not good that they are following up? What are the supposed to do differently because you have a better plan?
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
We Need to Put On Our Thinking Caps
Hillbilly showed us on a practical basis that the loose cannons and rage accomplishes very little in terms of outcome. In the long run, a class action lawsuit by the NRA will be far more effective for a wider group of our population than some angry press releases by the GOA.
Enforcing legal rights of a large group of people requires that specific victims be identified who can be the tip of the iceberg in representing a whole class of people whose rights were violated. In this case, the NRA is doing the right thing even though Hillbilly and others would rather jump up and down and point fingers rather than taking practical and effective action in a court of law to enforce the rights of those who have been victimized.
Hillbilly showed us on a practical basis that the loose cannons and rage accomplishes very little in terms of outcome. In the long run, a class action lawsuit by the NRA will be far more effective for a wider group of our population than some angry press releases by the GOA.
Enforcing legal rights of a large group of people requires that specific victims be identified who can be the tip of the iceberg in representing a whole class of people whose rights were violated. In this case, the NRA is doing the right thing even though Hillbilly and others would rather jump up and down and point fingers rather than taking practical and effective action in a court of law to enforce the rights of those who have been victimized.
- Status