Where is the NRA?


Abramski v. United States : SCOTUSblog

Sent from my unused and obviously oxygen-deprived brain using Tapatalk

There's one petitioner in Abramski, and that's James Abramski, Jr. Even his attorney who argued his (still undecided) case, Richard Dietz, is not directly affiliated with the N R A. I don't know if he's indirectly affiliated or not, but what I mean is that he is not an "N R A lawyer" in any way, shape, manner or form. He's a partner in a private law firm, that's it.

This is the second time in this thread alone (re: Drake) where you mistake a "Friend of the Court" brief as the N R A actually being a party to the case. If you want to see what it looks like when a .org is party to a case, as in they brought the case to SCOTUS, look at the link I gave you above to the Writ of Certiorari petition for the Drake case that has the Second Amendment Foundation, among others, listed as one of the petitioners. The N R A aren't a party to Abramski, they were opponents of bringing Heller, they were allowed for God only knows what reason to deliver an argument in McDonald, but were not a party to that case either, and they have never been a party to any case at the Supreme Court level.

This is a serious set of questions for either or both SR9 and/or Warbirds, and an alert for njsportsman that while it may seem off-topic, discussion of what I'm about to ask should lead to understanding of the main reason why I will never trust the N R A under any circumstances, and why, if most gun-owners knew the truth of the matter, would never trust them again either.

So SR9 and Warbirds, would you agree that Hitler and the Nazi regime were one of the most successful gun control "organizations" in modern history? Assuming you do agree, would you consider supporting any gun control law in America that came directly from WWII-era Nazi Germany would represent a lapse of judgement from such supporters at best, and somewhere approaching seditious and treasonous activity at worst?

Njsportsman, history on this board proves to me that I cannot expect honest consideration of the questions I pose above from these two. Let them dismiss, or rant, or call me a tin-foil-hatter or whatever, and when they're done (or if they avoid answering altogether), I'll provide all the substantiation for the logical inferences you can draw from those questions, as well as proof of the accusations I will further make clear. Bear with me.

Blues
 

There's one petitioner in Abramski, and that's James Abramski, Jr. Even his attorney who argued his (still undecided) case, Richard Dietz, is not directly affiliated with the N R A. I don't know if he's indirectly affiliated or not, but what I mean is that he is not an "N R A lawyer" in any way, shape, manner or form. He's a partner in a private law firm, that's it.

This is the second time in this thread alone (re: Drake) where you mistake a "Friend of the Court" brief as the N R A actually being a party to the case. If you want to see what it looks like when a .org is party to a case, as in they brought the case to SCOTUS, look at the link I gave you above to the Writ of Certiorari petition for the Drake case that has the Second Amendment Foundation, among others, listed as one of the petitioners. The N R A aren't a party to Abramski, they were opponents of bringing Heller, they were allowed for God only knows what reason to deliver an argument in McDonald, but were not a party to that case either, and they have never been a party to any case at the Supreme Court level.

This is a serious set of questions for either or both SR9 and/or Warbirds, and an alert for njsportsman that while it may seem off-topic, discussion of what I'm about to ask should lead to understanding of the main reason why I will never trust the N R A under any circumstances, and why, if most gun-owners knew the truth of the matter, would never trust them again either.

So SR9 and Warbirds, would you agree that Hitler and the Nazi regime were one of the most successful gun control "organizations" in modern history? Assuming you do agree, would you consider supporting any gun control law in America that came directly from WWII-era Nazi Germany would represent a lapse of judgement from such supporters at best, and somewhere approaching seditious and treasonous activity at worst?

Njsportsman, history on this board proves to me that I cannot expect honest consideration of the questions I pose above from these two. Let them dismiss, or rant, or call me a tin-foil-hatter or whatever, and when they're done (or if they avoid answering altogether), I'll provide all the substantiation for the logical inferences you can draw from those questions, as well as proof of the accusations I will further make clear. Bear with me.

Blues

There is one petitioner because Abramski because he is challenging his arrest. I am not a lawyer not do I strive to understand the legal mumbo jumbo. But I understand that point, the NRA was not arrested.

I can tell tell you who is supporting the case financially.

http://www.nradefensefund.org/current-litigation.aspx

You will have to scroll to find it.

In my book money talks. The 9th circuit case is on that page as well.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
I don't have enough time to list the NRA wins, but check these:
Link Removed

I think there's more than one here.
 
I don't have enough time to list the NRA wins, but check these:
Link Removed

I think there's more than one here.

Nobody asked you to make a list of anything. I asked you to substantiate your claim that the N R A has taken cases to the Supreme Court by giving just one example. But that's alright. I knew when I asked you that not only would you likely not even try, but that you would fail if you did try to find one, because not one single case exists in which the N R A is a petitioner.

So back to the topic. Njsportsman, as you can see, my questions about Nazi gun control were completely ignored, as I fully expected them to be. I hope you're still checking in here and will see what I'm going to post sometime within the next ~24 hours. It probably won't take that long, but I will have to hand-type some information I want you to have that comes out of a book that I can't fit in my scanner. I will substantiate the following claims (at least):

1) A U.S Senator who was formerly a member of the prosecutor's team at the Nuremberg Trials between 1945 and 1946, used Nazi gun control laws that he is proven to have had his own personal copies of as the nearly-identical basis for the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

2) The N R A publicly backed passage of GCA68.

3) As GCA68 progressed through revisions that included full-on registration schemes, the N R A realized that its membership would not support going that far, and instead of dropping their support for the Nazi-inspired legislation, they simply said in public what they perceived their membership would want to hear, while continuing to help the Senator in getting it passed. In the end, Congress disallowed the registration scheme, but GCA68 remains as one of two, along with NFA34, of the most 2A-usurping federal bills in the history of the country, and N R A supported it both above and under the table.

(N R A also supported NFA34, but I will not be focusing on that betrayal in the upcoming post.)

Be back later, probably tomorrow, with the substantiation I promised. Stay tuned.

Blues
 
Nobody asked you to make a list of anything. I asked you to substantiate your claim that the N R A has taken cases to the Supreme Court by giving just one example. But that's alright. I knew when I asked you that not only would you likely not even try, but that you would fail if you did try to find one, because not one single case exists in which the N R A is a petitioner.
.
Now I understand your claims. You have had to narrow the target as much as possible to get a win. You only care if someone is the petitioner. Nothing else matters. So to clarify one point. You have mentioned one case they have taken before the supreme court, according to their website they are currently working on one case and it's in seattle. Impressive...... Two cases. You blow your horn about a foundation that is working on TWO cases. This is the SAF? TWO cases? OMG I WE ARE SAVED!!!!
.
And wasn't Hellier in 2008? So one case since then?
.
So I did find 3 NRA cases currently before the supreme court
Search - Supreme Court of the United States
Search - Supreme Court of the United States
This one is pending before the supreme court
National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives : SCOTUSblog
.
And I found out that apparently two cases including NRA v Oak Park and National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago were rolled up into McDonald v Illinois (im a little confused on this)
.
they are also involved in various federal and state lawsuits.
National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Handgun Control Fed’n - See more at: National Rifle Ass'n of America v. Handgun Control Fed'n :: Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center
.
05-4234 - National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al v. Nagin et al
05-4234 - National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al v. Nagin et al
National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al.,
Appellants
v.
Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States,
Appellee
.
You can search for more of these here, I'm bored of searching through the hundreads of pages.
US Government Printing Office - FDsys - Search Results
.
Thank god the NRA has put it's effort into more than TWO cases.
.

1) A U.S Senator who was formerly a member of the prosecutor's team at the Nuremberg Trials between 1945 and 1946, used Nazi gun control laws that he is proven to have had his own personal copies of as the nearly-identical basis for the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

2) The N R A publicly backed passage of GCA68.

3) As GCA68 progressed through revisions that included full-on registration schemes, the N R A realized that its membership would not support going that far, and instead of dropping their support for the Nazi-inspired legislation, they simply said in public what they perceived their membership would want to hear, while continuing to help the Senator in getting it passed. In the end, Congress disallowed the registration scheme, but GCA68 remains as one of two, along with NFA34, of the most 2A-usurping federal bills in the history of the country, and N R A supported it both above and under the table.

(N R A also supported NFA34, but I will not be focusing on that betrayal in the upcoming post.)

Be back later, probably tomorrow, with the substantiation I promised. Stay tuned.

Blues
.
I wasn't even a twinkle in 68, none of the decision makers in the NRA in 68 are still on the board as far as I can tell. The NRA is made of it's members, you can complain to any NRA members over the age of 66. You could also blame Adam and Eve for gun control. I live for today, I don't ***** about the past.
 
Did you miss my post about 99% of the people (hint: New Jersey is still part of the United States, so they are still included in that 99%)? I've been honest the entire time, can you say the same? Didn't think so. Sources, refer to my first paragraph.
Nope didn't miss it, it's just funny to get you to repeatedly say "I'm a douche"

Let's see now, not longer decent, no self esteem, bitchy, insecure, but has a huge ego...all this coming from an old man who started his period over a post questioning his post with no source and pointing out it wasn't suffice because this isn't CA. You do realize you are posting on an internet forum, and not yelling into a mirror right?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Just so you know, men don't have periods. Apparently your state has pretty damn low standards for a firefighter. You would do the gun world a HUGE favor by not OCing, we don't want the uninformed to think we are all douches.
 
Nope didn't miss it, it's just funny to get you to repeatedly say "I'm a douche"



Just so you know, men don't have periods. Apparently your state has pretty damn low standards for a firefighter. You would do the gun world a HUGE favor by not OCing, we don't want the uninformed to think we are all douches.

Hmm nice let's add douche to the list. Maybe you think of me as a douche because your dirty tampon got infected. I don't ever recall writing "I'm a douche" either, let alone repeatedly, which makes you even more of a liar. It's obvious why you support the N R A, their members are so honest and trust worthy. Right up there with tricolordad, you two make a fantastic N R A representation. Warbirds, you don't also happen to post under the name duke do you? You guys sound so familiar.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Hmm nice let's add douche to the list. Maybe you think of me as a douche because your dirty tampon got infected. I don't ever recall writing "I'm a douche" either, let alone repeatedly, which makes you even more of a liar. It's obvious why you support the N R A, their members are so honest and trust worthy. Right up there with tricolordad, you two make a fantastic N R A representation. Warbirds, you don't also happen to post under the name duke do you? You guys sound so familiar.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

You can throw all the insults you want. You are worthless. Getting you to state over and over that you don't care about anyone but yourself, you have written everyone off, tells everyone you are a douche.
For someone who claims to write people off you sure can't seem to STFU and move on to a new post. Seems like sometimes self esteem is tired to this forum and getting the last word. Grow up little boy.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
You can throw all the insults you want. You are worthless. Getting you to state over and over that you don't care about anyone but yourself, you have written everyone off, tells everyone you are a douche.
For someone who claims to write people off you sure can't seem to STFU and move on to a new post. Seems like sometimes self esteem is tired to this forum and getting the last word. Grow up little boy.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Whatever you say princess. Maybe you lost too much blood all ready, but don't you forget you were the first to throw insults and your list of insults is far greater than mine. I never said I didn't care, I said I won't fight for someone else's Rights. I wrote of the people, their apathy towards their own Rights, not their existence. I care about my neighbors, but I won't go saving them from a criminal if they aren't willing to put the effort into defending themselves at all.

Money is what counts right. You throw your two pennies into the pot and feel good about yourself, sounds like you need it.

I like this thread. I'm learning a lot. Especially how much the N R A sucks, and how dumb their supporters can be.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Whatever you say princess. Maybe you lost too much blood all ready, but you were the first to throw insults and your list of insults is far greater than mine. I never said I didn't care, I said I won't fight for someone else's Rights. I wrote of the people, their apathy towards their own Rights, not their existence. I care about my neighbors, but I won't go saving them from a criminal if they aren't willing to put the effort into defending themselves at all.

Money is what counts right. You throw your two pennies into the pot and feel good about yourself, sounds like you need it.

I like this thread. I'm learning a lot. Especially how much the N R A sucks, and how dumb their supporters can be.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

You must have missed this.

You can throw all the insults you want. You are worthless. Getting you to state over and over that you don't care about anyone but yourself, you have written everyone off, tells everyone you are a douche.
For someone who claims to write people off you sure can't seem to STFU and move on to a new post. Seems like sometimes self esteem is tired to this forum and getting the last word. Grow up little boy.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
No it's right there quoted above my reply. Come now, keep up.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Still have not learned a thing.

For someone who claims to write people off you sure can't seem to STFU and move on to a new post. Seems like sometimes self esteem is tired to this forum and getting the last word. Grow up little boy.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
Alright, njsportsman and anyone else who is still interested, I have put Warbirds on ignore and will not be distracted anymore from making my case about the N R A's many betrayals of actual 2nd Amendment supporters, advocates and activists. Those betrayals go (at least) as far back as the N R A lending its support for NFA34, all the way up to its support for a bill right here in Alabama last year that, before we were able to get the offending verbiage removed from the bill (no thanks to the N R A), would have eliminated the state preemption law that serves to protect us from going from legal to illegal by simply crossing a county or city limits line. However, I am only going to focus on their most disgusting and injurious betrayal (that I'm aware of at least), the Gun Control Act of 1968. So here we go. Get comfy. This won't be short.

Claim #1:
A U.S Senator who was formerly a member of the prosecutor's team at the Nuremberg Trials between 1945 and 1946, used Nazi gun control laws that he is proven to have had his own personal copies of as the nearly-identical basis for the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Anyone truly interested in understanding the origins of GCA68 should make their first stop Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and read their article/advertisement for a book entitled, "Gun Control's Nazi Connection." In that article all of the evidence that JPFO uncovered about the near-identical provisions between the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 (NWL38) and the GCA68 30 years later are described in in-depth detail. Actual scans of their documentation are withheld from being published on their website though, because as I allude to above, that page is also advertising the book that they're marketing which does contain the scans ("Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny"). That is the book that I said I wouldn't be able to scan myself, so when I get to the point that I include information from the book itself, I will have to describe it and not provide pictures of it. Some quotes from those scans are included at the JPFO link too though, so it's not like the information isn't available, just the scans of the information aren't unless you buy the book. So on we go.....

JPFO set out to explain how and why GCA68 came to be law. They weren't investigating any Nazi connections or N R A involvement in the beginning, they just wanted to be able to knowledgeably inform their membership and readers about its origins. Their investigation took them all the way to Germany though. They just followed leads as they presented themselves. Here's an excerpt from the above link explaining generally what they were able to prove:

JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it. In "Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny" we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA ’68 with the Nazi Weapons Law.

Now, the last two sentences are what's documented in the book with scans. I cannot provide the side-by-side comparisons, but I can provide at least the information about section-by-section provisions that are just one line-item away from being identical. A "Senator Dodd" is mentioned here, and he is the Senator whom I mentioned as having been proven to have his own copies of the Nazi gun control laws prior to authoring the GCA68 bill. Here goes with that:

There was not any traditional basis in American law to curb ownership of firearms other than machine guns so Senator Dodd and other legislators drew from German Law 1928 and NWL38 as the basis to create their legislation. There is no believable alternate conclusion to be drawn. The parallels are staggering.

1.GCA68, Created the overseeing agency, the ATF. - NWL38, designated the SS (Schutzstaffel or Defense Squadron) and SA (Sturm Abteilung or Storm Section) as overseers.

2.GCA68, Established that all who deal in firearms sales and manufacturing be federally licensed. - German Law 1928, all who own and sell firearms must be licensed.

3.GCA68, No interstate transfer of firearms between non-licensees

4.GCA68, No shipping of firearms through the mail

5.GCA68, Established minimum age for firearms purchasers. - NWL38, age established at 18.

6.GCA68, Required all firearms to have serial numbers. - NWL38, all firearms must have serial numbers.

7.GCA68, Expanded definition of "prohibited persons." - NWL38, created list of prohibited persons.

8.GCA68, Established the US concept of "non-sporting purpose" firearms. - NWL38, banned "non-sporting" firearms.

9.GCA68, Established Form 4473 (defacto gun registration). - NWL38, created registration for guns and gun owners.

10.GCA68, Restricted import and sale of "Saturday Night Special" handguns. - NWL38, added handguns to restricted list.

11.GCA68, Established sentencing guidelines for firearm-involved crimes. - German Law1928, established sentences for firearms violations



If you read the link you will find that the NWL38 is a replacement of the Weimar gun laws enacted in 1928, so whenever you see the 1928 law cited, that means it was a provision carried over and duplicated in NWL38.

I will get to N R A's support for GCA68 in a moment, but want to highlight something here before I do. The origins of GCA68 are Nazi through and through. The only provision missing in GCA68 compared to NWL38 is that NWL38 mandated registration of both firearms and people who owned them. Jews, Gypsies and other specific classes or ethnicities were prohibited altogether from being eligible for registration, and if you want to break that out as a separate provision not included in GCA68, be my guest, but the point is about Nazi gun control for the purposes of this post, not the racist laws that inspired it. Whatever though, one or two (your choice) provisions didn't make it into GCA68 from literally copying the Nazi's version of gun control. As to registration not being included, it wasn't for a lack of trying though, and even LBJ and Senator Dodd made public pronouncements of severe disappointment about that fact on the day LBJ had the signing ceremony (maybe more on that later, but it's not really relative to the points I'm making here).

I am going to try to condense as much as is possible the connections of Dodd to the NWL38. If it seems disjointed or incomplete, just go to the JPFO link above and read it in its entirety, but here are a few excerpts to try to begin to substantiate the claim anyway:

We have documentary proof -- see below -- that he [Sen. Dodd] had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA ’68 was signed into law....

...This former senator was a senior member of the U.S. team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945-46. That is probably where he found out about the Nazi Weapons Law. He may have gotten a copy of it then, or at a later date. We cannot imagine why any U.S. lawmaker would own original texts of Nazi laws....

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed "gun control". We focused on those whose bills became part of GCA ’68. GCA ’68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker -- or a congressional staffer -- he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention....

...We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of GCA ’68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others....

...Exhibit No. 62....is fascinating. This letter -- dated July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA ’68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

So here's the sequence of events that have to be completely ignored in order to conclude that GCA68 wasn't a near-direct copy of NWL38:

1) Dodd spent a year in Germany investigating and prosecuting Nazi war crimes. As such, he had access to any and all seized documentation of how the Nazis operated. That access included archived, updated and obsolete records as well.

2) Early in his career as Senator, Dodd started introducing legislation consistent with NWL38.

3) Four months before GCA68 was signed into law, Dodd is proven (by Congressional records no less) to have supplied his own copy of NWL38 to the Library of Congress for translation from German to English.

4) Four months later, GCA68 was signed into law, missing only one gun control provision (registration) that LBJ, Dodd and the rest of the gun-grabbers in Congress at the time couldn't get passed in the debates leading up to its passage, to their great disappointment and consternation.

Conclusion: GCA68 is a direct copy of the last NAZI gun control law to be in effect before 1945 when they were defeated in WWII.

My next post will document and prove that the N R A not only supported GCA68, but they went "underground" so to speak, feigning opposition to its members and for public consumption, but continuing their support behind the scenes. It won't take nearly as long a post to wrap that up. Stand by....

Blues
 
What a sad sack.

Did anyone else pick up on the fact that when his own criteria are used against him he changes the discussion?

Using his criteria the foundation be brags about has been involved in two court cases. He does not discuss any of the NRA (of which there are many more) cases that fit his criteria.

What a sad sack.

The idiot needs to come into the present day. Please pipe up if any if you are over the age of 66 and were part of the NRA in 1968 or before. If you want to to try to hold the NRA accountable for bad decisions in the past, go ahead but you are crying over spilled milk to people that weren't even involved. The NRA is what the members make it, and it is not what it was in 1968. By his thinking I guess that all the Caucasians on this forum are racists and responsible for slavery. I dint live in the past, neither should you. The NRA is not perfect by any means but the good they do is moving our cause forward.

New Jersey needs a lot of help, that fact is obvious. The NRA and others are doing their best to do so. Don't listen to the sad sack that for some idiotic reason fights against those trying to help you.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top