Tell me this isnt fucked up.
 

This is a letter I just recieved as a member of the NRA... Please read through it, even if you are against the NRA. Our freedoms are getting analy raped.

"I'm writing with bad news and an urgent call to action.

In an unbelievable 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has dealt us an enormous blow and made it a federal crime for the NRA to criticize anti-gun incumbents in Congress.

They've rukled against our against our lawsuit to overturn the new "campaign finance reform" gag order -- a gag order that silences NRA and other membership organizations 30 days before every primary election, and 60 days before November heneral elections.

[...]

I never imagined in a million years that one day our First amendment rights garaunteed to us by the founding fathers would be ripped away from us by the highest court that those founding fathers created... That the supreme court would agree to silence our message while allowing anti-gun media and gun hating billionairs to continue their relentless attacks iagainst anyone who believes in the second amendment.

As a result of this ruling, free speech is no longer a RIGHT garaunteed by the First amendment, but a PRIVLEDGE granted by congrss and the courts.

Under this new law, as held up by the supreme court, so called media sources, like ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have the right to present any spin on "gun control" they want.

If they want to put Babra Streisand and MIcheal Moore and Spike lee on national talk shows to condemn gun owners and attack the second amendment and pro-gun politicians, they can. [...]

And billionairs like George Soros who are spending their fortunes to defeat pro-Second amendment candidates are totaly exempt as well.

Yet if your NRA mentions the name of any federal candidate on TV or radio airwaves, 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to the general election, I could go to jail.
[...]
"

signed Wayne LaPierre
Exec VP of the NRA.



Im diggin up what I can on this. THis isnt about the second amendment so much as it is about people freedom of speech being trampled in an effort to push a political view that bothers me unbelievably. Hence General Discussion, and not Weapons.

I left blank the parts about how the NRA is dealing with this, for it doesnt affect the discussion in my opinion. Dont hesitate to visit www.nrahq.org

yeah, that's f***ed up, seriously f***ed up.

Perhaps you could link something about the actual case that this is based on. I'd like to hear the other side of it.

krwlz,

Your mail box is full.


Yes,

I've received that letter and yes, I think it's seriously *ucked up. The first was written with the explicit intent of protecting political speech. And the second was written to protect the first.

I seriously think this country is heading down the spiral pool.

There is a difference between an individual and an agency/corporation. Since agencies are allowed to put unlimited funds into advocating their issues on television, this makes sense to me. The Bill of Rights grants free speech to people, not corporate entities or other organizations. This rule also applies to PETA, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc.

Particularly this only states that the gun lobby can't go after individuals, it doesn't say anything about promoting their cause. I don't see what the problem is - this is much better than unlimited funds being used against Congressmen.

I note, as did filtherton, that he fails to provide a link to the case. That makes me immediately suspicious that he's exaggerating. Anyone know what the case number is?

I want more information. Preferably from three or more sources. I'm sorry, but this is just to freaked up to be true. But, if it is...then god help us.

Man, I really wish I did have another source. I have been searching all over, and Im lost.

Ill be the first to admit its shaded to gain support. I havnt been able to back it all up as of yet though. Perhaps someone more adept then I could help us out.

I will admit, even in the letter, that the law holds many organizations from speaking in the same manner. I dont know which ones, but its organizations. Hence single, private people, can spend money on their views like that.

Just not any official organization, such as the NRA. Personaly, I still feel that it is wrong.

I think I am going to implement my second amendment right to protect my first amendment right! *cocks the glock* That is some seriously fucked up shit! The NWO is right around the corner...

Something else interesting...
 

Police Chiefs Campaign to Fight Senate Bill That Would Protect Gun Dealers
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
The New York Times

Published: February 16, 2004


A large number of police chiefs and other law enforcement officials have joined gun control advocates in a campaign to defeat a Senate bill that would grant gun makers and dealers almost total immunity from lawsuits.

The bill, which is strongly supported by the National Rifle Association, is scheduled for a Senate vote in early March but could come up for a vote even sooner. As many as 59 senators have signed on as sponsors, only one vote shy of the number needed to defeat any attempt at a filibuster. A similar bill passed easily in the House last fall.

The police officials' campaign began last week when Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department held a news conference there denouncing the bill. Chief Bratton and 80 other police officials then signed a letter to the Senate expressing their opposition. At the same time, a full-page advertisement featuring a photograph of Chief Bratton and paid for by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence appeared in The Washington Post.

The advertisement is expected to appear soon in other major newspapers and on television, and Chief Bratton, the former New York City police commissioner, said he would go to Washington to lobby senators.

The campaign is supported by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents the chiefs of police in the 50 largest cities.

"To give gun manufacturers and dealers immunity from lawsuits is crazy," Chief Bratton said in a telephone interview.

"If you give them immunity," he added, "what incentive do they have to make guns with safer designs, or what incentive do the handful of bad dealers have to follow the law when they sell guns?"

"This is not about doing away with guns, but about trying to ensure the safety of police officers and the American public," said Chief Bratton, who was police commissioner in New York City in the early 1990's when there was a sharp drop in homicides, as there was last year in Los Angeles under Chief Bratton.

But a spokesman for the N.R.A., Andrew Arulanandam, said most rank-and-file police officers supported the bill, and he dismissed Chief Bratton's criticism as ill informed.

"My response is, Chief Bratton ought to hire better lawyers," Mr. Arulanandam said.

Mr. Arulanandam said the bill "would not grant blanket immunity to every dealer and manufacturer," because in cases where a dealer or gun maker violated a state or federal law, a person could still sue.

Both Chief Bratton and lawyers familiar with the bill challenged Mr. Arulanandam's interpretation of the legislation, saying it does bestow immunity on the gun industry.

The wording is important, because the N.R.A. began pushing the bill to thwart lawsuits against the gun industry brought by nearly two dozen cities and counties. Of the 23 original lawsuits, 14 have been dismissed by courts, but 9 are pending, including suits in Cleveland; Chicago; Gary, Ind.; St. Louis; New York; Los Angeles; and San Francisco.

One lawsuit that could be jeopardized by the immunity bill has been brought by the families of eight of the people killed in the Washington-area sniper shootings. That suit, filed against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun shop in Tacoma, Wash., where the snipers' Bushmaster XM-15 rifle originated, and against the manufacturer, is scheduled for trial this fall.

According to an opinion written by Lloyd N. Cutler, a Washington lawyer who was just named by President Bush to the panel that will investigate intelligence failures before the war in Iraq, "The bill, if enacted, would require dismissal."

Mr. Cutler's opinion was sought by the Brady Campaign and a copy of it was provided to The New York Times.

Mr. Cutler said the bill would lead to dismissal of the suit because neither Bull's Eye nor Bushmaster violated a federal or state law in connection with the rifle, as would be required by the immunity bill. Although Bull's Eye was found by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to have lost 238 guns from its inventory, with no record of them being sold, the only evidence about how the snipers got the rifle was a statement by one, Lee Malvo, that he shoplifted the gun.

Both snipers, John A. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo, were prohibited by law from buying the gun — Mr. Muhammad because he was under a domestic restraining order and Mr. Malvo because he was a juvenile. But since there was no record the store sold them the gun, it cannot be charged with a violation of the gun laws, Mr. Cutler said.

Instead of charging the store with a legal violation, the lawsuit alleges negligence in the store's handling of its inventory, a claim made under common law doctrine, Mr. Cutler said. Yet negligence is not a violation of law, so the bill would force dismissal of the suit, he said.

Gil Kerlikowske, the police commissioner of Seattle, said he would go to lobby the Senate because his experience as a police officer had taught him that "civil lawsuits are the only way to ensure accountability" in the gun industry.

When he was police commissioner of Buffalo, Mr. Kerlikowske said, his officers found that most guns used in killings there came from a single store just outside the city limits. Data from the A.T.F. have shown that just 1 percent of dealers supply almost 60 percent of the guns recovered in crimes, Mr. Kerlikowske said, and this dealer was part of that tiny fraction of corrupt dealers.

Despite a decade of efforts, he said, the A.T.F. has been unable to shut that dealer down because of weak federal gun laws.

www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf

This is the actual decision as it relates to "soft money" campaigning donations and the appearance of corruption. A quote off the top:


Now if you're just willing to read the full 298 pages... The only way to seek the truth, regardless if you're for or against the NRA... This involves much more than just them.

Does it bother anyone that a conservative-republican political machine is so strong against gun ownership? Most gun toters I know are repubs and counted on thier guys to keep the guns legal....

Wonder how they are gonna blame the dems for this?

And by the way the conservative contolled media is allowing the liberals to rag on the gun activists.. and now they have the law to back them up...

The NRA reperesents people. Does this mean the the National Education Association or other such "worthy" organizations will also not be allowed to speak up? They all represent PEOPLE because we all know it is difficult for one person to make a difference -- collectively our voice is stronger. Taking away the rights of one group of people will lead to more and more. It is wrong!

What he said. Thats some pretty seriously messed up stuff. There is a strong anti-gun stigma in the country, and unfortunately, most of it is completely unfounded. I have made it a point to take many of my friends which have such a stigma to the range and let them shoot some skeet and explain to them what responsible gun use entails. In almost all cases, their views on guns and gun ownership changed.

But I think this decision involves more than just guns, I dont think the Supreme Court would just up and do that for no reason.

corporate entities are granted the SAME RIGHTS and must abide the same laws as individuals because they are considered the same as an "individual"

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Excuse my while I go drink some Victory Gin and study my 10th edition Newspeak dictionary.

The first amendment is ungood. Government control is doubleplusgood.

/1984

:rolleyes:

I don't buy it. The letter seems to imply that it is just the nra that is excluded. I guess i have a hard time believing that the scotus would decide that to prohibit just the nra from speaking. And since they refrain from even hinting at the court's rationale it seems like they're hiding something.

The letter is way to emotional and lacking in substance for me to take it seriously. Not that i really expect them to portray any side but their own.

They are talking about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act being found constitutional. First off, I support gun rights to the extent that the guns are legitimately needed for something, and that they are used in a manner that will promote security not anarchy, so I am not some anti-gun freak. However I do not support the spreading of FUD by large special interest groups. It is of course hyperbole to the nth degree as I'd expect. It certainly does not apply only to the NRA. It is not censoring anyone's opinions. And it has nothing to do with gun control specifically. The NRA can still go on and on all day long about how they want people to be able to own .50 caliber rifles for their hunting expeditions. They just can't campaign for specific candidates on the sub-infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, a public resource, within the guidelines.

I don't know all the details of the act, but from what I do know it prevents special interest groups (e.g. the NRA) from throwing piles of money at a campaign to get someone elected via the Golden Rule ("the one with the gold, rules"). This is constitutional on the same basis as levying fines on those who broadcast the word fuck on TV. The airwaves are not privately owned, they are a public resource and the government can regulate their use to a reasonable degree. I am as much of a free speech fanatic as anyone, but I think the act is a step in the right direction toward reforming the election process. Whether it is too restrictive of free speech I'm not as sure about, but it is not the doomsday "repealing the First Amendment" scenario that the NRA would like to make you think it is.

Yes, "ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have the right to present any spin on 'gun control' they want." And Fox News has the right to balance all of them out and then some.

The NRA should be governed by the same laws as anyone else, I personally suspect there is another side to this I havent seen yet...

If this law applied spefically and only to the NRA criticising anti gun senators I would be very disturbed, but somehow I think it probably does not.

Personally, I do not think that the American people, or any other people, has the right to be armed - and the federal government should disarm them as soon as possible. I certianly wouldnt support the NRA not being allowed to complain about it though, they have a right to make their case... even when/if it is lost.

If however, the law is more in line of what nonesensical was saying, preventing special interest groups becoming involved in the election... I think there is an issue and a problem with that, but the NRA has certainly misrepresented the issue in the letter quoted.

Thanks for the perspective.

The nra seems to have put chicken little in charge of its postal campaigns.

To answer the original poster, no, this isn't fucked up. What's fucked up is that the nra writes urgently toned, factually sparse letters to its members claiming the end of free speech in america in an effort to manipulate them.

I'd like to see that letter, if you remember krwlz. I can't comment on this until I see the letter.

Being as I work with you, not a problem. What I quoted was most of the major issues. What I didnt quote is mostly how they plan to react.