Defensive Carry banner

Question About NRA and Wayne LaPierre

5K views 89 replies 35 participants last post by  LkWd_Don 
#1 ·
I'm wondering, even some NRA members think Wayne L is a fear monger and that the NRA is way too pushy on allowing no restrictions. How can you be an NRA member and not like him? how can you be pro gun but think some weapons like AR-15 or AK-47 should be illegal? they are after all just a rifle right? I ask this because I seriously want to know. Not trolling. I've only been into guns for about a year or so now. Thanks
 
#43 ·
I guess I'm in the naive camp then. I thought there was a real threat to 2A. One thing you cannot deny, Wayne La Pierre gives one hell of a good speech and seems to be an effective lobbyist. I'll naively renew. Ted Nugent sure looks like he is unraveling.
 
#51 ·
The Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The definition of notwithstanding from dictionary.reference.com :
not·with·stand·ing
   [not-with-stan-ding, -with-] Show IPA
preposition
1.
in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. She went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.
conjunction
2.
in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different.
Now I won't be accused of being an English major but it seems to me to say, for the purposes of our discussion, "Despite the Constitution, Treaties will be the supreme law of the land."
 
#53 ·
The Constitution says:



The definition of notwithstanding from dictionary.reference.com :


Now I won't be accused of being an English major but it seems to me to say, for the purposes of our discussion, "Despite the Constitution, Treaties will be the supreme law of the land."
Two points: first, this is why I told the OP to research it himself and make up his own mind. This thread has now changed to a particular issue. Second, I am not an English major either but SCOTUS has made major ruling on this already so I am pretty sure they looked up the definition of 'non withstanding' and factored it in their decision that no treay trumps the laws of the US nor the Constituition.
 
#55 ·
Do you know what the NRA does? Eddy Eagle to teach young children gun safety. Safety classes. And encouraging personal responsibility in enforcing gun laws already on the books. Besides other anti crime programs.

What more would you have them do?

No matter what anyone does...and anti gunners will not stop until guns are taken out of the hands of citizens. There is nothing else in their warped minds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stubborn
#54 ·
First and foremost, the NRA is a business and there to solely make profits. There secondary goal is to promote 2nd amendment issues for the benefit of their members. They have had a positive impact in promoting our gun rights along with GOA and other gun rights organizations. I pay my membership yearly because about every four years or so they say or do something so stupid, it makes me glad I'm not a life member, and I drop them for a few years but eventually come back. Playing to your fears is not a new concept at all. It's an effective means to separate you from your hard earned money. Still, all in all, the NRA in my opinion is well worth the membership to help protect and promote our gun RIGHTS. When guns become a privilege to own like a drivers license, we're all toast, so we need organizations like the NRA, however imperfect their views are to my own.
 
#56 ·
Since I keep getting referenced, let me be crystal clear on my question one last time because after that I give.....what particular issues is Wayne spinning? So we say that the UN Treaty will not trump the constitution, but he also says that a second term Obama will appoint supreme court justices that will over turn the Heller case and declare 2A unconstitutional. What about that?
 
#57 · (Edited)
Since I keep getting referenced, let me be crystal clear on my question one last time because after that I give.....what particular issues is Wayne spinning? So we say that the UN Treaty will not trump the constitution, but he also says that a second term Obama will appoint supreme court justices that will over turn the Heller case and declare 2A unconstitutional. What about that?
OK, I am nor Constitutional lawyer but as far as I know SCOTUS rules if laws are legal under ourConstitution, not if part of the Constitution is Unconstituitonal. Now, do you see spin and fear mongering in that sentence you wrote I have in bold??Your words not mine. They will rule the 2A is unconstituionaal. Yeah, LMAO on that one. Actually that is beyond hillarious if someone beleives it. I can see them making a ruling in a case that come before them effectively nullifying the Heller decision, but declare part of the constituiton un constituional.....
 
#61 ·
Do I agree with the NRA 100% of the time ? No, but I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. I'm fix'in to celebrate my 38th wedding anniversary in a couple of months and I don't agree with my wife any where near 100% of the time, but I ain't go'n to run her off because we don't agree on all things or because she snores, either. I do believe that without the NRA our gun rights would look a lot different today than they do and not for the better. I paid out my life membership $25 a quarter because back when I did it it was the only was I could afford it. I now give to them regularly and a much as I can. Heck, the fact that almost all the media and the left end of the political spectrum hates the NRA so bad is enough to make me want to support them.
 
#65 ·
Egotistical, fear-mongering jerk is Mr LaPierre. Were he and the NRA a little less strident and more understanding of the legitimate concerns of those in the middle (neither pros nor antis) the more likely the Second Amendment would be preserved. Most in this country distaste extremist organizations--and that is what the NRA is under present leadership.
 
#70 ·
Coming back late...

1. Yes I know what the NRA does. I am a Life Member. I do not equate Eddie Eagle, safety lessons, etc. with "anti-violence efforts." All their programs are geared toward safety (preventing accidental violence) not purposeful violence.

2. To those that think the SCOTUS will honor the Constitution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: US Constitution Not That Great - Ricochet.com

Ginsburg to Egypt on writing a Constitution Feb 2012:

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
This one statement should have been the basis for Impeachment. Alas, she's still there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phreddy
#71 ·
Coming back late...

1. Yes I know what the NRA does. I am a Life Member. I do not equate Eddie Eagle, safety lessons, etc. with "anti-violence efforts." All their programs are geared toward safety (preventing accidental violence) not purposeful violence.

2. To those that think the SCOTUS will honor the Constitution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: US Constitution Not That Great - Ricochet.com

Ginsburg to Egypt on writing a Constitution Feb 2012:
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
This one statement should have been the basis for Impeachment. Alas, she's still there.
I understand the point you are making. One thing that most do not realize that is a major difference between the US and S. Africa though.. The US is a Constitutional Republic of Several Sovereign States where the STATE of S. Africa is a singular democratic state that is more socialist than even those who call us a Democracy erroneously will admit. Please refer to Article 4 Section 4 of our US Constitution.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
#72 ·
There are 2 NRAs. One is the freaky zealousness of LaPierre and his ilk. The other is hunting and safety advocacy. I belong to the NRA for its defense of the 2A and safety and training programs, which are second to none.

If you want to be trained on safe handling and home defense concepts, an NRA instructor will be a good choice.
 
#74 ·
I have finally found some of the Treaties text and for all of those that I cited above.. the language is basically the same..
It says.
Resolution: Text of Resolution of Adivce and Consent to Ratification as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations:
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of (whichever treaty it is dealing with) subject to the following understandings:
(1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
(2) The United States shall not consider this convention as the legal basis for extradition of citizens to any country with which the United States has no bilateral extradition treaty in force.
(3) Pursuant to the rights of the United States under Article 7 of this treaty to deny requests which prejudice its essential interests, the United States shall deny a request for assistance when the designated authority, after consultation with all appropriate intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign policy agencies, has specific information that a senior government official who will have access to information to be provided under this treaty is engaged in or facilitates the production or distribution of illegal drugs.

The impound I am aware of occured in the early 1990's so I am looking for a treaty prior to that date. The Treaties cited above were Ratified October 24, 1989.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#75 ·
I have finally found some of the Treaties text and for all of those that I cited above.. the language is basically the same~~snip
Even in those, the full text of the Treaty is not to be found.. I have found earlier treaties that again the full text is not available. But these are interesting in that they do not limit the treaty to non-conflicting with the Constitution like the others I posted links to..
Here is the full text that I have found on them.
Treaty Number: 90-7
Old Number: Ex. G, 90th Congress, 1st Session
Transmitted: March 08, 1967
Short Title: SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS , 1961
Countries: multilateral
Senate Executive Report(s): 90-11
Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 11, 90-1
Legislative Actions
Floor Action: March 08, 1967 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Floor Action: May 03, 1967 - Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 90-11.
Floor Action: May 08, 1967 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 84-0. Record Vote No: 106 EX.
Index Terms :
DRUGS
NARCOTIC DRUGS
NARCOTICS
SINGLE CONVENTION
Control Number: 090TD00007
~~~
Treaty Number: 92-7
Old Number: Ex. G, 92nd Congress, 1st Session
Transmitted: June 29, 1971
Short Title: CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
Countries: n/a
Senate Executive Report(s): 96-29
Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 96-29
Legislative Actions
Floor Action: June 29, 1971 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Floor Action: February 14, 1980 - Reported by Senator Church Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 96-29.
Floor Action: March 20, 1980 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 92-0. Record Vote No: 58 EX.
Index Terms :
CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
DRUGS
PSYCHOTROPIC
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
Control Number: 092TD00007
~~~
Treaty Number: 92-21
Old Number: Ex. I, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session
Transmitted: April 11, 1972
Short Title: CONVENTION ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY
Countries: n/a
Senate Executive Report(s): 92-31
Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 92-31
Legislative Actions
Floor Action: April 11, 1972 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Floor Action: August 08, 1972 - Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 92-31.
Floor Action: August 11, 1972 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 79-0. Record Vote No: 375 EX.
Index Terms :
DRUGS
LEGAL METROLOGY
METROLOGY
NARCOTIC DRUGS
NARCOTICS
ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY
SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS
Control Number: 092TD00021
~~~
Treaty Number: 92-22
Old Number: Ex. J, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session
Transmitted: May 04, 1972
Short Title: PROTOCOL AMENDING THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961
Countries: n/a
Senate Executive Report(s): 92-33
Related Document(s): Ex. Rept. 92-33
Legislative Actions
Floor Action: May 04, 1972 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations by unanimous consent.
Floor Action: September 08, 1972 - Reported by Senator Fulbright Committee on Foreign Relations, with printed report - Ex.Rept. 92-33.
Floor Action: September 18, 1972 - Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay vote. 69-0. Record Vote No: 440 EX.
Index Terms :
DRUGS
NARCOTIC DRUGS
NARCOTICS
SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS
Control Number: 092TD00022
~~~
If more information can be found out about these to know for certain what the full language was so that we know what laws may have been required to comply with these Treaties, that would be what is needed.
 
#76 ·
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nobody has disputed treaties have verbage that is contrary to the Constitution. The question is which has precedence. And the SCOTUS opinion I cited earlier is not outdated like you said. As far as I know there has not been another ruling by SCOTUS that says a treaty trumps the Constitution. Sorry about your friend...but if he feels that the reason his car was impounded or whatever becasue of a treaty and not US law then I suggest he takes it to the SCOTUS. I am serious, they are the ones that rule on the constituionality of things. Not you nor I. Do you know of any SCOTUS ruling that says a treaty overides the Constitution? If not the previous opinion stands. Treaties do not.
 
#77 ·
snip ~~ The question is which has precedence. And the SCOTUS opinion I cited earlier is not outdated like you said. As far as I know there has not been another ruling by SCOTUS that says a treaty trumps the Constitution. Sorry about your friend...but if he feels that the reason his car was impounded or whatever becasue of a treaty and not US law then I suggest he takes it to the SCOTUS. I am serious, they are the ones that rule on the constituionality of things.~~snip
I understand the question and I understand the implications. The Constitution itself say's that treaties become the law of the land, which is why if the SCOTUS is going to rule that a Treaty can not effect US Law, I would like to see the actual case and full language of the Treaty as well as the Senate Ratification.

That is why for anything the Senate feels should not trump the Constitution.. they have been putting in the language that the Treaty does not effect the US Constitution or US Law.

As for the acquaintance, he was a doctor that worked at a Hospital I worked as an Armed Security Officer at, and when I left that area, to the best of my knowledge, he was going to fight it/has fought it as far as he felt was realistically worth the effort and he kept hitting a wall with each court telling him that the Treaty made it so and since Treaties become the law of the Land, once ratified.. He had no recourse.. that is why I keep watching for it to make it further, though doubtful now after 20 plus years. No one has been able to show me where what he was saying is BS.. and reading what I have been reading for the last 20 years confirms in my mind that he was not BS'ing.

Just saying..
 
#86 ·
As a 50+ year member of the NRA it distresses me that La Pierre is pandering to the conspiracy theorists. Over the years i donated a lot of hard earned money to the NRA: That has ceased.

My donations to the NRA-PVF may resume when La Pierre and the NRA get off this conspiracy theory kick. i will never again donate one red cent to the NRA-ILA.

From Reid vs. Covert:

Reid v. Covert

Underlining mine:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
 
#87 ·
@LkWd_Don
Look, could you parse information anymore to fit your view of something. This was discussed last year in depth and every talking head on tv from left to right who are Constitutional lawyers are all in agreement that a Treaty does not trump the Constitution. I have said I do not have a degree in law. But I have yet to see anyone that has credentials agree with you.

This is what you quoted:
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

In fairness I can parse stuff also. This is the LAST sentence in that paragraph that you qouted:
The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
 
#90 ·
@LkWd_Don
Look, could you parse information anymore to fit your view of something. This was discussed last year in depth and every talking head on tv from left to right who are Constitutional lawyers are all in agreement that a Treaty does not trump the Constitution. I have said I do not have a degree in law. But I have yet to see anyone that has credentials agree with you.:
Please provide credible source cites. I have about bent over backward providing justification, it is now your turn.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top