NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

[David and Maureen Codrea]

Just a  quick and abbreviated response:

In re what Ashcroft can do as head of the DoJ:  same thing they did after
the 14th Am- protect rkba and other rights, albeit they did it there
selectively.  I'd like to see the DoJ prosecute a gov. agency for denying a
citizen their 2A rights.  You can bet THAT case would make it up to SCOTUS
post-haste. Don't think that's likely, due to "pragmatism" and "compromise".
I am heartened to see Metaja denied advancement- we shall see how they
continue with Emerson, and if they pursue the current DoJ position...

In re Project Exile, sorry, but you did not really answer my questions.
While you don't mind if the fedgov usurps powers not enumerated to them if
the cause is 'worthwhile', ie, taking a gangbanger off the streets, I am
concerned more with the gov assuming powers that are not theirs- as heinous
as the criminals are, they wreak nowhere near the human carnage and misery
that governments unbound do- how much further down this slope are YOU
willing to tolerate our descent?  And, again, yeah, I know NRA says they are
only to use such laws against really really REALLY bad guys- but my point
is, and you have not refuted it, they CAN be applied to anyone.  To think
that a government, already operating extra-Constitutionally, is going to be
ever bound by the niceties of interpreting the application of their
"illegal" laws according to how the NRA wants them to do it, does not
compute with me.  I think your good intentions may just be paving the road
to Hell here- probably not under Bush, but what about under Pres. Hillary?
Sorry, no matter the motive, I just don't think the ends justify the means
here.

I don't recall advocating political firing squads, but as long as you bring
it up, let me add one qualifier- I hope you agree with me that their jury of
peers should be fully informed triers of law as well as fact?

That's it for me on this.  "Uncle!"

Best,
David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal J. Lang" <movwater at bellsouth.net>
To: "David Codrea (E-mail)" <codrea4 at home.com>
Cc: <Director at KeepAndBearArms.com>; <air.man at att.net>;
<brian at citizensofamerica.org>; <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>;
<George at Orwellian.Org>; <declan at well.com>; <freematt at coil.com>;
<dial911book at yahoo.com>; <lrrankin at silcom.com>; "Peter Mancus (E-mail)"
<pmancus at prodigy.net>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?


> E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang
>
> Hi, Dave,
> Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply.  Sorry about the
salutation
> mix-up.
> NRA Candidate Ratings:
> Rep. Ron Paul: Aside from reiterating that politics is based on the art of
> compromise, let me state that I was unaware of Congressman Ron Paul's
(whom
> I consider a giant in the area of all rights, not just the 2A) NRA "B"
> rating.  I will of course query the NRA (as I do whenever I learn of such
> inconsistencies).  Not wishing to be seen as an apologist, I suppose they
> might suggest that Rep. Paul's opposition to a NRA supported Bill earned
> him such a grade.  After all, it is the NRA's rating system, so I suppose
> they can provide the criteria. Again, being unaware of the particulars
> (what Bill did Rep. Paul oppose? why? and why it was so important to the
> NRA?) would help my evaluation of this specific situation. On its face,
let
> me express my disappointment (might I say sadness) in the NRA's chevalier
> treatment of someone I consider a hero.
> Rep. Mary Bono:  In the Rep. Mary Bono rating, maybe I would chalk that
one
> up to wishful thinking.  I believe her vote was reliable in Congress.  So,
> while perfection is reserved only for God and his Son, I might not be too
> worried about this particular rating.
> Senate Trent Lott:  Here we agree, as I have long advocated the Senator
> from Mississippi be replace as GOP Senate Leader with the senior Senator
> from Texas.  I personally blame Senator Lott for the loss of Republican
> control of the Senate.  Not because he didn't "kiss Senator Jeffords'
> butt", but because he did.  A stronger performance on his part in
> leadership from 1996 - 2000 would have left less Republican carcasses on
> the ground after the last election, IMMHO.  That said, you don't get to be
> the "Most Influential Lobby in Washington" without "kissing some butt".  I
> guess a case could be made that the Majority Leader of the Senate is as
> good as any, if you really must "kiss butt".
> Now, on balance, my friend, "like making sausage", effective politics
> "ain't very pretty".  I concede that sometimes the NRA "ratings scope"
> might beg for some "fine tuning".  However, to "rate" the NRA as the moral
> equivalent to HCI, BCPGV, or whatever "alphabet soup" the "forces of evil"
> have most recently metastasized into, really ventures way beyond
> "hyperbole", IMMHO.
> IN RE Mr. Ashcroft:
> I agree that you did not mention Mr. Ashcroft, while your "rant" (your
word
> not mine - I prefer "passioned appeal") was at the end of a chain of
> e-mails that did (see cc:'s to my e-mail).  I, myself, do not know why the
> Editors at the NRA decided to leave out General Ashcroft's footnotes when
> they published his GREAT letter.  I concur it would have been much better
> to include said footnotes.
> However, while you attribute this (oversight?) to some "dastardly plot" or
> "total incompetence", I am a little more charitable.  Maybe the
journalists
> at the NRA thought including that the "Attorney General commits to uphold
> the law" was a little like publishing a story about a "dog biting a man".
> I note that you loving cite "Marbury v. Madison" as establishing the
> supremacy of the Fed Law over all else (by the way, did you know some
> observers reference this case as the beginning of the "slippery slope" we
> are rapidly descending today).  Interestingly the phraseology "compelling
> state interest" comes from a long line of Supreme Court cases (mostly on
> free speech).  So the accusation against General Ashcroft seems to be that
> he is somehow violating Marbury vs. Madison by adhering to say Victoria
> Buckley, Secretary of State of Colorado v. American Constitution Law
> Foundation, Inc., et al. (1999).  This "free political speech" case turns
> on "compelling state interest".  Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring
> opinion uses that exact phraseology in its opening paragraph:
> Justice Thomas , concurring in the judgment. When considering the
constitutionality of a state election regulation that
> restricts core political speech or imposes "severe burdens" on speech or
> association, we have generally required that the law be narrowly tailored
> to serve a compelling state interest. But if the law imposes "lesser
> burdens," we have said that the State's important regulatory interests are
> generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory
restrictions.
> The Court today appears to depart from this now-settled approach. In my
> view, Colorado's badge, registration, and reporting requirements each must
> be evaluated under strict scrutiny. Judged by that exacting standard, I
> agree with the majority that each of the challenged regulations violates
> the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and accordingly concur only in the
> judgment.  (See the complete opinion at:
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&c
> ase=/us/000/97%2D930.html )
> I suppose in your U.S. of A. the Executive Branch officer, in this case
the
> A.G. makes the call on Constitutionality despite opinions from the
Supremes
> right on point.  I think that would violate the "Original Intent" big
time,
> IMMHO.  I (politely) suggest that you re-read Articles I through III and
> see exactly what General Ashcroft took an oath to defend and preserve.
> I think Karl Marx envisioned that wonderful utopia where everyone makes
his
> own laws.  I believe they call it anarchy.  Going back to the basics,
Dave,
> we must first understand why "men institute governments".  According to
the
> "Declaration of Independence" it is to "secure these Rights".  What
rights?
>  The "Natural Rights of  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
>  That is the only reason for governments to exist (at least according to
> our founders).  Soooo!  The only acceptable "compelling state interest"
> must be related to securing these "Natural Rights".  Nothing else can be
> "compelling", IMMHO.  IMMHO, both Justice Thomas and General Ashcroft feel
> the same.
> Would a future Supreme Court Associate Justice Ashcroft have adjudicated a
> future Miller v. U.S. differently than the 1939 Supremes?  I truly believe
> he would.  Will we ever get to find out?  No, that letter causing all the
> "weeping and gnashing of teeth" he wrote and shared with World probably
> ended any chance for his nomination to the bench, much less his
> confirmation.  Can you say BORKING!  What's more, I believe he knew it,
but
> wrote the letter anyway, because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.  That is
> courage, IMMHO.  Something we should be celebrating, not disparaging.
> IN RE NRA practices and tactics:
> Organizational politics are the pits, I agree.  When (way back in '06) I
> was State VP for the NJ Jaycees, I had a losing battle with one of my best
> friend (at the time President of my local Jaycees Chapter) over the State
> Presidential candidate to support.  He ended up having our Chapter support
> the WRONG (IMMHO) candidate, who lost, and thereby reduced the
> effectiveness of our Chapter in Jaycee State politics.  He promised to,
and
> then reneged on, allowing me to address the Chapter's delegates before
> making the final decision on which candidate to support.  I haven't spoken
> to him since.  But as Chapter President he had the "power" to call the
> shots.
> One of the reasons that the NRA is an effective organization, is because
> they know how to play "hardball politics".  Just ask Bill Clinton and Al
> Gore.  While it would be nice if "Robert's Rules of Order" applied to
> organizational "power" (control) politics, the fact is that they don't.
>  "Can't all we just get along?"
> IN RE gun laws that have been passed on the "winning team's" watch:
> Dave, the worst "Gun Law" passed in the 20th Century was the "Gun Control
> Act of 1968".  That passed in the form that it did because the NRA at the
> time (I was a member because I liked their magazine) was asleep.  After
> that wakeup call they have been pretty much on top of the game.  They know
> how to count votes as well (maybe better) than any party's "floor whip".
>  They know when to fight, and they know when to negotiate a "better deal".
> "Galvanizing the gun owners" can be done, but I submit that it is BEST
DONE
> BY THE NRA, IMMHO.  For example please see the 1994 Election.  Now if you
> are fair, Dave, you will agree that as far getting "gun owners" to the
> polls, the NRA is the real 800 lb. gorilla.  Getting the 80 million or so
> "gun owners" seems to be a real challenge.  After 8 years of the
President,
> the AG (General Janet "Judge Dredd - I am da law" Reno) and their cast of
> thousands crapping all over the 2nd Amendment, I submit that in 2000
> "gun-owner voter turn-out" was quite "under-whelming". Possibly a large
> number of them voted for Gore figuring he was just a "good ole boy from
> Tennessee.
> IN RE "Project Exile":
> I have yet to see any NRA article, infomercial, advertisement, position
> paper or statement stating that "Project Exile" should "target"
> Lautenberg-type "firearms regulation violators".  If you know of any,
> please provide them to me.  When I queried the NRA on that very subject
> they stated that they believe that the purpose of "Project Exile" is to
> crack-down on felons illegally possessing "firearms".  I agree.  If there
> are felons working my neighborhood, illegally carrying a firearm, I would
> prefer them put-away, thank you very much.  Does the State have
"compelling
> interest" in do just that?  IMMHO, YES.  After all the first "Natural
> Right" that government is "instituted to secure" is the "Right to Life".
>  If Mr. Felon is plying his "B & E" trade in my neighborhood "packing
> heat", I would be most appreciative of "Boca's finest" taking him "off the
> street" (on a gun violation) before he is surprised by my wife returning
> from the mall unexpectedly, and he shoots her to death.
> I have no problem with that type of "Project Exile", Dave.  If you do, I
> guess we agree to disagree.  According to everything I have read about the
> NRA's position that is exactly the way they see "Project Exile" working.
>   CRIMINAL, not CITIZEN DISARMAMENT, Dave.
> An indication that this tact on the NRA's part has been effective is the
> change seen in the opposition.  It's hard to find today calls for more
"gun
> regulation" based on criminal miss-use from the anti-rights folks.  The
new
> manta is "Firearms Safety".  Why?  Because the NRA has been so effective
in
> undermining the illogic of new gun control legislation based on "criminal
> use" when current "criminal gun laws" on the books are not being enforced.
>  Americans can be quite logical sometimes, as polls on this very issue
have
> shown.  Quite a clever and effective ploy on the part of the NRA, IMMHO.
> As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, I believe that both cases centered on the
> "Firearms Act of 1934".  Pretty much a "tax evasion case".  The only case
> on the Act to reach the Supremes was Miller v. U.S.  The court did not
> exactly find the 1934 Act Constitutional, merely opining that the Feds
> could tax firearms of "no militia value" (in Miller's case a
short-barreled
> shotgun).  I wonder how the decision would come out had Miller been caught
> with a Thompson?  Hmmm!  Of course that is the very thing Randy Weaver was
> indicted for - possession of an Untaxed (and Registered) short-barreled
> shotgun.  The Branch Davidians case may have also involved the 1980's ban
> on new "fully auto weapons", however, even though I believe they had a
> Class 3 firearms dealer license.   Personally, I think in both cases the
> government was trying to "take out" the suspects in order to avoid a
> possible challenge before the Supremes of these laws.
> Allowing that the Miller Court never even looked at exactly where, under
> "Commerce Cause", the "Firearms Act of 1934" might fit, I would love to
see
> the current Supremes take a case on this federal law.  Justice Thomas'
> opinion (either for the majority, in dissent or in concurrence) should be
> priceless, IMMHO.
> IN RE your premise on pragmatism and compromise:
> Dave, it real tough to talk about rebellion, when we can't even get our
> "forces" to polls.  Lets look at both "slavery" and the "right to keep and
> bear arms".  One reason the 2nd Amendment was proposed and finally
accepted
> to the Constitution is the concept that "you cannot make slaves of armed
> men".   This concept goes back at least to Aristotle and possibly further.
>  How does one justify a "unalienable right to keep and bear arms" for all
> men, based in part as a bulwark against "slavery", being included in a
> document that institutes a government that condones that very institution?
>  If anyone can answer that question for me, I would sincerely appreciate
> it.
> The fact is, Dave, whether I would ask them or not,  both Patrick Henry
and
> Samuel Adams (as well as Tom Jefferson, and James Madison, and George
> Washington, and John Adams, et. al.) did compromise.  The "Declaration of
> Independence" was a compromise (Tom Jefferson wanted an anti-slavery
> statement but didn't get it from the Continental Congress).  The
> Constitution of the United States was a compromise. (Read the Debates of
> the Federal Convention at: http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm -
> to see how much a compromise.)  The "Bill of Rights" was a compromise.
>  James Madison didn't want them added to his Constitution, even after he
> proposed them.  (See Madison Proposal to Congress for a Bill of Rights at:
> http://www.jmu.edu/madison/madprobll.htm#  - to see how much its author
> compromised.)
> I, too, consider myself a "purest" when comes to both "fly-fishing" (dry
> flies only, if the trout wont take dries - screw them) and "Natural
> Rights".  While governments are (should be) instituted only for the
purpose
> of "securing the People's Natural Rights" they seldom, if ever, met this
> goal.  "Natural Rights" are not capable of being compromised, IMMHO.  Why?
>  "Unalienable" means that even you cannot give-up your "right to Life,
> Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".   How then can you compromise an
> absolute?  It would be like compromising on "gravity".  You or I just
> can't.
> Where the compromise comes into play is in politics.  If the founders did
> not want politics (and compromise) to be part of the equation, the
> Constitution would have instituted a government based on a King or
> dictator, rather than giving all the power to the most political body -
the
> legislature.  The question is where to draw the line.  Apparently the
> founders decided that the line could be drawn on the other side of
slavery,
> because that is what they did.  This then begs the question, if the
> "institution" (slavery) can be compromised on, why can't the defenses
> against "slavery" - such as the "right to keep and bear arms"?  Again, we
> are confronted with a conundrum.  It is a political conundrum from a
> political document, the U.S. Constitution.
> Being an absolutist on "Natural Rights" (as found in the "Declaration of
> Independence") helps.  But don't look for your "rock" in the
> "Constitution".  It ain't there in that "political" document.  That is why
> I have always contended that our "right to keep and bear arms" cannot
> solely rely on the "Parchment Defence" of the Constitution and the 2nd
> Amendment.  IMMHO, our strongest defence is in the words of Jefferson, not
> Madison.  We need to use our "Natural Rights" as the reason we must enjoy

> the "right to keep and bear arms".
> As for "Civil Disobedience", the essence of which is, as both Gandhi and
> King would tell you, if you are prepared to be jailed for your beliefs.  I
> suppose I am.  I haven't been confronted with the opportunity, so I do not
> know how I would react.  It's "seeing the elephant".  I haven't seen war
> (civil or otherwise) so I really don't know how I would react when the
> bullets are flying, shells are bursting, and my friends are dying around
> me.  I like to think I would be brave, a hero even - but, in truth, I just
> don't know.
> I concur (wholeheartedly) about continuing to work within the system.
>  After all, one of the "biggies" for the founders was "taxation without
> representation".  So far we can still vote for those guys that tax us
> beyond the "Medieval Serfs".  IMMHO, the "showdown" if (or when) it comes
> will not be over the "right to keep and bear arms" but over some other
item
> (items) of individual rights.  You will note that none of the items
> included in King George's indictment in the "Declaration of Independence"
> includes "citizen disarmament" (although we know such took place).  The
> real challenge for us "gun nuts" is to insure that sufficiently numerous
> armed citizens exist if (when) the "scat hits the bladed cooling device".
> As for Chuck Heston's (Moses?) gesture with a "musket", obviously it was
> symbolic.  Is he a true hero?  I think so.  His ideas and mine are pretty
> close, at least based on his speeches and his book (I have an autographed
> copy - To: "Smokewagon" From: "Chuck Heston").  I think he believes in
> freedom, Dave, no matter what he thinks about the AK47.  I believe many
> "pro-rights" people have attacked him unfairly.  It took real courage,
> IMMHO, for someone from Hollywood to get so involved in 2nd Amendment
> rights.  I think he did "the cause" a whole lot of good. I say, "God bless
> him."  Would he "go to the mattresses" if the need arose?  I really think

> he would.  He was, after all, already arrested for "civil disobedience"
> during "civil rights marches" in the 1960's.
> As for "civil disobedience" regarding California's "assault weapon" ban, I
> suggest you use the General Ashcroft test for the Constitutionality of
"Gun
> Control Laws".  That is does the State of California have a "compelling
> interest" in banning certain semi-automatic and ugly (in the eyes of the
> beholder) firearms.  Unless the Government of the State of California
> (Republic of California actually - see the U.S. Constitution) can show
> where such a ban helps "secure the People's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
> of Happiness", such a law could be and should be the cause of "Civil
> Disobedience".  Go ahead, Dave, "Dump the tea in the harbor".  But be
> prepared, as the "Sons of Liberty" were, to "pay the piper".
> Remember, however, Dave, based on the Constitution and Jurisprudence
> starting even before Marbury v. Madison, that only what the Supremes deem
> as unconstitutional is unconstitutional.  Remember, also, that the
Supremes
> believe that privacy (arguably a civil right) trumps "Life" which is a
> "Natural Right", at least according to the "Declaration of Independence".
>  I would not be surprised that the Supremes might find that the State
> (especially Style-conscious California) would have a "state compelling
> interest" in banning "ugly firearms".  After all, they clash with so much
> of the really hip beachwear don't they?
> While I really feel sorry for you guys in the "Republic (Peoples?) of
> California", I note that in the 2000 Election cycle "the People" (sheeple)
> of California decided (overwhelmingly) instead for throwing "the
> Oppressors" out - they would make rather us all suffer their same fate.
>  Hardly encouraging when you are planning a political turn-around, much
> less a successful rebellion, IMMHO.
> Dave, while I am "four square" by your side in the idea that some
> "politicians" (oppressors) probably should be tried (due process by all
> means) and then executed, I am merely trying to raise the fact that
> "circular firing squad formations" may be hazardous to your health.
> Please stay the course, my friend.  I will continue to read with much
> pleasure (and usually much amusement) your excellent verbal rockets.
> Keep the Faith,
>
> Neal
> Neal J. Lang (Signed)
> E-mail: movwater at bellsouth.net
>
>
>