Might the Firearms Policy Coalition elbow the NRA aside politically?

[friendly_iconoclast]

I don't know, but I'd certainly like to see them try...

I posted in GD concerning this very subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022140356

The NRA might be replaced by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

[gejohnston]

1. I love their homepage

as much as the NRA gets credit or blame, the real heavy lifting is done by SAF and others. If these folks take over and the NRA goes back to safety, training, pro environmental stuff, like the pre Carter, Nugent etc. I think that would be a good thing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. It would be a very good thing indeed...

[GrayCoyote]

3. Of course, Graham and other uninformed others are saying that this is just the NRA changing a name..

Their complete lack of knowledge is stunning. To the point where I had to post this:

Just like them to change the name to something

that is the antithesis to their intent

You would actually be wrong. The Firearms Policy Coalition is actually made up of groups that have tangled in opposition to the NRA-ILA (the lobbying wing of the NRA) numerous times. For example, District of Columbia v. Heller, the original case which cleared up the 2nd amendment's application to individuals, was bitterly opposed by the National Rifle Association and was subject to one attempt at taking over the Heller (which at the time was called Parker v. District of Columbia).

ALAN GURA knew how opposed the NRA was to this lawsuit, so he was shocked that he hadn’t heard anything from the NRA people after filing the complaint. Then, two months later, Gura received an unexpected notice from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the same court in which he brought his lawsuit. The NRA had filed its own lawsuit challenging the D.C. gun laws, and the lead attorney in Seegars v. Ashcroft, the NRA’s case, was Steve Halbrook.

....At the same time, Halbrook also filed a motion to “consolidate” his case with Gura’s. Consolidation is a legal procedure whereby two separate cases are joined together for one trial, before the same judge, because they raise similar issues. By trying to consolidate the two cases, the NRA was trying to hijack Gura’s case and force the court to consider the trap door claims. To Gura, it was obvious that the NRA was “frustrated by” his “unwillingness to adopt its recommendations.” So the NRA “decided to take matters into its own hands.”

Gura filed a motion with the court opposing consolidation of the two cases. Court filings are usually sedate, but Gura’s anger was palpable. The NRA’s effort was “untimely, ill-conceived and inappropriate,” Gura told the
court. Not only were the two cases substantively different—the trap door claims wouldn’t have to be addressed in Gura’s suit—but the NRA’s case was really just “sham litigation.” Gura’s motion said the Seegars case was “motivated not by a bona fide desire” to challenge the D.C. gun laws, “but by the improper strategic goals of . . . the National Rifle Association.”34 In July 2003, the district court judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, agreed that the two cases should not be consolidated.

The NRA, of course, was not known for backing down from a fight. It hadn’t become a political powerhouse by accepting “no” for an answer. If the NRA couldn’t kill Gura’s lawsuit in court, it would simply move the clash to a battlefield where the NRA had a long track record of success: Capitol Hill. A week after Judge Sullivan decided not to join together the two cases, the NRA had Senator Orrin Hatch, one of its staunchest allies in Washington, introduce a bill in Congress designed to render the Gura lawsuit moot. Dubbed the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,” Hatch’s bill would overturn the D.C. gun laws and permit District residents to possess handguns. If passed, Gura’s case would be thrown out of court, and there would be no Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.
....
“Essentially, the NRA is saying, ‘If we can’t control the litigation, there won’t be any litigation.’” In Levy’s view, Hatch’s proposal was a bad idea on the merits. While it would give D.C. residents access to firearms for self-defense, the law could be reversed by a more liberal Congress in future years. A ruling by the Supreme Court was more durable.36 While the

Winkler, Adam (2011-09-12). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America (p. 59-62). Norton. Kindle Edition.

NRA-ILA tried to kill the case that would have protected 2A at least some ways that the NRA wanted, taking "confiscation of handguns" off of the table. It was all about protecting NRA's fundraising, in reality. Basically, the FPC is the opposition to the NRA, the more legalistically minded rather than politically minded organization, and not a Christian Dominionist Front Group like GOA (Gun Owners of America). When they say "away from partisan politics", they mean not being so tied into Republican politics, and more willingness to use the court system effectively to stop legislation from taking effect.

Also, in addition: FPC's coalition organizations don't have anyone on their boards are:

1) A washed up has been rock star who shat his pants to avoid serving in Vietnam, bangs girls under age of consent, calls women "c-nts", and does illegal hunting.
2) A former Secretary of State who did everything to screw up the vote in 2004 in Ohio
3) A guy who helped set up the Iran-Contra dealings (Ollie North)
4) A woman who is on-again/off-again a state lobbyist for the National Organization for Marriage.
5) A man who directly called gay people degenerates.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. I think what UL said to GaugEldare in that thread is disgusting.

[jimmy the one]

5. wayne & ted leaving would improve nra

link: the NRA had {R} Senator Orrin Hatch, one of its staunchest allies in Washington, introduce a bill in Congress designed to render the Gura lawsuit moot. Dubbed the “DC Personal Protection Act,” Hatch’s bill would overturn D.C. gun laws and permit District residents to possess handguns. If passed, Gura’s case would be thrown out of court, and there would be no Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.

Which, pardoxically, was what gun CONTROL advocates at the time, supported - were end played into supporting.
Realizing that the supreme court was likely dependent upon one member, kennedy, who had expressed pro gun sentiments, gun control advocates pressed DC mayor to cave in and support hatch's bill to allow handguns in DC, but DC mayor was adamant against it & would not.
Created the dilemma for us to have to support 'handguns legal in DC', and argue against the DC handgun ban, so as to preserve the sanctity of the militia interpretation of 2nA.

The whole mess can be traced to gwbush being selected in 2000 election, by the very supreme court essentially. Had al gore been president there would've been a different more liberal supreme court composition, no 2ndA challenge by gura or the right, handguns still illegal in chicago & DC, and, well, NO IRAQ WAR.

I think the nra will be blunted only by either the retirement of it's chief executive lapierre (la-conman), or upon his death. Then removal of ted nugent from the nra as well (I Presume he's still on the board of directors). NRA - Nugent's Rotten Affiliates.
Nutty Rightwingers, Armed.

For all their huff'n'puff about voting out guncontrol candidates, their own nra members only vote in their own nra elections about a 5% turnout (jack anderson ~96 book, 'inside the nra, armed & dangerous, at your library maybe). Like to elect lapierre & nugent I suppose. IOW they could vote the bums out, but evidently 95% don't give a ratsass about who leads them. So they ratsasses do it.