Firearms rights organization in action.

[torpedoman]

SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
BELLEVUE, WA - Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state's prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year's landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday's appeals court win - forcing a temporary injunction against the city's ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced - that "Even Chicago politicians must respect the people's fundamental civil rightsGun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city's intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.""Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois' law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction," said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs."Yesterday's win was a wake-up call to Chicago," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Today's motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state's total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday's ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago's gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today's motion are key components of SAF's overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time."
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right. [/size][/font]

[Redhawk1]

Check what the NRA did March 13 2011.. 
 
http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/nra-files-lawsuit-in-illinois-against-unconstitutional-firearms-ban/

[Redhawk1]

You are so busy trying to put out information, as if the NRA has nothing to do with any of this, as you eluded to in your post on the other thread. Why don't you quit trying to but down the NRA, and get over your childish attacks that are unwarranted.  Instead of working agents the NRA, try supporting a pro-gun group. Also learn how legislation works.

[Graybeard]

Alex, read the first line or two of this part of his quote:
 

BELLEVUE, WA - Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state's prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

 
SAF was the one who filed the original and took it to the Supreme Court. The NRA horned in and stole some of their time in front of the court and could have cost the victory but luckily didn't.
 
This says following their victory on Wednesday they filed today. Meaning that most likely the date of that article was the same week or week following the date the decision was handed down. I'm pretty sure I recall they did it about as immediately as they could.
 
Why don't you take your NRA blinders off and accept that there actually are other groups fighting the good fight and that the NRA isn't always first.

[sidewinder319]

In some cases very dedicated members of the Democratic Party really hates the NRA. They see the NRA as a threat to their liberal causes.  The Left Wing puts NRA hate mail out by the tons.  It is very obvious these are antigun driven groups. Other wise why would anyone attack 4 million American gun owners with such savage zeal?? They go so far as to attack dedicated NRA Certified Inst. who volunteer their time to support safe hunting, 4H Shooting, CCW Trng. The states do not provide Trng for these programs, we do it  when asked. The Left is moving to challenge and stop NRA Intrs. from supporting these programs. We are seeing more of this kind of propaganda on all the shooting forums.

[Redhawk1]

Alex, read the first line or two of this part of his quote:
 

BELLEVUE, WA - Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state's prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

 
SAF was the one who filed the original and took it to the Supreme Court. The NRA horned in and stole some of their time in front of the court and could have cost the victory but luckily didn't.
 
This says following their victory on Wednesday they filed today. Meaning that most likely the date of that article was the same week or week following the date the decision was handed down. I'm pretty sure I recall they did it about as immediately as they could.
 
Why don't you take your NRA blinders off and accept that there actually are other groups fighting the good fight and that the NRA isn't always first.

 
And how many times have you seen where if the NRA did not step in, that it would not have gone anywhere. I am not the one with the blinders on here.

[Redhawk1]

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), was a landmark^[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.^[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.^[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.^[4]
 
Lower court background
^{The trial court ruled in favor of the City of Chicago on December 18, 2008.[5] The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and combined with a similar case, NRA v. Chicago. Oral arguments were heard on May 26, 2009. On June 2, 2009, the 7th Circuit upheld the Chicago and Oak Park bans saying that only the United States Supreme Court could incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states, no matter how much sense such incorporation would make to an appellate court.[6]
The Second Amendment Foundation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs. Certiorari for McDonald was granted on September 30, 2009.[7] The NRA separately filed for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs which was not granted until after the decision in McDonald.[8] The NRA became a Respondent in Support of Petitioners and on January 25, 2010 the Supreme Court granted an NRA motion for divided argument.[9]Oral argument took place on March 2, 2010.[10][11] On June 28, 2010, in a 5-4 decision, the High Court opined that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting those rights from local governments.[12]
 [edit] McDonald v. Chicago as compared to NRA v. Chicago Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The cases were appealed separately to the U.S. Supreme Court.[13]}
 

• ^{McDonald Petition for Certiorari}
• ^{NRA Petition for Certiorari}
• ^{Chicago Brief in Opposition to Cert Petition}

^{[edit] Regulations challenged The NRA case is focused on the fact that Chicago's gun registration laws do not allow the registration of handguns. In the District of Columbia v. Heller, "The Court also recognized a distinction between weapons "in common use at the time" and weapons that were considered dangerous and unusual..."[14]
McDonald challenges four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs:[15]}
 

• ^{Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban}
• ^{Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible}
• ^{Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee}
• ^{Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses}

^{[edit] Legal basis for incorporation All of the post-Heller cases, including McDonald, NRA v. Chicago, Nordyke and Maloney, argued that the Second Amendment, in addition applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called selective incorporation. Selective incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions” as defined most recently in the Supreme Court case Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If it had been overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may have become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied against the states.[16]
In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest was that if Slaughter-House had been overturned, it would have been possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would have been applied against the states automatically.[17][18][19]
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas alone supported overturning the Slaughter-House and Cruikshank decisions,[20] proposing that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause."[21]
 [edit] Amici curiae Thirty-three amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs for this case have been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.[22]
One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) and John Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.[23] The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus curiae brief in history.[24] Furthermore, thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) also filed amici curiae.[clarification needed][25]
 [edit] Decision In a plurality decision, Justice Alito concluded "that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller."[26] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[27] The plurality decision also re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[28] Such restrictions include those "prohibit[ing]...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" [29]
 [edit] Reception The initial reactions of the Court's ruling were favorable from both the National Rifle Association[30] and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[31] Both issued statements to the public that they feel were vindicated by the Court's holding. However, the court did not include a "clarification of the standard for review" as requested by the Brady group in their amicus brief.[32] In a discussion on the day of the ruling Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center both agreed that the Court's ruling protected specifically against bans on handguns for self protection in the home. But as to the general question of gun laws not covered in McDonald; a large number of lawsuits are needed in order to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be unconstitutional. Wayne LaPierre expressed caution that the NRA has "a lot of work ahead" attempting to overturn other gun control regulations not covered by McDonald, and Paul Helmke said that he expected that the NRA is "going to lose most of those lawsuits".[33]
 [edit] Related cases The day after Heller was filed the National Rifle Association filed five similar lawsuits challenging local gun bans:}
 

• ^{Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority}
• ^{Three unnamed suits against the Chicago suburbs of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park[34]}
• ^{NRA v. Chicago - eventually merged with this case}

^{Other notable post-Heller Second Amendment court cases:}
 

• ^{Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 493 (9th. Cir. 2009) Held that the 2nd Amendment did apply to the states in the Ninth Circuit, though the ruling was vacated for en banc reconsideration, and the Alameda County, California prohibition of firearms on county property remained constitutional until overturned by McDonald v. Chicago.}
• ^{Maloney v. Rice (a.k.a. Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer), 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) Held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states in the Second Circuit. The case involved a state ban on Nunchaku sticks (a martial arts weapon). Though the lower court's logic in this decision was overturned in McDonald, the decision in McDonald was made in response to a question regarding firearms, and it is not a settled question whether nunchakus and similar martial arts weapons fall under the general term of "arms" as argued in Maloney.}
• ^{State of Washington v. Sieyes The Washington Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated and applies to Washington State, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Superseded by McDonald.}
• ^{The Commonwealth V. Runyan, 456 Mass. 230 (2010) The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Heller did not apply to the Massachusetts state legislature and that the gun locks ordered under Massachusetts law are different from those regulated in Heller. Partially overturned by McDonald; The decisions made in Heller do apply to the State of Massachusetts (as with all States), but the gun lock requisite under MA law may indeed differ enough from D.C.'s statute to be found constitutional.}

^{[edit] See also}

• ^{Firearm case law in the United States}
• ^{List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 561}

  ^{[edit] References} 

• ^{^ "In McDonald v. Chicago case, another Supreme Court landmark ruling on guns?". The Christian Science Monitor. 2010-03-01. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0301/In-McDonald-v.-Chicago-case-another-Supreme-Court-landmark-ruling-on-guns.}
• ^{^ National Rifle Ass'n of Amer., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2009)}
• ^{^ Taff, Mark. "SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago’s Handgun Ban". www.chicagoguncase.com. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2008/06/26/saf-files-lawsuit-challenging-chicagos-handgun-ban/. Retrieved July 6, 2009.}
• ^{^http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1400961.html}
• ^{^ Gilmer, Marcus (December 18, 2008). "Chicago Handgun Ban Upheld". Chicagoist. http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/18/chicago_handgun_ban_upheld.php. Retrieved February 3, 2009.}
• ^{^ Robinson, Mike (June 2, 2009). "Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Handguns". Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-gunruling,0,1211853.story.}
• ^{^ Schorsch, Kristen. "Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun case". Chicago Breaking News. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html. Retrieved September 20, 2009.}
• ^{^ "Supreme Court Docket in No. 08-1497". http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-1497.htm. Retrieved July 10, 2010.}
• ^{^ "U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago". www.nraila.org. http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13337. Retrieved February 18, 2010.}
• ^{^ Miller, Erin (March 2, 2010). "Podcasts: McDonald v. City of Chicago". SCOTUSblog. http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/podcasts-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago/. Retrieved March 2, 2010.}
• ^{^ Liptak, Adam (March 2, 2010). "Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html.}
• ^{^ Mears, Bill (June 28, 2009). "Court rules for gun rights, strikes down Chicago handgun ban". CNN. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/?iref=allsearch.}
• ^{^ "A new Second Amendment case". SCOTUSblog. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/a-new-second-amendment-case/. Retrieved July 4, 2009. [dead link]}
• ^{^http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=112&sid=168737cb-33a1-47bd-9238-f0410fbb6b73%40sessionmgr112}
• ^{^ "ChicagoGunCase.com » FAQs". www.chicagoguncase.com. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/faqs/#laws-challenging. Retrieved July 6, 2009.}
• ^{^ "[T]he words 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seems to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States." Erwin Chemerinsky et al., Constitutional Law § 6.3.2 (3d ed. 2006) (quoting Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166 (1968) (Black, dissenting))}
• ^{^ "Liberals Use Supreme Court Gun Case to Bolster Other Rights". www.law.com. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428529045. Retrieved July 4, 2009.}
• ^{^ "Constitutional Accountability Center filed brief in NRA v. Chicago". www.theusconstitution.org. http://www.theusconstitution.org/page_module.php?id=12&mid=9. Retrieved July 4, 2009.}
• ^{^ "Brief for Constitutional Law Professors as Amici Curiae". http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuConLawProfs.pdf. Retrieved June 29, 2010.}
• ^{^ slip op., at 52-54 (Thomas, J., concurring)}
• ^{^ slip op., at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring)}
• ^{^ "Merit Briefs for February Supreme Court Cases, Term 2009-2010". American Bar Association. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#081521. Retrieved June 29, 2010.}
• ^{^ "Brief for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson et al. as Amici Curiae". http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuSenatorKayBaileyHutchison.pdf. Retrieved June 28, 2010.}
• ^{^Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson press release, November 23, 2009}
• ^{^http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/#SupremeCourt}
• ^{^ McDonald, at ___-___ (slip op., at 44)}
• ^{^SCOTUS blog}
• ^{^ McDonald, at ___-___ (slip op., at 39-40)}
• ^{^ McDonald, at ___-___ (slip op., at 39-40)}
• ^{^ "Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago". http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13956. Retrieved June 25, 2010.}
• ^{^ "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Media". http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1265/. Retrieved June 25, 2010.}
• ^{^ "Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence et al. as Amici Curiae". http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_NeutralAmCuBradyCtrand3PoliceAssns.pdf. Retrieved June 28, 2010.}
• ^{^ "After Supreme Court Ruling, Cities Face Restructuring of Gun Laws". Interviewer: Gwen Ifill. NewsHour. PBS. June 28, 2010.}
• ^{^ "NRA Eyes More Targets After D.C. Gun-Ban Win". www.npr.org (NPR). http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=92008363&m=1. Retrieved July 6, 2009.}

^{[edit] External links}

• ^{Official slip opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court}
• ^{SCOTUS Transcript of Oral Arguments in McDonald v. Chicago}
• ^{Case history by Chicago magazine}
• ^{Arms Keepers, an organization that has filed a brief supporting McDonald's request that the Supreme Court hear the case}
• ^{ChicagoGunCase.com case history by a group supporting gun rights}
• ^{Case filings and court opinions for McDonald v. Chicago including the original complaint and subsequent filings}
• ^{NRA Complaint against Chicago}
• ^{NRA Complaint against Evanston}
• ^{NRA Complaint against Morton Grove}
• ^{NRA Complaint against Oak Park}

[sidewinder319]

I do not understand the Anti NRA movement?? There are 4 million gun owners who sip Kool Aid and wear blinders??? How can that many Americans fit this description  We do not drink Kool Aid and we are not blind.   As the owners of a very successful Firearms and Sporting Goods Distributorship that is over 50 years old. I am very proud of our relationship with the NRA and its supporters.  I am always surprised at attacks from people in firearms related endeavors who attack the NRA.

[Redhawk1]

Illinois State Rifle Association Gun rights advocacy organization. State affiliate of the National Rifle Association.
www.isra.org/ - Similar
 

• 2011 Illinois Gun Legislation
• ISRA Range Home Page
• How to join the ISRA
• Contacting the ISRA

• Illinois Firearms Information
• ISRA Clubs & Associations
• ISRA Web Links
• Take Action on Your Late FOID

[nw_hunter]

I do not understand the Anti NRA movement?? There are 4 million gun owners who sip Kool Aid and wear blinders??? How can that many Americans fit this description  We do not drink Kool Aid and we are not blind.   As the owners of a very successful Firearms and Sporting Goods Distributorship that is over 50 years old. I am very proud of our relationship with the NRA and its supporters.  I am always surprised at attacks from people in firearms related endeavors who attack the NRA.

NO! There are NOT 4 million gun owners sipping kool-aid and wearing blinders. But there is a large number of American gun owners, both members and former members of the NRA that are sick and tired of the NRA compromising anti gun legislation and supporting leftwing politicians who would shred the Second A.

I find it puzzling , you find it strange that we go after the NRA when they side with the enemy.
Most of the Gun related forums on the WWW are exposing the corruption at the NRA.Most people still taking up for them are tied to them in some way. Heads of local chapters, rifle range instructors and such.Most of that 4 million you mention, get compromised gun bills, and monthly donation request's for their hard earned dollars. Your proud of your relationship with the NRA.......There are many others who are not!We are NOT the enemy! We're the ones that will not compromise our right to keep and bear arms, and we damn sure aren't liberal Democrats as some would have you believe.

[zoot686]

There are no little footnotes or other "gotcha's" attached to
"Shall not be infringed"

period

[Redhawk1]

I do not understand the Anti NRA movement?? There are 4 million gun owners who sip Kool Aid and wear blinders??? How can that many Americans fit this description  We do not drink Kool Aid and we are not blind.   As the owners of a very successful Firearms and Sporting Goods Distributorship that is over 50 years old. I am very proud of our relationship with the NRA and its supporters.  I am always surprised at attacks from people in firearms related endeavors who attack the NRA.

NO! There are NOT 4 million gun owners sipping kool-aid and wearing blinders. But there is a large number of American gun owners, both members and former members of the NRA that are sick and tired of the NRA compromising anti gun legislation and supporting leftwing politicians who would shred the Second A.

I find it puzzling , you find it strange that we go after the NRA when they side with the enemy.
Most of the Gun related forums on the WWW are exposing the corruption at the NRA.Most people still taking up for them are tied to them in some way. Heads of local chapters, rifle range instructors and such.Most of that 4 million you mention, get compromised gun bills, and monthly donation request's for their hard earned dollars. Your proud of your relationship with the NRA.......There are many others who are not!We are NOT the enemy! We're the ones that will not compromise our right to keep and bear arms, and we damn sure aren't liberal Democrats as some would have you believe.

 Keep pushing your anti-NRA message. Maybe you will succeed in pushing the NRA people away from this site.  Congratulation you're going a great job for the liberal left. I have always thought with age came wisdom, but you have proven me wrong!

[Redhawk1]

There are no little footnotes or other "gotcha's" attached to
"Shall not be infringed"

period

Tell that to your legislators that the people voted in. They are the ones making the anti-gun laws.