Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
JPFO Order Line
Note - (July 2011) We notice sometimes that out of the thousands of alerts sent out, there can be rather high numbers of "bounces" - on checking with our provider it would seem that now and again an ISP makes some change to their email settings and that can result in non-delivery to those using that ISP.
If it happens to be something like Hotmail, Yahoo or even gmail - then many can be affected temporarily. For those who miss out on one of our sendings, we apologize, but the provider does try to stay ahead of things when they can by making changes in their own settings to reflect ISP changes and so control the bounces, which we like to see as zero!
If in doubt, please check the alerts archive to make sure you have not missed anything. Also, if you get alerts do please open them!
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
This page is adding just a few more final reader comments on this subject, received later than most.
Response to the contraversy surrounding the McDonald vs City of Chicago case has been considerable, and there are a number of site pages dealing with initial analysis followed by pages reproducing received email comments. Go to our page of links concerning the case, to catch up on all the articles.
“Like I said some time back in my reply to you good folks, I am a life member of the NRA because like a lot of fellows our Dads were also life members, but they NEED to get on board this train to GET RID OF ALL OPRESSIVE GUN LAWS, or get LEFT BEHIND. This issue is NOT going away by either side, and WE THE PEOPLE ARE DETERMINED TO WIN.
My Letter to the NRA - from Richard F
February 7th 2010
National Rifle Association
11250 Waples Mills Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Dear Wayne LaPierre ,
“ I have been a member of the NRA for many years and will not renew my membership this year.
It was not the NRA that won the Heller case and now it is NOT the NRA that is taking the McDonald vs Chicago case to the SCOTUS. In fact, you’ve brought in Attorney Clements and horned in on the case at the last minute. And it is Clements in the Heller case who said that he believes:
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment."
How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?
And another statement that infuriates me:
"Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood -- and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case --- calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms."
Justice Clarence Thomas was recently quoted as saying"
"Characteristics of a great lawyer: Lawyers need to be honest, conscientious, and thorough, but most important of all is credibility, Thomas said. "Your credibility is your calling card," he asserted. Reputations spread quickly, he warned. "We’re way up there, but we have lunch. We talk."
What do you think these Supreme Court Justices will be thinking when Clements is now "defending" the God given Rights he apparently does not really believe in? Which time is he telling the whole truth? Or, what will Clements say to a Justice who asks: “When you were last before us on a gun control issue, you represented the United States Government. Do the arguments you made then apply now in this case?”
And all this argument time for Clements and the NRA is taking precious time away from Attorney Alan Gura, the real hero of Second Amendment Rights!
Then there is the BATF and their thuggery. The NRA has never gone after them. Now you have said you will not support Tenth Amendment groups. There appears to be no real fight in the NRA.... just words - words - words. So, so Sad.
I’ll be supporting the GOA, JPFO and SAF!”
With regret, Richard F, Texas
Further addition ........ email received after sender had questioned NRA regarding this contraversy over Paul Clement. Below follows a copy of the reply letter from NRA . We draw particular attention to the last paragraph.
Dear Mr. C,
Thank you for your message about former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement’s representation of the NRA in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which involves the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. A link to this brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf
During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.
Obviously, we realize that Solicitor General Clement represented the federal government’s position in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the government took the position that the Second Amendment does protect a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, but that the Court should apply an "intermediate" standard of review, less favorable to Second Amendment challenges to federal gun laws than the standard advocated by the NRA. On the standard of review issue, we disagreed with the government’s position at the time and we still disagree with it.
However, it is critically important to remember that this position was the government’s, not its lawyer’s. At the time, Solicitor General Clement had a duty to represent the position of his client. Now that he is representing the NRA, just as when he was recently representing a bipartisan majority of Congress, he will strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation.
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division