I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the 2nd Amendment Forum but those rules say to stick to legislation and what follows are my remarks to the NRA about supporting the Friedman v Highland Park case, which NRA should have known better to not allow to be appealed to the SCOTUS. IMNSHO anyway.
=====
Dear NRA/ILA:
I am so aggravated with your poor choice of cases to bring before the Supreme Court I just had to say something.
What in the world were you thinking, permitting this case to go to the Supreme Court and get denied certiorari? Do you think the Heller and McDonald cases are so insufficient that you're willing to ignore the cautions that the SCOTUS - OUR SIDE!! - put in those opinions? Denying Friedman cert was EASY! It fits within the SCOTUS'S rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases. They said reasonable restrictions were permissible. What part of that did you miss? You don't have to like it - I DON'T LIKE IT. But, nevertheless, just as Freedom of Speech has certain reasonable restrictions (or we could never have libel and slander cases, for example, or criminal cases involving verbal or even written terroristic threats) we need to accept the concept that the Right to Bear Arms is not unfettered, either. "Shall not be infringed" does NOT mean every gun, every place, anytime, anywhere. Fanatical adherence to a line of legal purity will hurt the cause!
The Friedman case should NEVER have been appealed to the Supreme Court. By doing so you opened the door for every jurisdiction not covered by a state pre-emption to KNOW that they can pass restrictive legislation in re "ugly" rifles, high capacity magazines, etc. Moreover, even States can now KNOW that they can get away with certain restrictions on guns that they might have avoided before.
Nice job, NRA. You waved the flag of RKBA fanaticism and the RKBA took a blow that will be VERY hard to overcome for Americans in anti-gun jurisdictions. Thanks a lot.
GRJ
NRA Patron
Dallas, Texas
=====
Dear NRA/ILA:
I am so aggravated with your poor choice of cases to bring before the Supreme Court I just had to say something.
What in the world were you thinking, permitting this case to go to the Supreme Court and get denied certiorari? Do you think the Heller and McDonald cases are so insufficient that you're willing to ignore the cautions that the SCOTUS - OUR SIDE!! - put in those opinions? Denying Friedman cert was EASY! It fits within the SCOTUS'S rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases. They said reasonable restrictions were permissible. What part of that did you miss? You don't have to like it - I DON'T LIKE IT. But, nevertheless, just as Freedom of Speech has certain reasonable restrictions (or we could never have libel and slander cases, for example, or criminal cases involving verbal or even written terroristic threats) we need to accept the concept that the Right to Bear Arms is not unfettered, either. "Shall not be infringed" does NOT mean every gun, every place, anytime, anywhere. Fanatical adherence to a line of legal purity will hurt the cause!
The Friedman case should NEVER have been appealed to the Supreme Court. By doing so you opened the door for every jurisdiction not covered by a state pre-emption to KNOW that they can pass restrictive legislation in re "ugly" rifles, high capacity magazines, etc. Moreover, even States can now KNOW that they can get away with certain restrictions on guns that they might have avoided before.
Nice job, NRA. You waved the flag of RKBA fanaticism and the RKBA took a blow that will be VERY hard to overcome for Americans in anti-gun jurisdictions. Thanks a lot.
GRJ
NRA Patron
Dallas, Texas
