Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!shallit From: shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <268@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 14:43:56 EST Article-I.D.: gargoyle.268 Posted: Thu Jan 3 14:43:56 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:59:35 EST References: <245@gargoyle.UUCP> <259@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <> Reply-To: shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff ) Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science Lines: 58 Summary: In article <> karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >---------- >>As to whether or not the government is ``entitled'' to ``force'' people >>to dispose of their guns, let's note that the Morton Grove handgun ban >>has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. I guess the government IS >>entitled. >---------- >This is incorrect. What the US SC did was to decline to hear the case, >partly at the request of the NRA, in order that it might be heard by the >Illinois SC first. This is drastically different from having the US SC >"uphold" the decision; they actually decided to ignore it officially for the >time being. No, YOU are incorrect. On October 3, 1984, the US Supreme Court let stand a Court of Appeal ruling which stated, ``...possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms.'' There have also been four other explicit decisions by the Supreme Court which state similar sentiment. > >(2) The NRA is a major influence on legislators because it represents (in >several ways) an incredibly large number of people. It is, firstly, a >sporting organization, but the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is >supported by (I think) 1/3 of the $15 yearly membership fee. Since the NRA >has 3 million members, that means that it can claim an extremely large base >from which to work, both for volunteers in doing election- and >lawmaking-related activities, as well as dollars for advertising campaigns >to support candidates. When the gun control advocates can claim that many >people in an organized group who really care one way or the other about it, >then I'll consider them a viable force with which to deal. Until then, the >support of those who care enough to do more than sit back and complain is >weighted on the side of the NRA by at least 2 orders of magnitude. > >Think of it as "Government by the People" in action. The idea that the NRA represents "Government by the People" is laughable. First, the NRA has less than 2 million members. Second, in order to vote on policy in the NRA, you must be a life member. There are fewer than 100,000 life members. Third, you must be present at the yearly conventions to vote--this mean that NRA policy is decided by the 1000 or so people who actually attend yearly conventions. Government by the People? More like Government by the Elite Gun Nuts. By the way, Handgun Control, Inc. has about a million members. I submit that this organization deserves to be considered a viable force. So much for your "two orders of magnitude". The NRA USED to be a responsible sporting organization. Recently, however, they have dedicated themselves to the opposition of ALL legislation regulating gun owners, including reasonable legislation like the ban on cop-killer bullets, which was favored by almost every major law enforcement organization in the country. /Jeff Shallit