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