NRA to Firearms Freedom Act supporters.... You're on your own

[ericire12]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d9-NRA-to-Firearms-Freedom-Act-supporters-Youre-on-your-own

The February 2010 issue of GUNS Magazine is online, and a letter by NRA Life Member David Lundeen regarding my Firearms Freedom Act "Rights Watch" column caught my eye. He cited the September 2009 issue of their American Hunter magazine, and observed:

    t is clearly stated “Firearms Freedom Act “ supporters have never planned to test these laws in criminal cases, and no one who puts himself in that situation should expect support from the NRA.”

It's true. I'm a Life Member and get American Rifleman, and it's on page 18. Their rationale?

    [T]his kind of litigation faces major obstacles–mainly because the Supreme Court has given Congress a very long leash when it comes to activities that could affect interstate commerce....Because of these issues, the NRA will continue to focus on the other kinds of pro-gun legislation described in these pages.

    [No] one should try to take advantage of the Montana or Tennessee 'Firearms Freedom Acts' without consulting a competent attorney and being prepared to pay large legal fees. Anyone who makes firearms commercially, without complying with federal law, is likely to be prosecuted.

Going into any kind of challenge without knowing the terrain and having your eyes wide open would indeed be a mistake. The merits of the Firearms Freedom Acts should be debated, and they have, as is to be expected, drawn supporters and detractors. Attorney Evan Nappen is among the latter, and spelled out his reasons in "The Achilles Heels of the Firearms Freedom Act." Gary Marbut of Montana Shooting Sports Association disagrees, and responded to Nappen with "Hold the Fort--Don't Surrender So Quickly."

NRA certainly has the right to decide which legal strategies it perceives as advantageous and eligible for their support, and in this case, it's helpful to know that if we get in trouble, they don't want us to come running to them to fix it. Whether we agree with their position or not, we can't say we haven't been warned: they've washed their hands of the matter.

You can read the current issue of GUNS Magazine in digital format by visiting their website and clicking on the flash magazine graphic (you can even sign up for a free digital subscription). For those of you on dial-up or who have trouble downloading such features, much of the content is still available from the main page, including my latest "Rights Watch" column--an analysis of the Chicago gun ban case.

[r_w]

They have made it VERY clear that they will not jump into any or every case that mentions guns, but only those that clearly are 2A and they think their presence will HELP the case and not HURT the NRA. 

FFA is wading into dangerous waters--it is definitely a high risk/high reward venture. 

[tombogan03884]

Not supporting " Shall not be infringed" could be more harmful to them in the long run than any loss in court.
With around 100 million gun owners why do they think they haven't got at least 5 million members.

[TAB]

Tom given the last 100+ years of court rullingon interstate commerce and gun laws, I don't see this as a court case you can win.

The NRA has never really been a friend to "class 3 weapons"

[tombogan03884]

I don't see that they have a defensible choice.  "Shall not be infringed" is pretty straight forward. And using your argument about court rulings  as justification slavery would still be legal. there was about 90 tears of US precedent upholding that, including SCOTUS decisions such as Dred Scot, not to mention it was allowed for in the Constitution.

[Sponsor]