Second Amendment Foudation on Haitus! I joined the Second Amendment Foundation as a member because it appeared that they were active in the movement, but they must have either dissolved or taken a long vacation because there's nobody home! Their Web Site hasn't changed in months. They don't respond to emails. There haven't been any recent newsletters. What a waste of my money.
| |  |
They aren't gone. I remembered seeing this link in another newsletter I get, which is a press release they just put out a few days ago.
SAF REACTS TO NEW JERSEY RESPONSE IN RIGHT-TO-CARRY LAWSUIT
I also just called them, (425) 454-7012, and someone picked up right away and verified that they haven't gone anywhere.
As for the newsletters and emails, you'll have to ask them about that one.
they've been actively suing several states over the last couple months...NJ, MD, NC, NY, etc....I'd say they're still in business. Latest Press release on the home page is date Jan 27, 2011.
Wrong....better check your computer!!! The SAF is very much alive and Pro-Active....more than I can say about the NRA (No Real Action). The NRAILA are the ones who aren't home. They wrote off NJ and a couple of other Anti Gun States long ago, but still want our money. SAF Press Release :: SAF SUES N.J. OFFICIALS FOR 'DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS' ON PERMIT DENIALS
Banned
Yeah, the NRA really wrote off Washington DC and Illinois with the Heller and McDonald cases, just like they are writing off New York and California with their active litigation in those states. And I am sure Brian Aiken of New Jersey isn't grateful that the NRA funded his criminal defense with their "endorsed" attorney Evan Nappen.Originally Posted by Live_Free_orDie
I stand corrected. They must have just been on a vacation until the 27th of January. As far as some of the other comments about the NRA are concerned, IMO we need every organization. The NRA does some good things, and I won't defend them on some poor choices recently, but as a whole they have accomplished much.
Overview :: Parker v. District of Columbia, et al. Before the court could rule in our case, the National Rifle Association sponsored a copycat lawsuit, entitled Seegars v. Ashcroft (subsequently Gonzales), and immediately sought to have their lawsuit joined with ours. The NRA had tried to dissuade the filing of Parker. Having failed in that effort, they lobbied unsuccessfully to alter our litigation strategy. Seegars was designed to raise issues we had rejected in our case, in an attempt to have the courts avoid interpretation of the Second Amendment. Seegars counsel was an attorney who had been involved in the early stages of our case, but who was not retained to proceed with us further.
It was not a coincidence that the NRA had failed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents in court for over twenty-five years, but suddenly sponsored a copycat action immediately upon our having filed suit. We successfully defeated the NRA’s attempt to use Seegars as a vehicle to muscle in on our litigation. The District Court agreed with us that the behavior of Seegars' counsel raised substantial ethical and attorney-client issues that would delay and complicate the litigation. Each case proceeded independently, on separate tracks before separate judges.
NRA v. Chicago. Oral arguments were heard on May 26, 2009. On June 2, 2009, the 7th Circuit upheld the Chicago and Oak Park bans on the technicality that only the United States Supreme Court could incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states, no matter how much sense such incorporation would make to an appellate court.
The Second Amendment Foundation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs. Certiorari for McDonald was granted on September 30, 2009. The NRA separately filed for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs which was not granted until after the decision in McDonald. The NRA became a Respondent in Support of Petitioners
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
