NRA Apologizes For Calling Texas Gun Demonstrators Weird June 5, 2014 by McClatchy-Tribune (c)2014 Los Angeles Times Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com. Distributed by MCT Information Services. (MCT) The National Rifle Association has learned the hard way not to mess with Texas. After chastising some of its Texas supporters for bringing long guns to fast-food outlets to demonstrate their commitment to gun rights, the NRA has been forced to apologize and say its criticism was a mistake. During an appearance on an NRA-hosted radio show, Chris Cox, the executive director of the groups lobbying arm, said the original criticism was written by a staffer who was expressing his personal opinion. The statement, posted on the website of the lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, said the demonstrations in Texas were counterproductive, scary and downright weird. The truth is, an alert went out that referred to this type of behavior as weird or somehow not normal, and that was a mistake, Cox said. It shouldnt have happened, he added, because the NRA unequivocally supports open carry laws. It was a poor word choice in an alert that went out, Cox said. But again, the underlying point here is: What is the best tactic to win? Thats what were interested in. Were not interested in distractions. Were not interested in arguing with the national news media over this. Were interested in winning. The original post surprised many, given the NRAs strong advocacy of gun rights. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. Thats not the Texas way. And thats certainly not the NRA way, the post said. Open Carry Texas, one of the groups behind the recent demonstrations, had said that if the NRA didnt retract the statement, Open Carry would withdraw its support from the group. Tov Henderson, an Open Carry member, told WFAA-TV in Dallas that the NRAs clarification was refreshing. Getting the clarification from them that it wasnt an official stance and that it was just a low-level employee it makes sense, he said. Texas has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the Nation, but openly carrying handguns remains illegal. Long guns can be carried openly, but those gun holders can be charged with disorderly conduct if anyone around them feels threatened and complains. The open carry demonstrations have upset some people and fast-food chains, including Chipotle, which last month asked protesters to leave their weapons at home and not bring them to the chains restaurants. Michael Muskal Los Angeles Times ___ (c)2014 Los Angeles Times Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com. Distributed by MCT Information Services. http://personalliberty.com/nra-apolo...trators-weird/ so the previous article about how the NRA was violating the 2nd A is totally false ..and I bet the low-level staffer is out of a job
I am all for the legalization of open carry in TX, but some of these demonstrators are pushing their legal limits by carrying and doing selfies for attention inside businesses that don't necessarily share their views and they are forcing these businesses to come out against open carry in the media. They are shooting themselves (and the rest of us proponents of open carry) in the foot. The people protesting are weird. The NRA retracted their statement over financial support, but I agree with their initial comment.
I agree, they are showing the need for Gun restrictions which is opposite of the message they are trying to send
just remember, stand your ground gives anyone the right to shoot you if they feel threatened... carrying a gun like that into a bank, gas station or a fast food joint, just might make some feel threatened... be careful...... be safe, don't shove your guns in other peoples face .
Stand your ground laws DO NOT give you the right to shoot someone.....they simply say that if you are in a place legally you don't have to run away when threatened by someone. This is in opposition to the laws that used to read, you had to do everything in your power to avoid a confrontation. When are people going to stop equating SYG to justifying a persons use of force. In your first sentence alone you are talking about two entirely different topics......I don't have to run away (SYG) and feeling threatened (use of self defense). Feeling threatened is not the same as being under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. If you shoot someone for simply carrying a gun into a place you will go to prison for a long time. All that being said.....I would never carry an exposed handgun or long gun into any establishment until such time as the spastics get over their unfounded fears.
the law doesn't say you have only have the right to SYG if under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm these people were causing fear in people, some might even fear for their lives if someone does these things .
You are correct....SYG doesn't have anything to do with using any kind of force on anyone...Those are TWO ENTIRELY different laws. SYG laws put another way simple says I don't have to prove anything to anyone (read cops and judges and Prosecuting attorneys) about why I didn't run away when I observe an illegal action by another person. Using force of any kind is defined under a very different set of laws, laws that say that you have to provide proof that you used the appropriate amount of force in a given situation. Watching people driving and texting inspires great fear in me yet I don't think I would be justified in shoot them any more that observing someone carrying a gun. Now if people fear someone simply carrying a gun...then they need to get over it. It's the using it criminally that should bother people. Regardless, please quit equating SYG laws with justifiable use of force laws...they are nowhere near the same.
"SYG laws put another way simple says I don't have to prove anything to anyone (read cops and judges and Prosecuting attorneys) about why".... one can say I shot and killed a person that I believed was threatening my life.... which means you do it, no one can ask why? .
Let's approach this from a different angle, a hypothetical situation if you will. Let's say you were in a state that did not have SYG laws, in fact the laws of this state say you must do everything you can to avoid a confrontation including an imperative that you must run away prior to any use of force on your part. (these laws are on the books in some states because some states believe that only cops should be able to use force) You are in the parking lot of a grocery store with your family including granny. A man comes up to you and states he wants all your money and claims to have a knife. You have a CCH license and a weapon, the man draws the knife from his waistband (it's a big sucker) so you draw your legal pistol and yell at him to drop it. He advances on you and you shoot and kill him. The local police come up to you and after the interviews they arrest you because you didn't do everything in your power to avoid the situation including the imperative to run. The prosecutor agrees and also decides to charge you with murder since by not following the first law you don't enjoy the protections of the self defense laws. Now whether or not you make it to court, are found guilty or innocent doesn't matter, you pay a penalty just by being arrested for not running away. Justification of your actions don't even come into play Now, Let's reverse that, You are in a state that recognizes that law abiding citizens do not have to run away from someone committing a crime thus under the same situation as above the only thing the cops are allowed to ask you about is your justification for shooting the bad guy which is the use of force law. Once the facts that the criminal attacked you with a knife and you yelled for him to drop it but he continued his advances on you, then you were justified in using deadly force to repel him. No explanation needed at all for not running away in the first place! SYG is not use of force
Really? Cause Kansas had the run away law up until they passed the family personal protection act in 2006 and that included your home. I agree with you that every state should view that as self defense however that wasn't the point of this whole discussion...and it remains the same. SYG laws are not self defense laws, the difference is that with SYG laws all I have to do is justify my use of force and not explain anything about what I did to get out of a situation. The real falsehood is that SYG laws allows people to just shoot someone whom they feel are a threat and are ignorant beliefs perpetuated by anti-gun people.
I just reread your scenario and realized that you didn't have an obligation to run unless Granny was an avid runner. You had to stay to protect her. (If you love her) Same for small kids. You wouldn't have time to gather them up. That's like saying "I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you."
