Charles Cotton
NRA President Charles Cotton (image: NRA)
Previous Post
Next Post

[NRA President Charles Cotton] predicted that a fuller definition of the Second Amendment by the court could come within two years because so many new gun cases are being filed and likely headed to the high court.

And, he added, a pro-NRA decision in the ATF case could lead to an end to federal agencies making rules and regulations over the head of Congress.

“What we want to do is get case law that makes it real clear that there really is a limit to the rulemaking authority of federal agencies,” said Cotton, who cited the ATF as an example.

“There’s no authority for the ATF to redefine what is a pistol,” said Cotton.

“That has to be taken out because citizens should be able to look to Congress, talk to their folks that they elect, senators and House members. They should be able to communicate with them. When a law is passed, they know exactly what is prohibited what is not. They should not be subject to the regulatory whims of any federal agency and certainly for our issues, the ATF. And those whims change with the political winds whenever we have a change in the White House,” he added.

—Paul Bedard in NRA Predicts Supreme Court Will Finally Define Second Amendment

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Never mind Defining The Second Amendment for the millionth time. For once put the tit for tat money grubbing lawyers aside and bigots put your bigotry aside and Define Gun Control as a History Confirmed Agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide. It is what it is.

      • I’m not sure you are aware, but the Vermont constitution predates the US constitution and both establishes “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” and abolished slavery in the state.

        • And Bernie Sanders is your state’s most productive Senator, and the most popular Senator in the United States.

        • Nome, Bernie….productive? He’s an avowed Communist. Do you know where he and his “wife” spent their honeymoon? Get a grip!
          What you call “progressive”, is actually REGRESSIVE!

  1. we can only hope for such an outcome.
    bureaucratic overreach as been out of control for far to long.

    • Tired: You are absolutely right. However, it is really the fault of Congress (with presidential acquiescence of course), which has facilitated bureaucratic overreach as a means of passing the buck on federal regulation, to say nothing about congressional deniability regarding the results. Anyway, that’s my take on it.

      • Wasn’t there a ruling against the EPA that will make that practice a bit uncomfortable going forward recently?

        • West Virginia vs EPA. Proud to say Patrick Morrissey, WV Attorney General told a small group of supporters that he had been advised not to file it, but decided to give it one more shot!

      • Bingo! That is why we now are ruled by an administrative/regulatory state at both the state and federal level. Congress in particular has abandoned its duty to draft and pass laws, instead delegating that authority to a faceless bureaucracy that is answerable to no one. The reams of paper issued annually by just the feds is in the hundreds of thousands of pages–regulations were all presumed to know, and which do little but add to the burdens of small businesses simply trying to keep the doors open.

    • “we can only hope for such an outcome.”

      Be *very* careful what you wish for.

      Handing over full power to the congress will mean we must continue to control the congress at all costs.

      Remember the ‘Affordable Care Act’ monstrosity? Visualize that being used to “Take weapons of war off our streets once and for all”. As in, all magazine-fed semi-autos placed on the NFA, and we can’t do crap about it until we retake all three branches of government… 🙁

      • Geoff
        Some divorces are inevitable, just a matter of when
        No doubt they will regain full control at some point

        • Considering that they have hijacked the election process and stolen 2 elections now, I think it’s probably sooner.

      • Congress cannotoverride the US Constitution. That takes a supernajority of both houses, AND I think it’s 3/4 of the states. Shallot be Infringed” will be hard to get round. The two bit rulemakers have been trying and SCOTUS are saiying “NOPE”. Taking away the “we make rules that are lws” game will have to end, and this pistol brace issue may well be the clincher for BATF. They’ve played the harot for far too long.

        • “Congress cannotoverride the US Constitution.”

          Counterpoint : ‘Bruen’ was handed down clearly stating that all of NYC cannot be considered a ‘sensitive place’.

          Shortly after, NYC now has far more declared by the despots ‘sensitive places’. California, as well.

          Counterpoint 2 : Did you hear the contempt dripping from Newsome a day or so back about a “So-called right”? The sneer on his face as he said it?

          I rest my case… 🙁

        • Geoff
          NYC the whole state really, will need to learn a lesson, will probably take a long time and much $$$$$$ unfortunately.
          newscum can FOAD but he will most likely be a pain in our ass for a while.
          unless he gets caught diddlin a eight year old

        • “NYC the whole state really, will need to learn a lesson, will probably take a long time and much $$$$$$ unfortunately.”

          I really want to believe they will realize the inevitable is coming whether they like it or not, but I fear we will see a repeat of the reaction ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ had on the southern governors had on that decision.

          Who said something like “The SCotUS made their decision, let them enforce it”? And for how many decades after did people still seethe about it?

          That’s the kind of obstacles we have in front of us.

          It will be fun rubbing their noses in it, however. And reminding them of the parallels of that case with this one… 🙂

  2. We have been seeing all kinds of people do all kinds of things they have no authority to do. What I would be interested in seeing is some form of punishment (possible imprisonment) given in response. Even if the right people were to make the right laws, what difference would it make if people were still allowed to break the law? The 2A is supposed to be law. Yet we have democrats breaking constitutional law across the country.

    • I have a proposal: if an elected official sponsors or signs legislation that is later overturned on constitutional grounds (once all the appeals and legal processes are done), he/she is removed from office immediately and permanently banned from ever again holding any elected office whatsoever, whether as dog catcher or as president of the USA. Since legal fights can take years, an elected official could be ejected from *whatever* office they hold at the time their past handiwork is deemed unconstitutional.

      In NY, as soon as the CCIA fight reaches its inevitable conclusion, Hochul would be unceremoniously fired, along with those in the state assembly and senate who sponsored that legislation. It wouldn’t take too many of these to get rid of a lot of awful people and put the fear of the public back into the rest. It warms the cockles of my heart.

      • “…he/she is removed from office…”

        Well, the Fathers gave us a mechanism for this, and we’re messing it up.

      • I would love to see that happen the way you describe removal from office napresto. For once please I would love to see people held to account.

  3. This is a huge problem that cuts to the heart of the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution. And it is this issue which is so intriguing that SCOTUS just might want to take it up.

    The fact that it is about guns is of negligible importance to SCOTUS. The fact that it is about pistol braces is even less important. And, this might just be the case that SCOTUS will want to take up to show the lower courts that it intends to enforce Bruen.

    The Bruen implications are purely incidental to the separation of powers issue. And so, SCOTUS wouldn’t have to extend or expand the definition of Bruen to deal with this case. Instead, it would simply have to chat up the lower courts in dicta that they are not going to get away with flaunting Bruen in the way that they flaunted Heller.

    • So how long till the current thing™ starts going on about how the supreme court is antiquated racist and undemocratic?

        • Lol forgot about that well carry on then and time to start figuring out who is going after our state level NFA ban later on for funding.

      • “…starts going on about how the supreme court is antiquated racist and undemocratic?”

        That groundwork is being laid right now in popular opinion. Pay attention to what they say, because they mean it… 🙁

  4. Extremely over-optimistic, but it would be wonderful for BATFE to be turned into Bureau of Explosives and it’s functions rolled into the F.B.I. with major reforms to the FBI. Almost zero chance of either of these corrupt agencies changing until the entire DOJ gets revamped and middle-upper management arrested and sent to prison. The traitors are too numerous to just replace a few.

    • their website is full of drug busts and nothing at all about alcohol and tobacco…thought that was the domain of the DEA

  5. The life-form known as government will do everything in it’s power to ensure it’s own survival and growth. That includes steering and/or killing any ‘reforms’ that present a potential danger to itself.

  6. NRA president Cotton has proven he’s a shrewd judge of character, he believes Wayne LaPierre is making the NRA “strong and secure”:

    “The proceedings in Charlotte were an amazing celebration of NRA fellowship and freedom,” Cotton said in a statement that accompanied the tweet. “Under the direction of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA is strong and secure – well positioned to chart its course for the future.”

    Cotton is best known for blaming the 2015 massacre at a Charleston, S.C., church on the anti-gun pastor killed in the attack.“

    • Is that what he’s “best known” for?

      What are you best known for, being the creepy perv that makes your family and neighbors uncomfortable?

    • “Cotton is best known for blaming the 2015 massacre at a Charleston, S.C., church on the anti-gun pastor killed in the attack.“

      Miner49er, the anti-gunner, is known for trying to blame millions of honest law abiding guns owners for the mistakes or wrong doing or criminals acts of others.

      • What he’s best known for, other than being a fascist mouthpiece is, “but it’s all Truuump’s fault!”

        We used to get good trolls around here. Now we gotz dacian and miner.

      • That’s not my quote, that’s from the New York Post, so your beef is with them.

        His unequivocal support for Wayne LaPierre should be the concern.

        • Yet you “POSTED THE LINK” which announces to the “WORLD”, it is also, “YOUR BELIEF AND THOUGHT”!!!!!

          Of course how much you “PAID” to troll that link???

    • Liar49er

      As usual, there is more to the story. Liar leaves out pertinent facts to paint an inaccurate picture of the situation.

      “Charles Cotton, a board member with the gun advocacy group, posted a comment on a firearms forum that he moderates in which he noted that pastor and state Sen. Clementa Pinckney voted against concealed-carry gun legislation.

      “ ‘Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue,’ Cotton wrote on”

      • I’ll do this in the style of Lil Dee.


        Jethro, that’s some world-class victim blaming.

        If you’re wondering who enables Wayne LaPierre to pay for his intern’s wardrobe and apartment with NRA ‘legislative action’ funds, look no further than Mr. Cotton.

        • Liar49er

          “… that’s some world-class victim blaming.”

          Of course you would attempt to portray it as such. There are innocent victims of a criminal act, and then there are those such as Pinckney who contributed to the result.

          The fact remains that, as a member of the state legislature, Pinckney interfered with the inherent right of self-defense by the members of his congregation (and by extension, the citizens of his state) by promoting infringing legislation. In this case, his action facilitated the criminal that left eight defenseless members of his church dead and Pinckney himself hoist by his own petard.

    • MINOR Miner49er, So what? Do you think that just might have been the shooter’s motivation?

  7. Meh. NegotiatingRightsAway taking credit after others do the heavy lifting. Same old song🙁🙄

    • You do know that the NRA is financially supporting SB Tactical, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the brace rule — don’t you? The owner of SB Tactical has said so.

      Would you prefer that the NRA withhold the $16 million it spent on lobbying and outside spending last year — and not support legislation, finance lawsuits, or donate to candidates?

      Do you think that would be a good thing for the 2A movement?

      • 99% of the time, the NRA is the last to jump in right before a “RULING” and when it goes good for our side, the NRA “TAKES CREDIT”!!!!

        Talk about riding the “COAT TALES”!!!!

        I have not heard a “PEEP” from the NRA in Oregon about the 114 case!!!

      • As soon as Wayne “THE TRAITOR” took to the airwaves the 90’s and stated that “THE NRA SUPPORTS SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL” he should have been ousted, yet he still is “ALLOWED” to remain in control.. I dropped my NRA membership within a day of Wayne doing that..

        They will never get a dime from me, as long as “THE TRAITOR” is in charge..

        And many praise Heston when he was there, yet ignore the fact, in an interview, he stated his speech, “FROM MY DEAD COLD HANDS” was an “ACTING”!!

        Admitted if the Gov’t told him to turn in his guns, “HE WOULD DO IT”!!!

        It seems the NRA allows a lot of “CHARLATANS” to roost in their ranks!!!

        • Would you prefer that the NRA withhold the $16 million it spent on lobbying and outside spending last year — and not support legislation, finance lawsuits, or donate to candidates?

          Do you think that would be a good thing for the 2A movement?

        • Yes. Because the people would get their money back and be able to invest it in organizations that don’t pocket the majority of their donations.

          Did that go the way you thought it would? Nope.

          (Also, copy pasta since you seemed to think your response was so witty you posted it multiple times – it’s not)

        • Montana Virtual, do you speak for JRM and Augusto Pinochet?

          I’ll ask the same question to other posters if I so desire. You don’t like it? Too bad, so sad.

  8. As written the Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from delegating its Authority away. that means that Congress can only pass laws and Regulatory Agencies cannot write rules and regulate regulations. unfortunately the politicians got lazy and decided to delegate away their Authority nearly 100 years ago. the Supreme Court has the power to end that.

    • There is no doubt that some mixture of usurpation by agencies and relinquishment by Congress has been happening for some time, but removing all rulemaking authority from agencies is not feasible, given how complex our society and systems are. I believe we need less government, for sure, but remember that everything that is taken away from the feds and given to the states gets multiplied by 50 and can become redundant and less efficient. How many pages are in the Federal Register? Reduce it by half to cut out the fat, and then multiply it by 50 and send it to the states. No easy way out of this.

  9. Believe it when i see it.

    Kinda scary though anyway, when i see “rewriting the 2nd Amendment” or however it was worded

  10. It would be great if, instead of rule by judges, we had legislators with the stones to do things like repeal the NFA, the Firearms Act of ’68 and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (how’s that for Orwellian naming?).

  11. Bruen implies that ATF is illegal. Only Red Coats came close to such wide sweeping power regarding firearms, and they were effectively outlawed by winning the Revolutionary War and creating the Constitution.

  12. “a pro-NRA decision in the ATF case”

    Considering the NRA supported the NFA, GCA, and Hughes, I do not want a “pro-NRA decision”.

      • NRA had phck all to do with those. other pro gun organizations filed them and fought them while Wayne was paying for suits and mistresses.

        • Bang for the Buck

          “As SCOTUS Mulled Bruen, the NRA Lobbied in the Shadows
          A quarter of the briefs filed in support of the NRA came from organizations and individuals who have been paid by the gun group. Only one disclosed the connection.”

          “An examination of the 49 pro-NRA amicus briefs filed in Bruen, along with court and IRS filings, shows that, over the last two decades, the NRA has given financial support to at least 12 of the groups and individuals who lobbied the court on its behalf. That’s nearly a quarter. Though a full accounting is impossible, some recipients collected several million dollars from the NRA during that period and before filing briefs in Bruen. …”

        • Too many NRA simps on this site. It’s borderline Miner49er style with their links.

          They are not doing enough. They have no been doing enough for too long. The end. Stop simping.

        • Montana Virtual, you’re welcome to provide your counter-arguments backed up by citations. That’s what we do on discussion forums.

      • Heller? Heller? You literally just tried to claim HELLER was an NRA decision? Do you know ANYTHING about Heller? Heller himself will tell you the NRA interfered with him at EVERY step of the way.

    • The NRA always wants gun rights to be on the brink of disaster. That equates to revenue as they like being viewed as the night in shining armor here to protect our rights. “Dig deep and give because we are about to lose it all” should be their motto.

      Of course the NRAs unimaginable wasteful spending is impossible to ignore and why many folks essentially told the NRA to kick rocks and now donate to the SAF and others, just not the NRA.

      • All 2A support organizations depend on fund-raising. All of them.

        I went to the GOA homepage to read up on their lawsuit:

        GOA Takes ATF to Court over Draconian Gun Ban

        “Thanks to *overwhelming support* from GOA members, we filed suit yesterday against the ATF’s pistol brace rule.”

        The words *overwhelming support* in the first sentence is a hyperlink; I though that GOA might mention how much money its members have given to help in the effort. But when I clicked on it, it takes you to an online donation form:

        Online Donation
        “Gun Owners Foundation (and GOA) have have filed a lawsuit against ATF to stop them from enforcing their unconstitutional pistol ban.

        “But we’re counting on your support to marshal the vital resources we need to carry on the long court battle which is expected.

        “Please make a tax-deductible contribution to Gun Owners Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund as we fight in court to STOP the ATF’s unconstitutional pistol ban. Thank you!”

        All 2A support organizations depend on donations from members, organizations and manufacturers.

        And their directors get paid — as they should:

        Key Employees and Officers Compensation 2020
        TIM MACY (CHAIRMAN & SEC/TREAS) $126,000

  13. “a pro-NRA decision in the ATF case”

    Did Negotiating Rights Away file a suit? If they did I missed it. Hears about GOA and FPC and 25 states hopping on board with them. Didn’t hear a thing about Not Real Activists.

    • Maybe you missed this press release from SB Tactical regarding the suit in which they are a named plaintiff:

      ” … In addition to encouraging all manufacturers who are frustrated by the ATF’s arbitrary
      and capricious approach to regulation to join FRAC, SB Tactical would also like to
      sincerely thank the National Rifle Association (NRA) for their tremendous support and
      assistance with this litigation.”

      • And yet, no mention of what the NRA is ACTUALLY doing…

        “I need assistance”
        “Sir, is this an emergency”
        “Please hold”

        • You could ask the owner of SB Tactical what the NRA is doing, for which he singled them out and thanked them.

          Or you could just pointlessly bitch here on the forum.

  14. This entire brace BS is because Biden wanted it and the workers had to comply. The ATF knew damned good and well what they had to work with was thin and illegal but senile Biden wanted it and the rest of the peon workers had little choice but to comply so they churned out the 280+ pages of arbitrary nonsensical fluff. The ATF knew they’d get sued and almost assuredly lose but they had no choice.

  15. Wut, the NRA still exists?? I thought they shriveled up & died months ago for a lack of easy marks, er, members and donations to WLP’s wardrobe fund…

    • Would you prefer that the NRA withhold the $16 million it spent on lobbying and outside spending last year — and not support legislation, finance lawsuits, or donate to candidates?

      Do you think that would be a good thing for the 2A movement?

      • Yes. Because the people would get their money back and be able to invest it in organizations that don’t pocket the majority of their donations.

        Did that go the way you thought it would? Nope.

        • Do you know that it didn’t? Nope.

          It’s possible that people, organizations and manufacturers who donate to the NRA would not donate to any other 2A organization if the NRA closed its doors tomorrow. There’s no guarantee that the $16 million would go towards any pro-2A activity. I believe that the more organizations working to secure 2A rights, the better. YMMV.

          I’d like to see your citations that the NRA is pocketing the majority of their donations. Put up or … you know the rest.

      • “Would you prefer that the NRA withhold the $16 million it spent on lobbying and outside spending last year — and not support legislation, finance lawsuits, or donate to candidates?”

        I’d prefer they not spend $50M on outside lawyers and $1.3M on private jets each year while losing 1M members (lowest in 10 years). That makes the money they spent on their actual mission pale in comparison. Add that the BoD just removed the requirement of their approval before WLP sells guns from the NRA Museum. Look for quality firearms on Gunbroker to fund WLPs legal defense, assuming he doesn’t liquidate them at fire sale prices to his cronies. If WLP actually cared about guns, he’d resign or retire and let the NRA get back to spending it’s member’s money protecting gun rights.

        • do you even know what guns the nra museum are selling ???
          so you decide to donate all your guns to the NRA when you kick it, but your total collection is just standard normal guns, do you actually think they should spend a dime to warehouse your normal off the shelf firearms ??
          if you had historical or one off custom made items of interest that are worth keeping that’s one thing, but your nothing special collection can be sold off to fund the museum.

          you should look into how the museum runs.

  16. Could? Let’s get that changed to a 100% “will”. It will change. It needs to change. It should have already been changed!

    *Pokes the richest organization capable of doing something with a stick
    “Do something”

    • MT

      It’s still a free country, until the boxcars arrive.
      If you don’t like what an organization is doing, or not doing, you have choices:

      A) Join, contribute and effect change. OR

      B) Use your scroll button and pass up posts about organizations with which you disagree.

  17. It clearly means that the government cannot regulate the mere purchase, possession, or general and peaceful carrying of any firearm carried by individual soldiers or police officers. It’s not difficult.

  18. So, we’re going to trust 9 robed Unelected, Appointed by a Politically Corrupted Appointment System individuals to define that which doesn’t need defining?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t trusting SCOTUS the beginning of this whole Fustercluck in the first place? It was SCOTUS under Chief Justice Hughes that allowed the blatant Infringing NFA to begin with.

    Excuse me for having absolutely no faith in our Completely Corrupted Government. Both parties are just two stripes on the same stinky Skunk.

Comments are closed.