TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:48 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:38 pm Is there not in this country an attorney as good as Brewer who supports the 2A?

No. It's not just a matter of "being as good as Brewer." It's a matter of "being as good as Brewer" in New York when you are against the most powerful men and women in New York State.

Chas.

For me this is the summary. The fight is in New York. Charles has NEVER let us down yet. I stand w/ Charles Cotton and the NRA.

longtooth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:12 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:48 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:38 pm Is there not in this country an attorney as good as Brewer who supports the 2A?

No. It's not just a matter of "being as good as Brewer." It's a matter of "being as good as Brewer" in New York when you are against the most powerful men and women in New York State.

Chas.

For me this is the summary. The fight is in New York. Charles has NEVER let us down yet. I stand w/ Charles Cotton and the NRA.

I and my family members stand with Charles and the NRA.

When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

How does that make you any different from that criminal defense attorney that you claim to despise?

I too have been attacked by attorneys who will not hesitate to slander, libel and defame and toe the legal line while doing so. I would not wish that experience on anyone. There is a special place in the afterlife for those who lack morals and ethics and seek to destroy the innocent. May their name be erased from memory.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

Words to live by...

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:37 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

How does that make you any different from that criminal defense attorney that you claim to despise?

I too have been attacked by attorneys who will not hesitate to slander, libel and defame and toe the legal line while doing so. I would not wish that experience on anyone. There is a special place in the afterlife for those who lack morals and ethics and seek to destroy the innocent. May their name be erased from memory.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

Words to live by...

I would not be compromising my ethics to get the best defense I could. If I was guilty, I probably already had compromised them. And the fight would more than likely be against the legal system, not an individual, because he was a criminal defense attorney.

If you are ever in trouble on a criminal charge, I am sure you wouldn’t enjoy jail time due to settling for a mediocre attorney because the good one does things you don’t like.

Keith B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:33 am

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:37 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

How does that make you any different from that criminal defense attorney that you claim to despise?

I too have been attacked by attorneys who will not hesitate to slander, libel and defame and toe the legal line while doing so. I would not wish that experience on anyone. There is a special place in the afterlife for those who lack morals and ethics and seek to destroy the innocent. May their name be erased from memory.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

Words to live by...

I would not be compromising my ethics to get the best defense I could. If I was guilty, I probably already had compromised them. And the fight would more than likely be against the legal system, not an individual, because he was a criminal defense attorney.

If you are ever in trouble on a criminal charge, I am sure you wouldn’t enjoy jail time due to settling for a mediocre attorney because the good one does things you don’t like.

No true Scotsman. As expected. Guess I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed. Thanks.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:15 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:33 am

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:37 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

How does that make you any different from that criminal defense attorney that you claim to despise?

I too have been attacked by attorneys who will not hesitate to slander, libel and defame and toe the legal line while doing so. I would not wish that experience on anyone. There is a special place in the afterlife for those who lack morals and ethics and seek to destroy the innocent. May their name be erased from memory.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

Words to live by...

I would not be compromising my ethics to get the best defense I could. If I was guilty, I probably already had compromised them. And the fight would more than likely be against the legal system, not an individual, because he was a criminal defense attorney.

If you are ever in trouble on a criminal charge, I am sure you wouldn’t enjoy jail time due to settling for a mediocre attorney because the good one does things you don’t like.

No true Scotsman. As expected. Guess I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed. Thanks.

I want to be clear that if I was not guilty, in my case I would want him to fight tooth and nail to prove my innocence, and if that required he made the person that had wrongly accused me show up in a bad light, then so be it.

I would not want him, in my case, to drag around someone else who was innocent just to try and clear me if I was actually guilty. However, He was one of the best at what he did, and if he could use his skills to sway a court or jury to clear me, or at least lessen the sentence, I would want that. I think anyone would want that from their defense attorney.

I’m not talking traffic tickets or minor infractions, I am talking assault, murder, etc level of crimes. I hopefully will never have to fight one of those types of charges, but it could happen if you had to defend yourself and were falsely accused of it not being self-defense.

Keith B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:44 am

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:15 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:33 am

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:37 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

How does that make you any different from that criminal defense attorney that you claim to despise?

I too have been attacked by attorneys who will not hesitate to slander, libel and defame and toe the legal line while doing so. I would not wish that experience on anyone. There is a special place in the afterlife for those who lack morals and ethics and seek to destroy the innocent. May their name be erased from memory.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

Words to live by...

I would not be compromising my ethics to get the best defense I could. If I was guilty, I probably already had compromised them. And the fight would more than likely be against the legal system, not an individual, because he was a criminal defense attorney.

If you are ever in trouble on a criminal charge, I am sure you wouldn’t enjoy jail time due to settling for a mediocre attorney because the good one does things you don’t like.

No true Scotsman. As expected. Guess I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed. Thanks.

I want to be clear that if I was not guilty, in my case I would want him to fight tooth and nail to prove my innocence, and if that required he made the person that had wrongly accused me show up in a bad light, then so be it.

I would not want him, in my case, to drag around someone else who was innocent just to try and clear me if I was actually guilty. However, He was one of the best at what he did, and if he could use his skills to sway a court or jury to clear me, or at least lessen the sentence, I would want that. I think anyone would want that from their defense attorney.

I’m not talking traffic tickets or minor infractions, I am talking assault, murder, etc level of crimes. I hopefully will never have to fight one of those types of charges, but it could happen if you had to defend yourself and were falsely accused of it not being self-defense.

Situational ethics. You remind me of a French CEO I worked for briefly. He told a story about a dinner in Thailand where they actually had a live monkey under the table with just its skull that had had the top removed sticking up through a hole. They all spooned some brains from the live animal and apparently this was considered a delicacy.

When I called him on it, he said, " well you would do it too, you would do whatever it takes to close the deal". To which I replied, " I would find a way to close the deal without torturing an innocent animal".

Shortly after that the French parent company decided Americans were too difficult to manage and we were divested, much to our delight!

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:44 pm

Situational ethics. You remind me of a French CEO I worked for briefly. He told a story about a dinner in Thailand where they actually had a live monkey under the table with just its skull that had had the top removed sticking up through a hole. They all spooned some brains from the live animal and apparently this was considered a delicacy.

When I called him on it, he said, " well you would do it too, you would do whatever it takes to close the deal". To which I replied, " I would find a way to close the deal without torturing an innocent animal".

Shortly after that the French parent company decided Americans were too difficult to manage and we were divested, much to our delight!

Are you sure you’re not my wife in disguise? Seems everything I say makes you mad.

Seriously, your story above has nothing to do with the topic, so let’s get this back to real life.

The personal life of another is not mine or yours to judge, whether we like them, what they do or not. The fact the lawyer the NRA hires does something with his personal income that you or others don’t like is not really our business. If he represents the NRA the best, then that’s what we want. Same if I hire a lawyer that does things in his personal life, or other cases, that I don’t like or agree with.

I am sure you would be upset if your employer told you what you can or can’t do with your paycheck. Maybe they are vegetarians and would fire you because you went to Outback for dinner? Maybe they are Jewish and don’t want you to be Catholic?

Again, bottom line, if Charles says William Brewer is the right one for the job and will represent the organization the best, then I support his opinion and the NRA’s decision to hire him.

End of my comments on this.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:44 pm

Keith B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:44 am

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:15 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:33 am

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:37 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

How does that make you any different from that criminal defense attorney that you claim to despise?

I too have been attacked by attorneys who will not hesitate to slander, libel and defame and toe the legal line while doing so. I would not wish that experience on anyone. There is a special place in the afterlife for those who lack morals and ethics and seek to destroy the innocent. May their name be erased from memory.

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

Words to live by...

I would not be compromising my ethics to get the best defense I could. If I was guilty, I probably already had compromised them. And the fight would more than likely be against the legal system, not an individual, because he was a criminal defense attorney.

If you are ever in trouble on a criminal charge, I am sure you wouldn’t enjoy jail time due to settling for a mediocre attorney because the good one does things you don’t like.

No true Scotsman. As expected. Guess I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed. Thanks.

I want to be clear that if I was not guilty, in my case I would want him to fight tooth and nail to prove my innocence, and if that required he made the person that had wrongly accused me show up in a bad light, then so be it.

I would not want him, in my case, to drag around someone else who was innocent just to try and clear me if I was actually guilty. However, He was one of the best at what he did, and if he could use his skills to sway a court or jury to clear me, or at least lessen the sentence, I would want that. I think anyone would want that from their defense attorney.

I’m not talking traffic tickets or minor infractions, I am talking assault, murder, etc level of crimes. I hopefully will never have to fight one of those types of charges, but it could happen if you had to defend yourself and were falsely accused of it not being self-defense.

Situational ethics. You remind me of a French CEO I worked for briefly. He told a story about a dinner in Thailand where they actually had a live monkey under the table with just its skull that had had the top removed sticking up through a hole. They all spooned some brains from the live animal and apparently this was considered a delicacy.

When I called him on it, he said, " well you would do it too, you would do whatever it takes to close the deal". To which I replied, " I would find a way to close the deal without torturing an innocent animal".

Shortly after that the French parent company decided Americans were too difficult to manage and we were divested, much to our delight!

I'm not jumping into the fray concerning ethics in the least. However, that story sounds suspiciously like a scene from the movie "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom".

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:37 am

Keith B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:17 pm When I was a LEO we had a local criminal defense attorney who had very low morals, had no issues cheating, twisting the truth, and would do whatever it took to make us look bad and his client look like a choirboy. He was ruthless in his methods and had no issue lying, cheating or ruining your reputation to win. I didn’t like him as a person, and didn’t like his lack of scruples. However, I made it clear that if I was ever in need of services like he provided that he would be the first one I would want to represent me.

I don’t like a lot of things our current Commander in Chief does, but I still think he was the best choice for the job we had to choose from that could beat Hitlery.

Bottom line, if Charles says this is the guy for the job, then I believe him 110% and support the choice.

So you are willing to compromise your ethics as long as the ends justify the means. Good to know.

This is the proverbial last straw. You just can't keep from launching personal attacks and insults when people disagree with your position. Good bye.

Chas.

Kofer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:17 am Trump says New York legal ‘harassment’ forcing businesses to flee, NRA may be next

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ay-be-next

“People are fleeing New York like never before. If they own a business, they are twice as likely to flee. And if they are a victim of harassment by the A.G. of the state, like what they are doing to our great NRA, which I think will move quickly to Texas, where they are loved,” Trump tweeted.

That's an interesting twist. A quick search revealed that it is possible for an organization to move its charter from one state to another. I'd support the NRA leaving NY as it's charter state and moving both the charter and headquarters to Texas, leaving the lobbying arm close by to Wash DC.

Yes! "Nxit" (NRA-exit) to TX!

1911 Raptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:05 pmI for one don’t see a personal attack or insult. I see an opinion based on a previous comment.

Meh, everybody's doin' it. Facebook, Reddit, Twitter etc.

Set of theories and accusations posted in an anonymous ( ) editorial on Ammoland (front page currently). I won't post it here, but, makes for an interesting read. Lots of credibility sacrificed by someone who claims to be a lawyer with over 50 years experience, posting such an opinion piece anonymously.

Hopefully the NRA can release some details soon to refute some of the very negative postulating.