2A Scholars: The Next Generation

Anyone who’s aware of the history of the black civil rights movement knows that it was a multi-generational struggle. There’s little reason to believe that the movement to protect the civil right of keeping and bearing arms is going to be any different. The greats of our movement, who laid the scholarly foundations that made the successes in Heller and McDonald possible, are unfortunately getting old. It is necessary to incubate and foster a new generation of legal minds to continue the scholarship necessary to take this struggle well into the 21st century. It is with this in mind that I spent the weekend as a guest to NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund.

The CRDF hosted a seminar for up-and coming legal scholars, hosted by the very people who put Second Amendment legal scholarship on the map, and made the “standard model” the mainstream viewpoint. It featured lectures from Don Kates, Dave Hardy, Joyce Malcolm, Bob Cottrol, Dave Kopel, Nick Johnson, Steve Halbrook, and several others folks who I will feature as I speak more about the weekend in upcoming posts. I should note that if the caliber of people I met this weekend is any indication, the Second Amendment will be in good hands. As someone with no formal legal training, I certainly felt out of my league. The seminar attendees came from all four corners of North America. From Maine to Florida, over to California, up to Idaho and onward to Alberta. Yes, we even had a Canadian attendee.

I’ll have more to relay as the week progresses, but while the Brady Campaign were busy lighting candles to mourn the passing of their relevance, we were busy trying to secure the future of Second Amendment scholarship. This was a first of its kind event, but if this weekend is any indication, I’m very optimistic for future successes.

The NRA App

I’ve been bugging folks at NRA that they need to do apps for iOS and Android apps for a while now. Looks like they’ve gotten around to producing one. Essentially it acts as a portal to NRA News, ILA alerts, and a lot of NRA’s social media efforts. As a just out of the gate app, I’d give a B-. Some things I’d change:

  • Make a version that is iPad/Tablet enabled.
  • Allow live viewing of NRA News, though it may do that. I’ll have to see when the show rolls around. But judging from what I see now, it does not have such a feature.
  • Donate/Join/Vote/Contact should happen either in app, or go to highly mobile optimized sites. It looks fine from my iPad, but from my iPhone it’s not something that could be done easily.
  • It should be using iOS push to get critical time sensitive information out to members. Members have to approve this on their devices.
  • The “Near Me” feature is a good thing to have, and probably the best feature of the App, but the information provided is very raw. It needs a bit more refinement. For instance, when I search on clubs and associations, I get a lot of police clubs. Those aren’t relevant to me. Some of the information seems to be incomplete, such as local Friends of the NRA events, and I don’t see a complete list of matches in the area.
  • Rep Finder should also be under “Take Action”

In short, I think this is a good start, but it could be a lot better. In general, I feel the app could be better organized. It makes some assumptions that you understand how NRA is structured. For instance, the uninitiated aren’t going to know what “ILA Alerts” are, and that the NRA Blog is only run by a subset of NRA, and is generally non-political.

I’d think a lot bigger on an app than just to act as a portal for various efforts NRA is already doing. It’s essentially a portal, but I don’t really feel it’s engaging.

Bloomberg Bashing NRA With His Media Empire

I’m not surprised to see a piece in Bloomberg Businessweek, trying to dig up dirt on NRA probably to try to discredit HR822, and maybe help push the IRS to investigate his claims:

A toaster that burns the National Rifle Association’s logo onto bread fetched $650 at an auction last month, just one reflection of the money-making power in the gun group’s brand.

The NRA, which began as a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching marksmanship, enters the 2012 election season as a lobbying, merchandising and marketing machine that brings in more than $200 million a year and intends to help unseat the incumbent president. From 2004 to 2010, the group’s revenue from fundraising — including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism — grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues, according to NRA tax returns.

The gifts from the gun makers do not go to NRA political activism. The toaster money raised don’t go to political activism (ours raised $400 from a reader who bought it). They go to the NRA Foundation, which does not participate in political activity. Indeed, it cannot participate in political activity.

More than 50 firearms-related companies have given at least $14.8 million to the Fairfax, Virginia-based group, according to the NRA’s own list for a donor program that began in 2005.

Again, mostly to the NRA Foundation to support shooting sports programs. What they fail to mention is that the amount donated by NRA’s 4 million members is orders of magnitude larger than what’s donated by the industry. That’s why this quite is insulting:

“Unlike organizations which start out controlled by industry and created by industry, like lobbying groups for coal or oil, they really started out as a grassroots organization and became an industry organization,” said William Vizzard, a former agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who’s now a professor of criminal justice at California State University in Sacramento.

They became an industry organization in Professor Vizzards mind, and that’s about it. If he can back this up, which he can’t, I’m all ears. I think the NRA’s response to requests for comments are highly appropriate:

“The NRA will not participate in agenda journalism driven by a news organization owned by an avowed enemy of the Second Amendment — a politician who has been aggressively working against the interests of the NRA, our members and the nation’s gun owners for years.”

Bloomberg can keep this smear campaign up all he wants, but I’m here to tell him his nightmare is true. We’re going to hammer New York City’s gun laws on the relentless anvil of civil rights legislation and litigation. We’re going to beat Bloomberg into submission to the Bill of Rights.

The Battle in 1968

Extranos Alley looks at the battle over the Gun Control Act in 1968. Here, Franklin Orth, NRA President at the time, speaks out against it. One of the best articles I think that can be found on GCA ’68 resides here:

The shift, by the leadership of the National Rifle Association (NRA), from cautious support for the original Dodd Bill to modest opposition of Senate Bill 1592 foreshadowed the most significant and lasting change in the dynamics of gun control policy to occur in the twentieth century. The NRA and firearms [Page 81] manufacturers had supported Dodd’s original bill and the subsequent addition of interstate controls on long guns.[18] Although the official organ of the NRA, The American Rifleman, indicated otherwise, the NRA leadership displayed some willingness to compromise with Dodd as late as 1965.[19] Negative response by the membership precipitated a subsequent reversal of direction by the NRA leadership.[20] This uprising by a significant portion of the NRA membership owed much to the development of a specialized gun press that catered to the most avid of gun enthusiasts.[21] The editorial staffs of magazines such as Guns, Guns and Ammo, and Gun Week inalterably opposed gun control in any form and benefited from heightened interest in gun issues.[22] By 1965, the leadership and membership of the NRA divided along a fault line separating those tolerant of moderate increases in gun control from those opposed to any significant change in the law.[23] Although the NRA leadership responded to this internal pressure with increased opposition to new legislation, their policy shift failed to satisfy a powerful segment within the membership. This internal dissatisfaction within the NRA provided the impetus for a 1977 coup by the libertarian faction within the organization and the ouster of the more moderate old guard.[24] Although the relations between Chairman Dodd and the NRA witnesses remained marginally cordial during the 1965 hearings, the atmosphere had begun to chill. Any hope of compromise between advocates of stricter gun control and the NRA ended after 1965.

My understanding is that a big portion of what drove the 1977 Cincinnati Revolt was the fact that NRA leadership was planning to move NRA Headquarters from Rhode Island Avenue in Washington DC to Colorado Springs, not far from a new deluxe shooting facility that would later become The Whittington Center, where it would get out of politics and focus mostly on sports, recreation and conservation. Maxwell Rich was NRA’s Executive VP at the time (Wayne’s job now), and I’ve always been amazed our opponents never made him an honorary Brady Campaign Board Member. If he had succeeded, they probably would have won.

Compromise Happens

Referring again to the discussion thread previously, and over at Weer’d World, and Common Gunsense, in regards to compromise: I think it’s important to understand the nature of compromise to know why it can’t really work even if we could find some. This is a topic I’ve covered before, or at least I feel like I have, but it’s worth renewing the conversation, I think.

You have to start with the base assumption that neither side wants to give up anything. This is a true state. We’d obviously just like to get, say, suppressors deregulated, without having to give up anything. Our opponents, meanwhile, would love to pass, say, a ban on all private transfers of firearms, without having to give up anything. The art of compromise is figuring out what’s most important to you, and seeing if you can trade something you don’t care that much about for something you do. If what you don’t care so much about is something your opponent values highly, then a deal can be struck, especially if what they are giving up is something important to you. In that case a deal is quite likely. The problem is that doesn’t happen too often.

One of the rare cases of something that was at least somewhat close to a true, brokered compromise was HR 2640, where we agreed to funding to improve state reporting to NICS for mental health, in exchange for some important easing of the prohibited persons laws, especially as it applied to people adjudicated of mental illness. The Bradys, in my opinion, actually gave up more in that deal than we did, because what was really important to them at the time was being able to tout a legislative victory. But if Brady could have rammed that bill through without making any concessions, it surely would have.

Most of the time compromise happens through struggle rather than agreement. You start with what you really want, which may not have the votes to pass, and then agree to change it to something less than that to pick up votes. If you’re still looking at improvement once you get to a majority, you have something that can pass. This happens on both sides. HR822 today does not go as far as the effort in the Senate a few years ago. That’s because the Senate effort failed by a few votes, so you need to make changes to pick up the extra votes. On the other side, the Assault Weapons Ban never would have had a sunset provision in it if it wasn’t necessary for our opponents to concede that to pick up needed votes for passage.

So any collaborative effort of a democratic nature is going to tend to, by the nature of the beast, be a compromise. It won’t be something forged on blogs, or by discussion between the sides. It’ll happen through the political process of either trying to pass or defeat a piece of legislation. Both sides will struggle for their own interests, and through lobbyists, will do what they need to achieve a victory, and to scuttle the other side’s best laid plans. The Brady folks don’t want to compromise, and neither do we. That’s why we’ll never be marching, hand in hand to Congress, embracing us each giving up something.

Where Did You Get That Idea?

Sometimes the stuff that comes out of Truth About Guns just boggles the mind. I have no idea how Robert Farago came to the conclusion that NRA was ripping gun bloggers a new one, but that was most decidedly not my takeaway from NRA press release, which seemed aimed more at the accusations of one Dudley Brown of National Association for Gun Rights, who has been spreading paranoid nonsense around the Internets in an attempt to derail the bill. This has been covered extensively here and elsewhere in gun circles. So I have no idea how TTAG came to characterize this as an attack on gun bloggers.

Media Matters Struggles to Come up with NRA Smear Material

As a blogger, I can sympathize with the difficulty of coming up with fresh material on a daily basis. It’s has to be especially hard when your masters are paying you to smear gun rights, and you don’t really know much about the subject.

Reaching as far out there as they can to find something bad to smear NRA with, the latest attempt by Media Matters is to suggest NRA is clearly not a single issue organization, because sometimes Cam has Jim Geraghty on Cam and Company and they sometimes talk about topics other than guns. Ooooh. Real scandal brewing there.

Maybe I’m just not as smart as the enlightened lefties, but I don’t really have too much of a problem distinguishing between “Cam’s Opinion” and and “Official Statement of the National Rifle Association.”

Should We Be Lambasting Kagan Before She Posts a Vote?

Wayne LaPierre addressed CPAC in Florida this past Friday, (written transcript here) and it’s interesting the references to Kagan as if she’s already a sure vote against us. I realize it’s a bit of a long shot that she’s going to vote with us, but you don’t really know what issue will next hit the Court, and you don’t know under what circumstances. On the off chance she might actually side with us, I think writing the history on her before she has a chance to post a vote might not be the wisest move.

And even then, I think a smart argument could be made that it’s not a good idea to lambast any sitting Supreme Court justice if you’re in the process of moving multiple cases that could possibly go before the high Court. But that said, NRA has to get their members thinking about the Supreme Court when they go into the voting booth in November 2012. We have to weigh the remote chance that Kagan will vote with us, against the very real possibility Obama gets to replace one of the Heller five, if re-elected. Gun owners need to realize we’re one justice away from the Second Amendment being read clean out of the constitution, so I suspect that’s why Wayne is erring on the side of driving that particular point home.

GOA Backs Different Reciprocity Bill

GOA is backing a new bill being introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA). From the GOA press release, it appears that the primary difference is that it would allow people in states that do not issue permits to carry in any other state without a permit. The only problem with this bill is that we tried it before, and it failed in the Senate. The situation in the Senate has not remarkably improved, and it’s likely that Schumer had a few more votes up his sleeve against the bill if he needed them. The reason the current bill doesn’t have those provisions is that it’ll recover a few needed votes if this goes to the Senate.

Remember that we not only need to pass this bill, we are quite likely to need to override a veto if we want this to become law. At the least, you need sixty votes in the Senate for it. While I’m sympathetic to the aims of the GOA bill, the only impacted state is Vermont, and Vermonters can easily obtain a non-resident license from New Hampshire that gets them around the problem.

I appreciate that GOA is doing a lot better on this subject than NAGR, and they have at least decided to support a similar bill. But I don’t believe their bill is going to go anywhere.

NAGR Coming out Against HR822

The National Association for Gun Rights are worried about federal intervention into the issue of concealed carry, going so far as to adopt the utterly ridiculous moniker for this bill, “National CCW Registration Act.” Understand that I don’t belittle anyone who has concerns about the feds getting involved in traditionally state issue of concealed carry. Those concerns are completely legitimate, and prior to McDonald and Heller I shared them. Nonetheless, many of NAGR’s points are ridiculous, and I’ll take on some them to explain my opinion on the matter.

While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.

Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it’s only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.

This won’t use a federal bureaucracy. There won’t be any Department of Reciprocity Enforcement. It’s just that the federal law offers a defense in court if a state chooses to arrest someone with a firearm, who is licensed by any state to carry it in a state other than their state of residence. NAGR’s concern seems to be that Congress will come along later and set federal standards.

But the devil is truly in the details… and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.

This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

There are no details. The bill is remarkably simple. If you have a license from any state, you can carry in any other state that issues concealed carry licenses under the same standard for an unrestricted license in that state. The only exception is your state of residence, or states that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. For people who live in Vermont, they can go next door to NH and get a non-resident permit, which would allow them to carry in every state except Illinois (which prohibits concealed weapons entirely).

Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything … and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”

That’s an excuse for never passing any pro-gun law. Congress can always turn around and screw us. There’s never any time when that’s not the case. The “Obamacrats” in the Department of Justice don’t have any power to draw up “regulations” that Congress doesn’t give them. HR822 does not grant bureaucrats any rule making authority.

I believe I should be able to carry concealed — without a permit — in all 50 states. That’s what “bear arms” means. Believe me, that’s a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.

That’s wonderful. I agree. But the world we live in is one in which only four states allow carry without a permit. All but one still have a permit option. We might be able to grow that by a few states in a few years, but it’s not going away any time soon. In addition, I view that the courts are highly unlikely to invalidate the requirement of a concealed carry license, provided the licenses aren’t issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because it doesn’t measure up to your ideal is not an excuse for not improving our current reality.

Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.

No one is allowing “Obamacrats” to mandate anything. The only thing this bill mandates is reciprocity. It establishes no federal standard. Understand that the main source of Congressional power to pass this bill is the 14th Amendment. Court precedent does not allow Congress to take the legislation farther than the courts have been willing to go. The Courts were pretty clear there’s a right to carry, but have been vague about how the bounds of that right are defined. That’s the reason this bill does very little. Establishing federal standards for reciprocity would be a considerably more dubious exercise of the 14th Amendment power. So would creating federal standards by which states issue permits, which it seems NAGR is more concerned about. That would be gun control. Congress can always pass gun control. This bill is not anywhere close to gun control. It would also be a highly dubious exercise of federal power to impose licensing standards on states even under the commerce clause.

Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

That is absolute nonsense. It’s just not true at all. This bill only covers reciprocity. Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming still issue permits for reciprocity purposes, even if they do not require it to carry in that state. Vermont does not issue permits, but New Hampshire will issue to residents of Vermont on a shall-issue basis. A Vermonter with a NH permit can carry in every state someone with a Texas permit can under HR822.

It doesn’t stop with just concealed carry. They’ll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms — much less use them for self defense.

They can always do this. This is like arguing that we shouldn’t build a missile defense system because the Russians might decide to nuke New York. Congress can always pass gun control. The reason they haven’t is because they fear us.

They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections — state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.

The worst that could happen down the line is that an anti-gun Congress tinkers with the requirements for reciprocity to be enforced. You can bet that every gun rights group will oppose that. At worst, you fall back on state reciprocity, since the feds wouldn’t mandate reciprocal licensing for all but the most strict states. Everything else going through Dudley Brown’s active imagination would amount to a new gun control bill that does not involve the subject of reciprocity. Congress could pass a bill forbidding states from allowing concealed carry any time it wanted. That’s not an excuse for doing nothing.

That’s why you and I have to make noise, now!

Please call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 (send an email, too; you can get that link here) and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the Federal Government’s hands off the state-run CCW permit system.

<sarcasm>I think I can speak for gun owners everywhere in sincerely thanking Dudley Brown for giving some of our weak kneed critters the “pro-gun” cover they need to vote against a bill many of them would rather not vote for in the first place.</sarcasm> We are truly our own worst enemies. Who needs the Brady Campaign, VPC, and CSGV when you have NAGR?