Category: Gun Rights Organizations

To Robb Allen, at Sharp as a Marble. I can remember my first wheelbarrow full of cash, about a year ago. I had to send it back actually, because the bills in it looked like old bills that someone had put under an iron in an attempt to make them appear new, and I had insisted that they be neat, clean, new unmarked bills, fresh from the NRA vault-o-cash.

So that’s my bit of advice to Robb. Don’t let the NRA stick you with bills from their money laundering operation. Insist on clean, fresh, and unmarked. Also, don’t let them stick you with the wheelbarrow that has the squeaky wheel. Make someone grease is up first, but not too much that you risk getting it all over the money.

Seen on a forum:

I’ve tossed around the idea of a life membership before but I’m terrified of receiving a notice that my life membership is about to expire and the only way to prevent it is to send more money!

NRA has published a much better statement than their initial one in their latest Grassroots Alert:

Gun owners are understandably dismayed about the brief filed by the Department of Justice.

Although the DOJ brief was filed on the same day as “friend of the court” briefs supporting the District, it does not support DC’s position but rather its own unique point of view-a view with which the NRA still disagrees.

The District is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals and find that the Second Amendment does not protect a broad individual right. DOJ is supporting a different view-that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and that the case should go back to the lower court to apply a different standard of review. DOJ suggests applying a lower level of constitutional scrutiny than the Court of Appeals adopted. The NRA disagrees and believes the lower court’s ruling should be upheld.

NRA believes that the right to arms is a fundamental right; as with other fundamental rights, laws restricting that right deserve the highest level of scrutiny. The NRA and those seeking to overturn the gun ban believe that the scope of the Second Amendment is clear. Contrary to DOJ’s suggestion, this case is not about felons or machine guns. This case is about law-abiding people who want handguns and long guns for self-defense. The total ban on self-defense gun ownership in D.C. is so severe that it should be found unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, and we will make that point in our “friend of the court” brief when it is filed next month.

Finally, while NRA strongly disagrees with many of the arguments in DOJ’s brief, there are a few areas of agreement. Notably, DOJ agrees that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that it applies to the District, even strongly hinting that under the lower “heightened scrutiny” it supports that D.C laws could be unconstitutional. This was not the position of the previous administration. In fact, Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno and Solicitor General Seth Waxman, along with other DOJ officials from the Clinton administration have filed their own brief in support of the District, arguing that there is no individual right at all to possess guns outside of government service.

DOJ also recognizes that the Second Amendment protects a right to self-defense, and that the right to arms was a pre-existing right protected, but not created, by the Constitution.
If you would like to express your opinion of this brief directly to DOJ, please call the Department’s Press Office at: (202) 514-2007.

Follow the link for some more background on the brief filers. This is a much better statement than the original one, and I am pleased that they had more to say on this.

I’m not entirely sure who David is saying might have wanted the DOJ Brief to come out the way it did, but having talked to several people who are running themselves ragged working on this case, I want to make my views on this clear.

No one I have talked to or heard about, that was wary about the Parker case initially, was opposed to it for any reason than they thought it was going to lose if it hit the Supreme Court.  A lot has changed since 2003, when the case was initially filed, and many of the folks who were initially wary are working very hard on making sure the case comes out in favor of Heller, and we get a strong individual rights ruling from The Court.  That includes council that’s working for the National Rifle Association.  The initial conflagration has been put aside, because the important thing now is for the case to come out on terms that doesn’t gut the second amendment.

In a move that’s sure to make my next wheelbarrow a bit less laden with crisp, unmarked bills, I felt the NRA statement on the DOJ Brief was weak. I feel I should further elaborate here.

First, NRA’s detractors are bound to tout this as a prime example of everything they think is wrong with the National Rifle Association. Based on what I’ve been seeing various places, that’s already happening. I’m not going to join that camp, but I am going to lay out why I think a more strongly worded statement was needed here.

The NRA needed to be diplomatic about how it went after the issue, and as much as people might want to see it, they can’t afford to attack the Bush Administration in a big and public way. In short, they have to be nice. But they didn’t have to just roll over, which I think is what they did. Former NRA President Sandy Froman goes into more detail in this article as to where exactly the Bush Administration has let us down:

But it does not ask the Court to affirm the DC Circuit Court judgment in favor of Heller, either. Instead, it asks the Court to vacate (or throw out) the lower court opinion, and send the case back for a rehearing applying a lesser standard of review to the rights embodied in the Second Amendment than are typically applied to other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like the First and Fourth Amendments.

Read the whole thing. If you read the brief in its entirety, the Solicitor General is not only asking for a standard that would, presumably, uphold a number of federal gun laws, but contains language that suggests they would want to leave the door open to even further restrictions, such as a new assault weapons ban or a ban on certain other types of firearms.

The gun vote was a primary driver for making sure Bush won the White House in 2000 and 2004, and the NRA endorsements he received played a big role on that. The Heller case is arguably the most important struggle gun owners have ever faced, and I don’t think its unreasonable to demand something greater than lukewarm support from The Administration on this matter. I think a proper response would have been to praise The Administration for what they got right, but make it clear that the level of review called for in this brief is unacceptable to the NRA. Sandy closes out with some good language in her article:

Each presidential candidate must speak out on this brief. The Justice Department has not gone far enough to support the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and so those who aspire to lead our nation must step up and call on the Supreme Court to affirm the judgment of the DC Circuit striking down the ban.

This is a chance for all the GOP candidates to show what they’re made of, distinguishing themselves from the Democrats.

In short, had I been charged with writing a statement for NRA, mine would have looked more like Sandy’s. Praise what the Administration got right, explain what they got wrong and why it does not please us, explain how important this case is for our gun rights, invite the GOP presidential aspirants to talk about how they could do better.

I think there were ways to let the GOP know we are displeased, without jeopardizing relations. I don’t think we got that, and I worry that rolling over will cheapen NRA’s endorsement, and send a message to the next President that there’s no risk in upsetting the gun vote, because where else are we going to go?

UPDATE: Joe isn’t surprised.  To be honest, I’m not really surprised either.  But I do want to do better in 2008 than we did in 2000.  Bush is a reflection of the politics we had to settle for in 2000.  It wasn’t too long ago when candidates were arguing for licensing of gun owners.  The political climate is much more favorable now, and I want to ensure that the GOP candidates for 2008 understand we expect more of them than we did of Bush.

Can be found here:

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the whole thing. While the Solicitor General’s brief does agree with an individual rights point of view, and while it also does not call for DC’s handgun ban to be upheld, what it is intended to do is preserve the existing federal firearms laws, by applying a level of scrutiny that would uphold them. What angers me is that The Administration is dragging other issues into this case which are not currently at question. This case is not about the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act of 1968. It has nothing at all to do with federal regulations on machine guns. The issue here should not be what standard of scrutiny upholds the current federal gun laws. The Second Amendment ought to receive the highest level of scrutiny as we would apply to any other part of the Bill or Rights. By calling for less than that, I still stand by my assertion that Bush has slapped us in the face, and I wish NRA would have issued a stronger statement on this one.

There, I said it.  Happy now?  Bush was always a lesser of two evils choice.  I think NRA needs to reconsider whether endorsing a lesser of two evils candidate is really worthwhile.  If Bush is the bar for getting an endorsement, what incentive do other candidate have to work hard for it?  The bar for 2008 must be set higher than it was in 2000 and 2004.  In other words, don’t even think about endorsing Guiliani or Romney.  Even McCain I would be reluctant to endorse at this point.

This part would normally be where I should rant on about how the NRA endorsement system is a total cluster fuck, how NRA doesn’t represent the interest of gun owners, and how Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre are incompetent boobs and have hurt the cause by leading all us useful idiots down this dank dark path, and collecting luxuriant salaries while doing that.  Apparently that’s the proper way to disagree with NRA.  I must have not gotten the memo.

But you know I’m not going to do that, because I think most of their critics in the same place would also make mistakes; probably a lot more than these guys do.  There’s no magic formula for winning in politics.   Let me say that again so it sinks in: There is no magic formula for winning at politics.   People saying they have one (like, if you just never compromise, if you just scream “No!”, you’ll win!) are selling snake oil.

The endorsement system is a political tool.  I don’t have to condemn NRA for their endorsement of Bush, because the consequences of that endorsement are built into the system; Bush has lowed the bar of NRA’s endorsement and reduced its value.   Real friends won’t do that to someone who helped get them elected, but while Bush is loyal to his personal friends to a fault, his loyalty to his political constituencies has left a lot to be desired.  I’m not sure there’s any constituency left in the Republican Party has hasn’t punched in the face by Bush.

NRA needs to be more careful in its 2008 endorsements.  These things do matter, and we’re seeing the result of putting someone in the White House who doesn’t seem to be all that loyal to the people who helped put him there.

Sailorcurt offers me some criticism in the comments:

Sebastian, I have a lot of respect for you. You seem to be a very reasonable, wise, and responsible person…but I fail to understand your seemingly vested interest in supporting the NRA no matter what.

I do it because we need a national gun rights movement, and the NRA is the only organization out there that represents that.  SAF, JPFO, and even GOA sometimes can have their uses, but if we had to rely on those organizations we’d be finished.  I support the NRA even when they make mistakes because I want to win this.  For me, and for future generations.

But I’m also not supporting this situation.  I’ve said repeatedly I disagree with the NRA’s priorities in Georgia.  I have told them the same.  But my perspective is one of a concealed carry license holder.  An important thing to remember is that people who carry guns are a minority among gun owners.  Reforming carry laws may be a priority to you and me, but there is a lot of support for the “Parking Lot” initiative among gun owners in general, especially gun owners who hunt and shoot recreationally after work.   Should NRA abandon those interests in favor of ours?  Would the people who support the Parking Lot initiative as their priority also be justified in their anger at NRA for abandoning them?

Maybe I’m wrong for not being more outraged by this.  If you think that’s the case don’t be shy in the comments.  But I think we need to distinguish between making some interests of gun owners a priority over others, and throwing other groups of gun owners under the bus for the sake of others.  Carry reform is not dead in Georgia because of this.  If NRA had agreed to, say, add more restrictions on concealed carry to get their parking lot bill, my level of anger would be a a lot higher.   That’s the kind of thing we can’t do.

GeorgiaCarry.org is pissed because their legislation, which seemed likely to pass, got killed when NRA attached their Parking Lot provision to it.  I don’t blame GCO for being pissed about it.  They represent a certain constituency, and NRA decided another one was more important.  Was this a smart thing for NRA to do?  From my point of view, no.   But my point of view isn’t the only one that matters.

I noticed in the comments over at Kim’s:

At the same time as HB89 was introduced in the House, the NRA bill – SB43 – was introduced in the Senate. This bill would allow employees to keep a gun locked in their vehicle in company parking lots while they were at work. GCO not only did not oppose this bill, but offered support for it as well.

While HB89 made its way through the House and was passed by a fairly large margin, SB43 brought about very focused opposition from two very large and well funded lobbying groups – the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry. Business and insurance companies feared the lawsuits that might result from a shooting and specifically and massively focused on defeating this bill. They succeeded and SB43 was voted down in the Senate.

At this point, HB89 was in committee in the Senate and it looked very favorable for passage by the Senate as well. The NRA then focused their lobbying efforts on amending the GCO bill – HB89 – by adding the wording of SB43 to it GCO politely and strongly urged the NRA to leave the bill alone so it could pass and was completely ignored.

So HB89 was not really the NRA’s bill, they hijacked it (yes, I used that term deliberately). And once they added SB43’s wording to it, it was also doomed to fail. The amended bill never left the committee, which is why it was already on the docket at the beginning of this year’s session, picking up where it left off last year.

Read the whole thing.  This is an unfortunate circumstance, for certain.  Georgia activists aren’t the first state level group to get pooped on when NRA decides it has different priorities. Sometimes NRA is going to sacrifice a state or local issue for the sake of it’s national agenda.  It sucks, but I don’t know how to change that.  NRA can’t always put its priorities on hold to accommodate everything a state or local group wants to accomplish.  That was a case where it was either going to be NRA who had egg on their face or GCO.  I don’t blame GCO’s feathers for being ruffled over this, but it’s not irreparable damage.

I still stand by my analysis that the “private property” clause in HB 915 jeopardizes HB 89.  I had made the assertion that this seemed deliberate.  That would not appear to be the case, according to GCO and the legislation’s sponsor.  NRA is going to be particularly sensitive to clauses that could be grounds for a court challenge to their parking lot bill, which is practically a guarantee if it passes.

I think the ironic thing in this whole issue in Georgia is that I’m actually not in favor of the parking lot bill, and would prefer a bill like HB 915 to be passed in its place.  But I find myself defending NRA’s position on the bill, which I don’t agree with, because I think the criticisms that it won’t get behind HB 915 are unfair.

Gun owners should take a hard look at the situation that got this whole “Parking Lot” thing going:

On October 1, 2002, the company sent detection dogs into the parking lot of their Valliant, Oklahoma paper mill plant looking for drugs in vehicles in response to an employee drug overdose. They found no drugs, but the dogs alerted on 12 cars with guns in them.^[8] Some of the employees were provided by sub-contractors, including Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) and Kenny Industrials.^[9] The company then asked the employees if they would open their vehicles for a hand search, two of them refused, of the remaining 10 vehicles rifles, shotguns, and handguns were found.^[8][9]

…

On November 14, 2002, the vehicles in the parking lot were searched for a second time. All employees were warned that if contraband, either drugs or firearms, were found a second time, they would be terminated. 12 employees were found with contraband and were immediately suspended.^[9]

Whether you agree with the Parking Lot bill or not, the gestapo tactics employed by Weyerhauser in this case are despicable, and I can tell you I would never do business or work for Weyerhauser because they treat their employees with this level of disrespect.  It’s unprofessional on the part of Weyerhauser to violate their employees privacy by conducting random searches of employee property.  I would have told them to get bent.

But as I’ve said, I think an employer has a right to make an ass of themselves in this manner.  While government does rightly interfere with the Employment at Will doctrine to prevent discrimination against certain classes of people, in most cases, we don’t for behavior issues, and I don’t like the idea of opening the door up to that.   I also think the problem has been overstated; are that many employers going as far as Weyerhauser has in terms of searching employee vehicles?  Is it worth the energy and resources to solve this problem legislatively?   These are the things I question.

But if you’re NRA, and you have members worried about situations like Weyerhauser, do you tell them too bad, because NRA is going to stand up for property rights and employer rights?  They are an organization that represents gun owners.  They are not the CATO Institute.  They’re also not Reason Magazine, no matter how much I might agree with Reason’s take here.

I don’t agree with NRA on the parking lot bill, but I won’t blame a tiger for its stripes.  A lot of gun owners see things differently on this matter, and the National Rifle Association represents them every bit as much as it represents me.