Category: Gun Rights Organizations

I got a response from NRA regarding the member form:

Per this post: http://www.pagunblog.com/?p=2253, let me both thank you and apologize. In reading this, I went back to double check the functionality of this ILA web form only to find there is a problem with it delivering e-mail to us. We had no reason to suspect a problem as the web form used by the PVF site was functioning fine, and we were receiving a steady stream of direct e-mails to ILA.

Just so you and others who usually contact NRA for legislative and political matters are aware, the direct (and recommended) ILA e-mail address is ila-contact@nrahq.org.

Please feel to share with other interested (and aggrieved) parties, and again, my thanks and apologies.

That was from Glen Caroline, Director of NRA-ILA Grassroots, who was kind enough to come talk to us at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno last October. Hopefully this problem will get fixed shortly.

Here is Senator Coburn’s floor remarks in regards to HR2640 (you can find it on Thomas if you dig enough, but as we know, Thomas links don’t work). One wonders whether GOA, after boasting of the influence they had on the senator, will now claim he is also a sell out:

Mr. President, later today, Senator Schumer will bring up the Criminal Background Check Improvement Act, which is an important piece of legislation. When this bill was originally hotlined, we asked that it be held so that we could discuss the improvements to the bill.

This bill came out of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. It is important that the American people understand that what we are changing in this bill would not have prevented what happened at Virginia Tech. What happened to the individuals there was because the law we have on the books was not followed by the State of Virginia. They recognized that shortly thereafter and have made corrective action to it.

What is also important to note is that under the previous legislation we have had, over $400 million a year was authorized to help the States implement the programs so that somebody who is truly a danger to themselves or others or has been admitted to a mental institution and considered mentally defective–that is a term of the bureaucracy–is not allowed to purchase a gun. We all agree to that in this country. So when you don’t follow the law, the laws don’t work. Consequently, the families are suffering great grief at this time because the law wasn’t followed.

Too often, the first reaction of Congress is to hurry up and pass a bill. There are and have been in this bill some good ideas. But there were some bad ideas. The idea of holding the bill to be able to work with those who are offering the bill to get improvements has come about. The principle is this: As we protect people from the dangers of weapons by withholding both criminals and those people who constitute a threat to themselves and others, we can’t do that if we are going to step on the rights of those who have a right and who are not in that category.

I wish to take a moment to thank Senator Schumer for his hard work and Elliot of his staff for his hard work and to recognize my staff, Jane Treat and Brooke Bacak and others on my staff who worked through the last couple of months to improve this bill. We have come out to make sure those people, veterans in this country who go out and defend, with their lives, bodies, and their futures, our rights, aren’t inappropriately losing their rights under this legislation.

It is interesting for the American people to know that at this time, if you are a veteran and you come home with a closed head injury and you resolve that, then, in fact, by the time you wake up and recover over a year or 2-year period, you will have lost all your rights to bear an arm to be able to go hunting, to be able to skeet shoot, to be able to hunt with your grandchildren, without any notification whatsoever that you have lost that right. That is the present law. That is what is happening.

We have 140,000 veterans with no history of mental deficiency, no history of being dangerous to themselves or others, who have lost, without notice, their right to go hunting, to skeet shoot, to have that kind of outing in this wonderful country of ours in a legal, protected sense. What this bill does is it attempts to address that by giving them an opportunity for relief. It mandates that, first of all, they are notified if that happens to them so that they know they are losing their rights. What a tragedy it would be if a veteran who lost his rights but doesn’t know it becomes incarcerated under a felony for hunting with his grandson because it is illegal for him to own, handle, or transmit a weapon? That is not what we intended to do in this Congress some 10 years ago. Yet that is the real effect of what is happening.

Consequently, we are at a point now where we have agreed with the fact that we want to make sure–and we want to put the resources through this authorization–it covers those who could be a danger to themselves and others, and we are going to help the States implement this law, the law on the books, by authorizing significant sums to do this. It is not a new authorization; $400 million was authorized before, but the appropriators didn’t appropriate it. They chose to make a higher priority. The most ever appropriated under this, I think, was $23 million a year.

So, in fact, what we want to do now is say we mean it, which means when it comes to appropriations time, this authorization will have no effect unless, in fact, we appropriate the money to the States to carry out this notification system. It is something we can and must do. It shows that when we work together to solve the problems and protect the future and honor the Constitution, the rights under the Constitution, we can do that if people of good faith and of good intent work together to solve that.

My compliments to Senator Schumer and his staff and Hendrik Van Der Vaart on my staff for the hours and hours we have put in to make sure this happened.

A couple other key points. Sometimes the bureaucracy delays whether or not you are on this list. So we have said that, at the end of the year, if they can’t decide, it is going to be adjudicated that you cannot have a gun and you will have to prove that you can. That is fair enough, provided we create the means with which you can recover the cost of that adjudication. So if, in fact, you get to Federal court and you win your case that there is not anything wrong with you, the Federal Government is going to pay your lawyer’s fees and return your rights–the rights given to everybody else in this country–return your wrongly denied rights back to you.

Therefore, we really, truly do give access to those who have been injured under this law and, at the same time, protect the rest of the American public from those who could be injured when we don’t follow the law.

I also pay tribute to Congresswoman McCarthy. I served with her in the House. She has been dedicated to this issue for years. She suffered a terrible tragedy herself at the hands of somebody who was obviously deranged. This will mark a milestone for one of the things she wanted to accomplish during her service in the Congress.

It is my hope that others will not hold this bill. It is my hope that when it comes appropriations time, the moneys that are necessary to put the people who really are a danger to themselves and others on the national criminal background check, that they will get there, and that those who should not be there will not be there. So it is a balance, a balance for protection, but it is also a balance to preserve rights, especially for our veterans–the very people who continue to protect our rights. They are going to be preserved.

Myself and Senator Schumer sent a letter to the ATF asking them to reconsider some of the wording in their ruling because it puts people in there who should not be. We are hopeful that they recognize that, and that they, because of a bipartisan query, do a rulemaking process that really directs this where it should be. When that happens, we will have finished everything we need to do, except get the dollars appropriated to implement this act.

Again, my hat is off to Senator Schumer and those who have worked tirelessly to get this done. It is with great appreciation for the manner in which it was handled, and it is my hope that we will pass this on and see the great accomplishments of protecting people from those who are a danger to themselves and others.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I think there’s plenty of room out there for more than one pro-gun group, but I will continue to criticize GOA as long as they insist on the circular firing squad method of boosting their own stature at the expense of other groups, and continue misrepresenting the issue and the extent of their own influence. Senator Coburn’s positive remarks about this bill raise a lot of questions in my mind about the extent of GOA’s influence on him, and how much they had to do with this hold.

The bill passed by unanimous consent, which means that Coburn did not object to the final bill in the end. Is he now to be a turncoat? Or is he still a hero because he addressed some shortcomings of the house version? If he’s still a hero, doesn’t that mean compromise can be forgiven sometimes? If he’s now to be a villain, what do you think Coburn’s reaction will be next time GOA comes calling for a favor?

I ask these questions to explain the trade-offs made during the political process, because understanding it is key to understanding why GOA’s approach to politics will never be effective.

Both David Codrea, a commenter from a few days ago, and myself, in the past, actually, have used this form to submit a comment to NRA and never gotten a response.  Anyone else out there not gotten an answer when they’ve used this form?

Leave your experience in the comments.  I know people at NRA read this blog, and I’ll make sure they see it.

According to Jacob, it’s targeted for Iowa.

Looks like the American Red Cross is the most recognized organization, but look at this:

Consumer Reports was the next most-familiar organization, followed by the AARP and then the National Rifle Association.

Take that Brady Campaign!

The most-powerful group was the labor union AFL-CIO, netting 84 percent, narrowly topping the National Rifle Association, which garnered 83 percent of respondents who said they believed the group had at least a fair amount power.

That’s sure to make Peter Hamm choke on his Christmas ham.

The distinct odor of bullshit over HR2640 was beginning to subside, but it’s passage has once again caused me to smell the odor. I’m completely willing to give Gun Owners of America a break to be what they are, the “no compromise” gun group that stands ready to charge up and take the hill. I don’t expect them to like HR2640. I do expect, however, that they will make factual and non-inflammatory arguments against it, and not try to smear other pro-gun groups who support it as the enemy. That does not help the cause. Let’s take a look:

The bill — known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents — is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign.

As far as I know, GOA is the only group that’s called it the Veterans Disarmament Act, it’s an odd title for a bill that will help restore the right to bear arms to a great many veterans who might have had problems when they first came home, but don’t now.

The core of the bill’s problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a “prohibited person” on the basis of a “medical finding of disability,” so long as a veteran had an “opportunity” for some sort of “hearing” before some “lawful authority” (other than a court). Presumably, this “lawful authority” could even be the psychiatrist himself.

This is nonsense. Here’s what the section in question actually says:

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if–

(A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This section is specifically calling for due process protections for people who are prohibited persons. I challenge GOA to show me any state law where a psychiatrist can unilaterally commit someone for mental health treatment. The very term “adjudication” requires that it be some legal authority. This is not a psychiatrist.

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in — statutorily — huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.

And then it “graciously” allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

Show me where in the bill is adds a new class of prohibited person. Seriously. It’s not there. They are pulling this out of their asses. What they also aren’t saying is that “gracious” allowing of people who are prohibited persons for mental health reasons doesn’t exist at all under current law, and the new senate version will actually allow them to attempt to recover legal fees from the government.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the “right hand” are taken away by the “left.” Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if “the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.” (Emphasis added.)

Um, doesn’t this language sound similar to those state codes (like California’s) that have “may issue” concealed carry laws — where citizens “technically” have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don’t grant the permits!

No, it actually sounds nothing like that. Sheriffs in California and other may issue states have much broader discretion than this. Here’s the actual language:

(a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program–

(1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;

(2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person’s record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and

(3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.

The emphasis there is mine. GOA’s argument is hinging on the subjectivity of the language, but almost all language in legislation is subjective. But again, I stress the relief this bill is creating is still better than the current system, which is to have no relief.

But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.

Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. There’s no reasonable reading of that section which supports that argument. I have no problem if GOA wants to oppose this bill. Reasonable people can disagree on its merits, and it’s certainly reasonable to argue it doesn’t go far enough. But I can’t stand to see GOA going to such lengths to deceive people as to exactly what this bill does, and doesn’t do, and couch their opposition in hyperbolic and inflammatory language. I will never give a dime to GOA because of crap like this, and that’s a shame, because we need other groups to go out on limbs that NRA isn’t able to.

Dave Hardy reviews Richard Feldman’s book, and doesn’t find it to be as bad as it is made out to be.

It isn’t. He plainly thought the world of Harlon Carter (as do I), feels that gun laws do harm rather than good, and that NRA’s objectives are correct. He plainly dislikes Wayne and former ILA head Jim Baker, and their financial decisions, and dislikes Neal Knox. There’s some bias there, since Jim Baker got him essentially fired. But the dislikes take up maybe ten pages of the book — it’s just that the reviewers, who hate the progun cause, focus on quotes from those pages.

I think the book will actually help the firearms rights cause. Given the reviews, there will probably be a lot of people buying it who are antigun. But to find the ten pages of criticism, they will have to read about 280 pages on why gun laws (including assault weapons bans) are nonsense, Harlon’s brilliance in creating the modern NRA, how sleazy or foolish antigun politicians are sleazy or dumb (priceless case: NY governor Mario Cuomo tries to defuse tension during a meeting with Feldman and others, by intentionally sitting on a whoopee cushion and then showing it to them), how pro-gunners are honest and decent, etc., etc..

Read the whole thing. I’m not sure Feldman’s book is intended to be subversive, in the manner of enticing anti-gun people to buy it, and then hitting them with a pro-gun message, but if that’s the end result, I’m not going to complain.

UPDATE: Countertop Comments:

Frankly, complaining about people driving Mercedes in Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. to people in Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. is a bit ludicrous.  Sure, folks in the heartland might be offended, but its no different than any place else.  Thats what the average person here drives, so thats what your going to see.

Even the marketing arrangements and nepotism that Feldman complains of, it isn’t any different than what you would see anywhere else in D.C.

And the salary’s too.  Last time I checked, Wayne LaPierre was making around $600k a year.  Its nice, but not a lot. Not by D.C. standards, not when the heads of much less powerful (and smaller, and poorer) organizations are making millions a year in salary in addition to all the perks and bonuses they all get (and they all get them).

If the NRA wants to continue to be successful, and its phenomenally successful (GOA complains that every piece of gun control legislation has its finger prints on it, well yeah. Thats cause nothing gets by without the NRA’s sign off.  But remove the NRA and everything gets by.  You have to pick your battles, and considering where we’ve been, we’re doing pretty good right now) , its going to have to continue to hire the best.

I don’t disagree.  I don’t honestly think we’re doing too badly as a movement right now.  We have our opponents on the ropes.  Get rid of the leaders?  I’m not going to consider it until I’m convinced they are doing the wrong thing.

… “apologist” for the NRA out there.  I guess they weren’t late with the wheelbarrow this month.