Category: Gun Rights Organizations

Armed and Safe has pretty good coverage of the Sullivan confirmation fight, but notices the lack of coverage on the part of NRA:

By the way, I mentioned several pro-gun groups that have taken a public stand against Sullivan as director of the BATFE, but it seems to me that there’s another gun rights group out there–one, in fact, that considers itself to be the “800 lb gorilla of gun rights groups”–which has remained silent about Sullivan. Perhaps they should be asked why.

I would note that one of our two heroes in all this, Senator Larry Craig, serves on the NRA Board of Directors.  I wouldn’t take NRA’s lack of public support for defeating Sullivan has an indication they don’t care about reforming ATF.  It wasn’t too long ago they almost got something through Congress that would have accomplished a lot of the goals, but then the 2006 elections happened.  I have heard from sources inside the association that pushing relief through Congress is still very much a priority, and they remain committed to it. While I was certainly wrong in questioning grass roots efforts to bring down the confirmation, I wasn’t wrong that the whole issue is a lot bigger than just Mike Sullivan, and ultimately, it will take an Act of Congress to fix what’s wrong at ATF.

This shot across the bow by Craig and Crapo could open the door to Sullivan being more receptive to concerns of pro-gun groups and to try to fix some of the problems we’re having with the agency.  It also raises awareness of the problem.  This can’t be anything but good.   But I can imagine that NRA might think it’s better to keep their attention focused on getting action out of Congress on a reform bill, rather than spending their political capital going after Sullivan, with little hope of actually defeating him.

What do you think?   Is this the wrong strategy?  If so, what’s the right strategy?

In answer to this oft repeated question by folks who question the dedication of the the NRA’s Executive Vice President, it would appear that he’s busy writing editorials taking on USA Today’s history of bias against lawful gun ownership.

If folks want to know why I will never join or give a dime to GOA, this is a big part of the reason why. I followed over to their site, and found the accusation in the fall newsletter. Now, given that it was the Wisconsin Ethics Board that made this mistake, I can understand how this made it into the newsletter. I think a phone call might have been in order, but it’s a pretty official source, so I’ll give them a break on the original inclusion.

But now, knowing it’s a mistake, do you think maybe a public retraction is in order? It seems like the honorable thing to do. But I’m afraid WGO is more interested in crapping on NRA than being honorable.

I don’t think it’s healthy for gun owners to only have one voice, but it’s definitely not healthy gun rights activists and organizations to form a circular firing squad, and I won’t have any part of organizations that promote it. It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to do what GOA and their state affiliates have been doing as of late.

Bitter and I just returned from a “Friends of the NRA” Banquet at the Middletown Township Country Club. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Friends Banquets, it’s 35 dollars per person, or 60 dollars per couple for the dinner. Before the dinner there are all kinds of raffles and silent auctions, followed by a live auction after dinner. Prizes are anything from cash prizes to firearms. Sadly, I didn’t win any of the raffles, though we came close. If we had arrived 5 minutes earlier, we would have been a winner. But I did win one silent auction item:

I thought it was cheesy, but Bitter liked it, so I bid on it, and put it over my Bench of Evil. The proceeds for the dinner, raffles and auctions go to the NRA Foundation, and doesn’t go to any of their political stuff. The Foundation does educational outreach and support for the shooting sports, so even if you don’t like NRA’s politics, it’s always safe to give to the Foundation if you just want to support the shooting sports. Half of the proceeds are guaranteed go to supporting shooting programs in the state hosting the dinner, in our case, Pennsylvania.

I noticed Uncle linked to this piece in the Seattle PI.  It’s worthwhile to remind everyone exactly who Richard Feldman is.  As it mentions at the end of the article, Feldman “became too close to ‘the enemy’ and was sacked as a lobbyist.”  Feldman was canned because he was more interested in cutting deals with anti-gunners, and seeking out media attention than he was fighting for gun rights.

Now, before anyone goes “But Sebastian, you always say that sometimes you have to make a deal?”  That’s true, but there’s a difference between brokering a deal that makes something that would be really bad a bit less awful, which sometimes you have to do, and actively trying to make deals you don’t need to with the anti-gunners and hope they go away happy.   We all know that won’t work.   Feldman is the latter type.

It’s worthwhile to remember why he was forced to resign from his position at American Shooting Sport Council.   After a series of disastrous appeasements of the Clinton Administration, Feldman became an advocate for settling the lawsuits that were brought by various cities against the firearms industry instead of fighting them.  Feldman poorly understood when it was smart to cut a deal, and when you should fight.  NRA chose to fight, and the industry quickly got together on that and showed Feldman the door.

So it’s worthwhile to remember that Feldman has an axe to grind.

The NRA, he says, would love to see Hillary Clinton in the White House, because once again it would have an adversary in power. “In the endless struggle, it is always better to fight than to win,” he said last week. “For the NRA, losing is winning.”

And the NRA will spend large sums of money trying to defeat Hillary, just like they did Al Gore, even though Feldman also claims Al Gore would have been better for fund raising.  If they are in it merely for the money, it would seem that they don’t know what’s good for them.

The gun issue ain’t going away folks, and there will never be a time when we can stop fighting and NRA can go back to being a shooting sports organization.  I doubt highly that Chris Cox lies awake at night worrying he might be so successful that he’ll be out of a job.

Quite a bold statement buying the Distinguished Life Membership.  Even I’m not a life member.  The one thing I’d remind everyone is that if you’re an NRA member, you should also be aware of the Political Victory Fund, or as I like to call it, the “Defeat Hillary Fund”.  Thanks to our lovely campaign finance laws, PVF can only be supported through member donations.   Thanks John McCain!

I guess Atlantic Free Press isn’t all that concerned about appearing objective and avoiding sensationalizing an issue, or they wouldn’t be smearing NRA members.

Uncle points out something that Conservative Scalawag said about gun groups needing to work together. I agree with this fully, but I thought what Joe Huffman said was worth highlighting.

I’m not convinced that “the same sheet of music” is the best way to accomplish things. For example, the JPFO can say things that the NRA can’t–guns as a defense against tyranny for example. And the NRA can address hunters issues better than the JPFO. That doesn’t mean that the NRA can’t support the same issues at the JPFO. It just means that one or the other is in a better position to “take point” on an issue. As long as the groups don’t stab each other in the back or get into public quarrels there shouldn’t be a problem. They need to have “back channels” of communication and coordinate some. Even if they don’t agree on the best way to address something they can say, “Okay, you try it your way and we’ll be quiet and see what happens, but if it starts to go sour we are stepping in to do it our.” That sort of thing…

Yep. I’ll use the example of the Oregon Teacher lawsuit to illustrate this. To be honest, the best group to do this kind of thing is probably the group that’s backing her, the Oregon Firearms Federation. The only organization that could have produced The Gang, and gotten away with it, is JPFO. If NRA was doing either, they’d be tarred and feathered by the media, and would be held out as an extremist group representing dangerous people. That doesn’t do the movement any good.

I have been harsh on other gun rights groups lately, but not because I have any problems with their goals, but because they are actively engaged in undermining other gun rights groups out there, particularly the NRA. I say OFF is doing a great job with the Shirley Katz issue. Hats off to them. Now, is the sensationalist and untrue anti-NRA cartoon up on their site really accomplishing anything?

If these groups could understand where they can really move the ball forward, and lay off attacking other gun rights group, I could support more of them. Joe is right that we don’t want a single voice, but we don’t want a circular firing squad either. Let’s remember who the real enemy is.