Category: Gun Rights Organizations

I came across this post today, that looks like it got picked up on by the anti-NRA types.   There are a lot of angry, pissed off folks out there on Al Gore’s internets that will tell you the NRA has sold us out, and will be happy to go on a litany of grievances going nearly all the way back to 1871.

I’ve never claimed the organization is perfect, but they are what we have to deal with.  I’m glad to have you aboard.  A lot of folks make some good points that we’re tired of compromising away our gun rights, and I’m tired of it too, to be honest.  But the only way we’re going to stop compromising is to organize, mobilize, and win.  As much as I agree with GOA and JPFO’s goals, they don’t have a winning strategy, and aren’t going to move the ball forward.  They also lack the members and political influence.  I have no issue with folks joining the smaller groups, but I think everyone should be in the NRA.  If they do something that pisses you off, tell them about it!  Vote in the elections for board members who’s ideas are most in line with your own.  In short, participate.  Don’t just be angry.   Welcome aboard Dustin, it’s good to have you.

Glad to see John Sigler in the area saying what needs to be said:

“Philadelphia doesn’t need any new anti-gun laws to combat the lawless,” said John C. Sigler, a Delaware lawyer who was appointed president of the firearm-advocacy organization this year. “They simply need to enforce the laws they already have.”

Speaking to students at the Widener University School of Law, Sigler, a former Dover police captain and Navy submarine veteran, delivered a hard-line argument: He said gun-control laws don’t work and are not the solution to violent crime.

“If Philadelphia wants to stop the killing, they’ve got to make criminals pay the penalty,” he said.

Even from my point of view, the NRA has not been very visible in Pennsylvania.   I hope this is a sign that’s about to change.  The Philadelphia politicians have, for too long, pushed the easy solution:

“They need to step up to the plate and say enough is enough, my constituents are dying and we need to stop that. And to stop that, you need to take the bad guys, put them in jail and you leave them there. If they come back out, and do it again, you put them back in again for twice as long,” he said.

He said the public must accept the cost of fighting crime.

“If it means building more prisons, then build more prisons,” Sigler said.

Gun control is easy.   It’s a way for cowardly politicians to pretend like they are doing something.  It’s a lot harder to actually fight crime.  The politicians must be held to account, and not permitted to take the easy road.

Last month, many of you may remember I attended one of the NRA board of director’s meetings. One of the things that was talked about with some of the folks at ILA was whether they could send someone over to our Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno that weekend. Since they were already going to be in the area, it looked like it was something they could do, so it was arranged for Glen Caroline and Ashley Varner to come talk with us for a bit.

The main issue centered around our belief that the NRA has an image problem with a lot of members of the shooting community. As examples, Kevin Baker brought up NRA’s attempts to derail Parker as one example where NRA created an image problem for itself. Chris Byrne focused on the organizations image problems in regards to Gun Owners of America and its supporters, and suggested a few things NRA could do to help appeal to shooters, such as getting the CMP refunded, and allowing the military to sell surplus ammunition to civilians rather than having to destroy it, as is current practice.  The subject of getting a hearing in Congress on ATF abuses was also suggested.

From my point of view, I think the discussion went well. I found most of the criticisms to be fair, and the suggestions to be reasonable and achievable. But the big question put before us bloggers is what NRA can do to change its image, while still remaining a viable organization for pushing the issue forward.

As Bitter mentioned, perception is in the eyes of the beholder, and the NRA is in the unenviable position of having to hold together a coalition of sport shooters, second amendment activists, police officers, self-defense advocates, hunters, and now bloggers. These groups all have common interests, but our pet issues are different. Dave Hardy had this to say in Bitter’s comments:

Egad. I can recall when the hunters were complaining that NRA could care less about hunting, it was all about competitive shooting and politics and handguns for self defense.

And the shotgunners were complaining (with, I think, a little more basis) that they were being ignored in favor of rifle and handgun shooters.

Sadly, the NRA is in a position where there’s not much they can do without pissing someone off. While I think there are things the Association can do to help improve its image among certain groups, to some degree, this is a fundamental problem. It will only be solved by the various groups getting over themselves and working together to move the issue forward. We shooters have to be willing to help hunters stick it to the HSUS on hunting issues if we want them to help us stick it to the Brady Campaign, and stand by our side the next time an “assault weapons” ban comes up. We all have to accept that in politics you rarely get everything you want.

It’s only really by working together we’ll be able to get anywhere, and working in a coalition with mostly common interests, but some divergent ones definitely requires getting over yourself, which is difficult. As I heard SayUncle say last weekend “I’m a GOA type, it’s just that I know they can’t win.” which also reflects how I feel. My objections to GOA have to do with their tactics, not their overall belief system. We all share the same goal. I think too many of us have forgotten that.

I notice that there’s a Jackson recall petition out there. I would highly urge everyone to not vote for Joaquin Jackson in the next election, but this recall provision is a bad idea and I’ll tell you why.

It’s an election year, which means the NRA is going to need to spend a lot of money to make sure we don’t ever have to hear “President Clinton” again. This recall provision will force a special election, which will require mailing all voting members, hiring firms to design the ballot, to count, audit, and certify the results. In short; this measure is not cheap, and I’m not sure getting rid of a single board member, who I very highly doubt had a prayer of keeping a seat on the board after this, is worth it. The damage on the Jackson thing has already been done.

I’m all for getting rid of Jackson, but this isn’t the way to go about it. I think it’s high time that Joaquin Jackson owned up and resigned his position. At this point, it’s the best thing for the movement as a whole.

Dave Hardy and Clayton Cramer were in attendance and are blogging about it.  Clayton also talks about some scary encounters with Ron Paul supporters.  I’ll admit,  don’t really get the cult of Ron Paul either.  Granted, the guy is great on the gun issue, but I think hugging him is actually going a bit overboard.

I don’t like any politician that much.

That’s what Chris Fitzsimon says:

Sheriffs and police chiefs are also among the most respected officials in many local communities, another reason why they have such tremendous influence with state lawmakers.

So you’d think that a major policy report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest nonprofit organization of police executives in the world, would have some impact in the state and create a buzz in the local media.

But it didn’t happen when the Association issued its recent report “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities,” and it’s not hard to figure out why.

Politicians are all for law enforcement when it means getting tough on criminals, but when it means confronting the National Rifle Association and other gun groups, the love for law enforcement seems to disappear.

Might have something to do with that study being bought and paid for the by the anti-gun Joyce foundation, as we’ve documented here on the blogosphere.  Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or just don’t bother to do research.

Might also have something to with police chiefs being political appointees, who serve at the behest of their typically anti-gun big city mayors, and who represent the views of ordinary beat cops about as much as Mickey Mouse.

NRA being anti-cop just really gets my goat, especially when the current president is a former police captain, that thousands of NRA certified instructors train any numbers of officers in a given year.  How many police officers who attend the National Police Shooting Championships feel like NRA isn’t supporting them?

But no, doing a little research would have ruined the whole point: That the National Rifle Assocation is anti-police.  Just because Mr. Fitzsimon wishes it were so, doesn’t make it true.

Bitter takes NRO to task for speculating that Sandy Froman is hinting at an NRA endorsement of Giuliani.   I agree with Bitter’s analysis.  I don’t think much can be read into what she said in regards to Giuliani, and she’s correct that it’s ILA that makes these decisions, and not the Board of Directors.  Geez, can you imagine 76 people trying to collectively come to a decision on endorsements?   I wouldn’t want to be in that room.

Folks, it pains me to criticize other people who are on my side, and who I consider allies in the cause, but I feel the need to speak up when I think there’s misinformation getting out there to gun owners.  WND has an editorial here:

The legislation would allow a person’s right to own a gun in the U.S. to be permanently removed under a wide range of circumstances.

“You’d think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags,” the alert says. “But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 – legislation which would bar you from owning guns if: You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or as a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD.”

Gun Owners Executive Director Larry Pratt told WND that those are just two of the circumstances that legitimately could be used under the pending proposal to permanently remove an individual’s right to own a weapon in the U.S.

This is just not true.  Read the legislation.  It goes even further off the deep end:

Someone in counseling during a bitter divorce, a child who at one point gets into a scrape on a school yard and is put on Ritalin, or even someone given “counseling” for issues such as depression during recovery from an accident or work-related injury are some other situations that could trigger such “disarmament by diagnosis,” he said.

There’s no provision in this bill at all that would create that circumstance.  By now I’ve looked at it pretty extensively, and what Larry is claiming here just isn’t in this bill at all.

The plan, described in Congress as an expansion of the Brady Gun Bill that requires background checks for potential firearms purchasers, would require people who have such a diagnosis in their health record to be permanently banned from owning a gun.

This bill does not do that.  Gun Control Act of 68 is what gave us life time prohibition for mental health commitments and adjudications.  HR 2640 actually enables those with mental health problems in their past to clear their names, something they can’t do currently.

I feel like a broken record here, but Larry Pratt’s claims on this issue just keep getting more and more absurd to anyone’s who’s actually read the legislation.