Category: Gun Rights Organizations

I’m glad to see the NRA has finally started to talk to the public, and I like what they have to say. However, now that they are talking again, I really hope they start talking about one, very important thing: the fact that they are working with the Democrats on a bill to get more state records, including mental health records, into NICS.

Now, folks should understand that this doesn’t mean the NRA approached the Democrats and said “Hey, let’s work on a gun control bill together.” In all likelihood the Democrats started working on this, it looked like it had legs, and the NRA wanted to be part of the process. We want the NRA involved in that kind of situation. If they just stood outside of the process and said “We’re taking a hard line stance on this bill and opposing it.”, they are likely to alienate some of the marginal politicians in Congress and make it easier for the hostile politicians, who would love to attach their pet gun control issues to the bill, to influence them.

The NRA can not just come out in opposition to everything that comes down the pike. There are some battles we’re not on good political ground to fight right now, and a battle over NICS is one of those. Politics is an ugly process, and sometimes you’ll get bills like this, which suddenly get momentum because of a tragedy, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. The game, at that point, becomes making sure it does no further damage. Given the two clowns who are introducing the bill, it is absolutely vital to make sure that nothing else gets attached to it, unless it’s something to placate gun owners.

NICS is not going anywhere, because there’s substantial support for it. Even the NRA, who actively pushed instant background checks as an alternative a lengthy waiting period, is resigned to the fact that NICS exists and isn’t going away. So if the Democrats are intent on passing this bill, if you’re the NRA, you have several choices:

1. Oppose the bill, in which case you’re really fighting NICS, which you’ve supported in the past. This will alienate a lot of marginal gun-rights supporters. It will increase the liklihood that the bill might pass with amendments that have more onerous gun controls in it.
2. Not oppose the bill, on the condition that we get something in return. This might be possible, but it might not be. It depends on how much momentum the bill has. If the sponsors of the bill are struggling to find a majority, more people might be brougt on board by adding pro-gun amendments. My guess is for the NICS bill, we are not in a position to demand much, as they probably already have majority support.
3. Not oppose the bill on the condition that it contain only the NICS language and absolutely nothing else. This is probably what they are going to end up doing, because it’s about where the NRA can best use its political power in a situation like this.
4. Actively endorse the bill. I don’t think this is likely. It would piss off too many members, including me. There’s no reason to do this, and it would risk giving too much momentum to the gun control crowd.

Normally, the way you kill a bill that would have broad public support on the floor, is to get your committee members to kill it there, and get the leadership to prevent it from being brought to the floor in the first place. Now that the Democrats are in charge, we have hostile politicians in charge of many of the committees, and a hostile speaker, so what the NRA is probably seeing is that the bill is not killable in committee. If this bill passes, and we get nothing in return for it, don’t blame the NRA. Blame the Democrats. And remember that come election time in 2008.

From Alan Gottlieb:

“The murder of Rebecca Griego was a horrible tragedy that did not have to happen,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “Unfortunately, liberal politicians who dominate Seattle government feel more comfortable trying to harass law-abiding firearms owners than looking for dangerous illegal aliens in our midst. Rowan was a prime example of why such ordinances should be abolished. It is because of policies like this – that protect people like Rowan – that honest citizens want to arm themselves.”

Immigration may have something to do with crime, but it has nothing to do with gun rights. Let’s keep it, and other right wing issues, out of the debate.

I have to second Bitter’s statement that the NRA-ILA needs to lay off the unrelated-to-guns political statements. The NRA is about gun rights, it’s not a clearing house for various other kooky or non-kooky right wing thinking. Do you really want to alienate the more progressive gun rights folks? It’s not good politics for our issue, and whoever is doing it needs to stop.

Pew released their latest poll:

Each year since its occurrence in 1999, the April 20 anniversary of the Columbine High School tragedy renews debate about the desirability of stricter controls on firearms. Recent surveys, however, find Americans less disposed to gun control than they were in the years surrounding the shootings.

For example, Americans have a better opinion of the National Rifle Association these days than they did in the mid 1990’s. Over this same period, public calls for stricter gun-control laws have also quieted somewhat. A recent Pew nationwide survey found a 52%-to-32% majority of respondents holding a favorable opinion of the NRA, which will hold its massive annual convention on April 13-15 this year in St. Louis. While this is the first time since 1994 that the favorability rating of the group has crossed the 50% mark, positive views of the NRA have been inching upward in Pew polls in recent years.

I’m not generally one for touting poll numbers, because you can make a poll say whatever the hell you want, but at least according to Pew, the NRA seems to be doing something right. Read the whole thing.

Turns out we have a fun keynote speaker for the NRA banquet next week.  I’m lookin forward to it.

Bob Levy asks via Instapundit:

Nobody at the NRA has provided a credible answer to this simple question: Why is the NRA pushing the DC Personal Protection Act? If the NRA were to say, “You’re going to lose, so we want to kill the litigation,” I would understand that argument — although I would dispute the premise. Instead, we’re hearing that the NRA wants the Supremes to review Parker. There’s a disconnect somewhere.

I’m not speaking with any special insider knowledge. I really like to know more too, and I don’t discount the possibility the NRA is just being stupid. But I think the disconnect is politics.

The NRA can’t really afford politically to ignore pro-gun legislation that’s being introduced in Congress and leave it’s pro-gun allies in Congress high and dry on a bill they’ve been pushing for a while. I suspect originally, the NRA’s attitude was “you’re going to lose, so we want to kill the litigation”, as Levy mentioned. I can’t blame them, because originally I didn’t think Parker would win either, and there’s a lot of “the courts are too risky” sentiment in the pro-gun community, and for good reason.

But now Parker won, and the NRA is in a pickle. It won’t want to derail Parker, but at the same time it can’t just pull the plug on the D.C. Personal Protection Act either. Do one, and you piss off membership who would like the Supreme Court rule on the second amendment, do the other and you piss off the lobbyists, staffers and politicians who have been working hard on the legislative side. Plus, there’s a not insignificant chance that Parker will fail. Any direction they go, the NRA is screwed. So what to do? Talk out both sides of your mouth, and try not to piss anyone off too much. It’s politics, and politics is ugly.

Since Parker, I’ve heard an idea floating around, that I’ve heard before, but Parker is prompting me to blog about it: that the NRA doesn’t really want to see the Supreme Court rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right because it would dry up their funding source.  I don’t buy this line of thinking for a lot of reasons, and I think the NRA’s reluctance to use the courts can be alternately explained.

For one, the NRA’s political lobbying wing is a separately funded branch called ILA.   The NRA membership dues do not go toward political lobbying, they go toward traditional NRA functions which center around supporting the shooting community through education, competition, and publications.  If gun control were put to bed once and for all as a political issue, the NRA would continue to operate these functions, as it has for most of its history.  I would still continue to be a member, and I’m sure a lot of other folks would too.

Another reason I’m not buying it is because an individual rights ruling isn’t going to put the issue to bed by a long shot.  There will be many many fights ahead, because even with a strong, very broadly recognized right to keep and bear arms, there are still a lot of ways to complicate our lives that would probably pass constitutional muster.  How many people do you think, for instance, would continue to own guns if they were required to muster for two weeks in the summer time for militia duty?  I have my doubts that registration would be considered to be unconstitutional.   In fact, you could probably use a militia powers justification for it at the national level.

The reason the NRA is reluctant to engage the courts is because doing so carries a lot of risk.  While I like the Parker case a lot, and am optimistic we’re going to get a favorable ruling out of it, it’s still a huge gamble.  If we’re wrong, the second amendment is effectively read out of the constitution, and things could get very ugly for us after that.   I can’t honestly say I blame the NRA, especially given that they’ve been pretty successful at conventional political lobbying, for viewing the courts as the least predictable and most hazardous path of redress.  I’m not sure I really disagree with them.