Year: 2009

Our second interview is with Edie Reynolds (appearing as Edie Fleeman “Reynolds” on your ballot).  Edie is a candidate for re-election to the board, and was selected because I think her background and advocacy for the shooting sports is much needed.  I took questions that were geared more toward that end.  Like with Scott Bach’s interview, my questions are bold, and her answers italicized.

Knowing your success with smallbore rifle and other rifle based competitive shooting sports, if re-elected to the NRA Board will you put your support behind growing the NRA’s shooting sports programs, such as Action Pistol and the new NRA Three-Gun Competition? Recent data suggests that action-style shooting sports are the fastest growing segments of competitive shooting, and NRA has fallen behind the market’s demand in this area in recent years (although efforts to revive Bianchi Cup seem to be going quite well).

Yes, I will support Action Pistol and Three-Gun competition and will continue to support them.

Our current victory in D.C. v. Heller, and the subsequent effort to get it incorporated, has the potential to open up opportunities to participate in the shooting sports to millions of people who have previously not have the opportunity to become involved.  Given the likely more urban and suburban makeup of this constituency, what kind of shooting activities do you think NRA could encourage in order to capitalize on attracting urban and suburban people to the shooting sports?

I would encourage people who own handguns to obtain safety training and take basic marksmanship skills courses to include concealed carry training.  Some people will want to shoot more and will get into competitive shooting.  While these people are learning, the NRA/Winchester Marksmanship Qualification Program is a great tool to use to reward shooters as their skills improve.  Indoor facilities will be the likely venues and of course air gun can be done just about anywhere.

With the NRA working alongside the CMP to improve Camp Perry and other sites, why does NRA not work more closely with USAS?

There are many cooperative programs NRA has with USA Shooting.  The NRA/USAS Coach School Program trains people across the country (and Canada too!) to coach beginning shooters in rifle, pistol and shotgun.  NRA’s National Coach Trainers spend many hours at the Olympic Training Center training coaches and training NCDS (National Coach Development Staff – the people who instruct the Coach Schools).  USAS’s Head Coach of the Rifle program offers slots on the National Development Team to the top two individuals with the highest season averages in smallbore and air rifle.  These numbers come from those compiled by NRA’s Collegiate Programs department for All American selection.  The Progressive Position Air Pistol Program gives training to junior shooters and culminates in a jointly-run National Championship.  USAS and NRA agreed recently to the mutual use of one target for indoor smallbore competition.  NRA Clubs that sponsor tournaments do so for both NRA and USAS, using the rules of the respective organizations.  NRA also supplies monetary support to USAS.

The NRA is largely seen by non-shooters as mostly a political organization.  Do you feel NRA needs to do more to promote its shooting sport programs, or do you believe the political battles are essential to the future health of the shooting sports?

Yes, NRA should promote shooting sports programs more.  There has to be somewhat of a balance between the political aspect and the competitive shooting aspect but the priority has to go to the political side because without Second Amendment protection, there is no protection of gun ownership.  Competitive shooting shouldn’t be lost in the shuffle because a right that isn’t exercised isn’t a right.

There’s been some controversy in competition circles about the change in the rules that allow non-NRA members to compete in NRA-registered competitions. There is a concern that it is perhaps not the best way to help promote membership to allow competitors to “free ride” so to speak.  Can you explain the reasoning behind this rule change?

The reason was to allow the Competitive Shooting Division to use non-taxable funds in support of competition at both the regional and national levels.

Looks like TD got his ballot ready.  My interview with Edie Reynolds will be published shortly.  She’s gotten her answers back to me, and all I need to do is get the post ready.  After that, it’ll be Joe DeBergalis.

Looks like TD is voting for John Milius, who I also think is a good candidate.  I’m officially neutral on the matter of Kollitides, but we have not been sold on his candidacy.  I do hope he brings something positive to the board, and I’m certainly willing to consider him in the future if he makes a good contribution.

Once again, GOA is off its rocker, this time on the federal land bill.  They are quite correct to raise concerns about the status of carrying firearms for self-defense on all this new federal land and wilderness area, a concern that is shared by NRA.  But I find this passage in their press release unproductive and divisive:

That’s right.  Many Congressmen claimed to be protecting the Second Amendment, when all they were really doing was thumbing their noses at self defense.

Here is the entire “pro-gun” amendment that was considered in the House.  Judge for yourself if this really protects your Second Amendment rights:

“Nothing in this Title shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting.  Nothing in this Title shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting.”

They may as well have called it the “Elmer Fudd Protection Act.”

A lot of people who voted for this bill campaigned for office as champions of gun rights.  They said “Send me to Washington; I’ll fight for the Second Amendment.”

And this is what we get?  Pathetic.

And with that, you can hear the anti-gunners and HSUS salivate with anticipation as the gun rights community once again turns on itself.  The proposed language was by NRA and GOA A rated Congressman Jason Altmire.  The same Jason Almire who went to bat trying to get the repeal of DC’s gun laws through Congress.  The same Jason Altmire who helped form a Second Amendment Task Force in Congress on the heels of Holder calling for a new Assault Weapons Ban.

Could it be, rather than Congressman Altmire being “pathetic,” he was attempting to help an important constituency, namely hunters and recreational shooters.  Helping them alleviate at least some of the concerns about the federal land bill if it had passed.  Given that it passed by two votes, I’m going to guess a lot of our friends in Congress were concerned that it would, in fact, pass, and pass without any pro-gun language in it whatsoever.

Are we to believe that GOA does not consider hunters and recreational shooters an important constituency, and would rather a bill pass without addressing any concerns?  Is GOA agreeing we should throw the “Elmer Fudds” off the lifeboats?  Their language certainly indicates that.  It’s one thing to be disappointed that you didn’t get everything you wanted, but we would have at least gotten something if the Democrats had made up those two votes and passed the bill.  GOA would seem to prefer we got nothing.

It’s garbage like this that makes me unable to take GOA seriously as a gun rights organization.  GOA has always seemed to me to be more interested in feathering its nest as the expense of other groups and other concerns within the community than it is with actually helping pick up the ball and move it forward.  Until that changes, I’m going to continue speaking out against their divisiveness.