Category: Gun Rights Organizations

I attended the monthly meeting for the gun club tonight, and now am working on the fallout from HR2640.   The NRA is doing it’s usual bang up job of communicating exactly nothing to it’s clubs and members in regards to the nature of the deal, and as such, our Legislative chairman is getting all of his news from GOA and the Brady’s, which as I’ve detailed here, has been quite misleading.

Our club is a 100% NRA club, which means you need to be a member of the NRA to join, and continue your membership with the NRA to continue your membership with the club.  Our club has about 1100 members, which amounts to quite a lot of money if NRA were to lose a club of that size.   Granted, it would be their own fault, because they, one, cut a deal with the devil which was bound to be controversial no matter how many positive things we got in return, and two, haven’t been working hard to make sure the message gets out there.

I’m going to do what I can do to repair this damage, but the problem is, I don’t know anybody who can help.   Bitter might, and I’m pursuing some of those channels, but this could be a hard thing to fix, and I very well might be on my own here.  As a new member of the club, who doesn’t really know anyone, I’m not entirely comfortable at starting a huge political fight within the club over the 100% NRA program.

I think the Brady Campaign may have outsmarted us on this one.  If the cost of this deal is a divided pro-gun community, and a weakened NRA, it will have amounted to a giant victory for the gun control movement.   Whether people like them or not, the NRA is the 800lb gorilla on the gun issue in Washington, and the politicians don’t know much about the other pro-gun organizations, and don’t much care.  Much of the gun control movement may be on the ropes, but we will be too if we end up divided, and have a weak NRA representing us in Washington.  That’s the political reality.

This is interesting:

The National Rifle Association has created a wine club, and a donation of its proceeds go to the NRA in its battle to preserve the Second Amendment.

According to winespectator.com, NRA members can go to the organization’s Web site and shop for a variety of “vintage boutique wines handpicked for club members.” Buy $500 worth of wine, and you’ll get a rebate that pays for your NRA membership, the Web site said.

According to many, the NRA are nothing but a bunch of trailer park bubbas. What’s with the hoity toity wine club? I’m not much of a wine drinker. I pretty much do the two B’s: beer and bourbon. I feel left out.

I’m glad Hillary declared herself a proud modern progressive in last night’s debate, because it brings people like me one step closer to being able to call myself what I really am: a liberal.   Libertarian is, and always has been, a word that should never have existed.  Nor do I like calling myself a classical liberal, because no one understands what the hell that means either.

But I digress.  I’m always amazed at the level of vitriol on a lot of progressive blogs.  Sure, there are plenty of reasonable progressives out there, and some of them are blogging.  Certainly there are plenty of loony right wing bloggers that go largely unread, I’m amazed that so many people read this garbage:

The NRA and its friends in the “militia movement” are into the same stock-in-trade: Fear. Their target audience: Those people, generally disenfranchised white males with at most a high-school education and middling to piddling income, who suspect they’re being screwed but either have no clue who’s screwing them — or who know but don’t have the guts to fight the real enemy. The NRA and its allies push fear in general, and fear of non-whites in particular, to these white males, telling them that blacks/liberals/Jews/women/unions/etc. (but never ever ever corrupt corporations or businesses) are the cause of the white guys’ problem (and that the problem is crime, not the hyper-rich bleeding everyone below them) — then promptly sell themselves as the solution.

Wow.  I read stuff like this and think maybe someone needs to up their medication, or the voltage.  First off, most milita types hate the NRA, and the NRA doesn’t pay any attention to them.  The rest of that is just lunacy.   Seriously.   I have a college degree, and probably make enough money that most progressives would think I should pay more in taxes.  Some of us have graduate degrees.  Many of us are attorneys. My friend Jason, graduate degree in bioengineering, Jewish, and an NRA member, would be quite surprised to find out the NRA is hostile towards Jews.  So would my girlfriend, a woman, college educated, and NRA member. I’ve met more than my fair share of African-American NRA members.  Union members?  NRA’s bread and butter around these parts, which is why this state elects a lot of pro-gun Democrats.

I don’t know if Phoenix Woman is aware of this or not, but what she wrote here is, correct me if you think I’m mistaken here, totally and completely batshit crazy.  And this is one of the top blogs in the blogosphere!  What’s wrong with you people, seriously?  Shouldn’t you guys be paragons of tolerance?  Or is that only for activity that you approve of?

Jesse Jackson has a well deserved reputation as an attention whore.  Do we really need to go adding more federal crimes to the books because of that fact?

After denouncing the demagoguery of Rev. Jesse Jackson in his continued protests at a suburban Chicago-area gun shop, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today announced that it has drafted federal legislation that would prevent such protests from interfering with legal businesses.

“This is not an attack on the First Amendment rights of Jesse Jackson or anyone else,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “But it would put an end to the kind of publicity-seeking shenanigans that Jackson and his cohort, anti-gun Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, have been conducting at Chuck’s Gun Shop in suburban Riverdale for the past three weeks. We’re working on Capitol Hill right now to gather sponsors.

Jesse Jackson and Snuffy Pfleger were already arrested under state law for trespassing.   Why exactly do we need to make a federal issue out of this?

Clayton still isn’t buying GOA’s concerns about HR2640.  I’m not either.

I think the Virginia Governor’s Office is probably a bit confused here, since it makes no sense to me at all to worry about concealed carry.   What I suspect was the concern is VCDL members quite often carry openly, as is their right.  I think VCDL did the right thing by asking members to carry concealed to this event, rather than openly, and their response to the Governor’s office I think is quite apt, appropriate and well done.

The GOA issues a release today (or yesterday by now I suppose), detailing their opposition to HR2640. I understand why GOA wants to oppose this, but I don’t think most of their concerns really persuade me, and I think they are even getting some things wrong:

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it’s predicated on a microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on this.)

The note below says:

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example, where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11, it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a court or by any “OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY” (like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or others (or can’t manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this “danger” doesn’t have to be “imminent” or “substantial,” but can include “any danger” at all. How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS doesn’t pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

Section 101(c)(1)(C) is actually an explicit limitation on the power of federal agencies to enter data into NICS that was added specifically to address Clinton’s thank you to 83,000 veterans in 2000. It reads:

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

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

27 C.F.R. 478.11:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include–
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

I will admit I’m not a legal expert, but I think this language is a far cry from having a psychologist say, “You’re Crazy Man!”, and calling up the feds to add you to NICS. To the extent that some states use boards, or commissions to adjudicate mental health cases, that’s an issue with the mental health laws, which can remove other freedoms too, rather than an issue with this particular bill. My interpretation of the ATF’s language is that it was meant to cover any other lawful body in a state that may hear mental health cases but is not a court, board or commission. Is there any state where a psychologist has universal power to commit someone or make a danger finding?

And trying to scare folks into thinking ADD’s going to get you a disability seems to be reaching pretty far. There are plenty of good reasons to worry about this bill, but GOA isn’t coming up with any that are convincing me. This bill doesn’t change who is and who isn’t a prohibited person under current law. There’s no real getting around that.

I’m generally pretty reluctant to bad mouth pro-gun groups, because we’re all on the same side, but I’m getting way too fed up by the crap some of the other groups are peddling.

I’m pointing this out as an example. I’m not going to mention who it’s coming from, because I don’t want to ruffle feathers by singling out any one group:

If we can slow this monster NRA anti-gun sell-out bill down we may have a chance to kill it like we did the NRA backed renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban in 2004.

The 20 state coalition of state-level gun lobbies that stopped the NRA from shoving the Clinton Gun Ban down our throats is swinging into action. The coalition that now goes under the name NAGR – National Association for Gun Rights. Some of you may have noticed that I sometimes mail non-profit under their banner for [name deleted].

Are you friggin kidding me? Can you show me the NRA backed bill that was to renew the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban that you defeated? If you mean the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that got a renewal attached to it by some anti-gun Democrats, the NRA withdrew its support at that point and the bill died. Acting like the NRA was still pushing it is misleading. If you hate the NRA fine, but don’t try to dupe people. Promoting your own group is fine, promoting it at the expense of other gun rights organizations isn’t helping our cause any.

Right now, GOP Senators (except Vitter and Coburn) aren’t going against the NRA. But if we can muscle a few of them we might be able to slow this thing down and have time for an all out fight and look at the issues. Possibly even kill [HR2640].

Slowing this thing down, when it doesn’t change any current federal gun laws (you read the bill right?), and gives us some ways to relieve disabilities, is not helping any. By slowing it down, you will give anti-gun senators a chance to tack on amendments during debate. We want this to sail through.

I just got off the phone with Senator Webb’s office and told his staff an earful. The tack to take with Webb is to tell them you believe him to be pro-gun and that you expect him to join Vitter and Coburn to slow this thing down and look at the devil in the details. Tell him to filibuster this monster.

Does Webb really want to see Veterans disarmed when they come home?

This bill sets out clear rules for when veterans may and may not be considered to have a firearms disability and be entered into NICS. It also gives the 83,000 veterans screwed in 2000 a way to get their names out and have their disabilities removed. Mental health disabilities, if this bill passes, will no longer be life long disabilities, as they are currently. You guys read the bill right? By the way, yelling at politicians is a sure way to make sure they pay no attention to you at all. Their staff will put you on the “kook” list.

Look, I have no problems with people criticizing NRA or criticizing this bill. There are many ways of looking at things where it can be argued the bill hurts us politically. I’m not bashing people for criticizing NRA or this bill, but I want that criticism to be fair. I’ve seen some very good arguments for what the problems are with this bill from people like Syd over at Front Sight, Press and Joe Huffman at A View from North Central Idaho.

This group describes themselves as “no-compromise”, which sure does feel good. But in politics those that aren’t willing to compromise are ignored. It sucks that we have to do this with constitutional rights. The whole purpose of having it inserted as an enumerated right was to set it up as a right beyond the reach of the political process, but it’s not that way right now. The end goal is to have the second amendment treated as a right, as seriously as all the others. But until the courts step up and actually do it, we’re stuck playing this game.

Ahab thinks we all need to hang together:

I don’t suppose I’d have to explain why that’s so dangerous; it’s even more dangerous when that same “turf-war” mentality manifests itself on an organization level. I like the NRA; I don’t always support their actions, and I wish they’d send me less mail, but they generally act in the best interests of law-abiding gun owners. Similarly, I like the GOA, I feel like it’s good to have a less moderate voice for gun owners for the times that the NRA drops the ball.

I do not like it when the GOA (or anyone else for that matter) goes after the NRA in an effort to prove who loves the 2nd Amendment more. Take for example this new bill before the House, HR 2640. The GOA has been lambasting the NRA for their support of this bill for a while, despite the fact that the relevant text just became available yesterday.

I couldn’t agree more!  I think GOA and other groups serve an important role in a) keeping the NRA honest, and b) concentrating on areas of gun law the NRA, for political reasons, can’t.  But I do get kind of annoyed with them when they seem to be attacking NRA for political convenience rather than real and substantive criticism.  The tone of many of the other groups communications seems to convey the NRA as the enemy, and I know there are more than a few out there who actually believe that.  You’re entitled to believe that, but I think it’s a very incorrect view.  I sure as hell don’t think the NRA is perfect, I do think they make mistakes, and this whole NICS deal may very well turn out to be one of them.  But I don’t believe they actively work against gun owners.  I believe that they did their best to make this bill a decent deal for gun owners, and to the extent that I didn’t get as much as I would have liked, I blame Congress.

The people I know that work for NRA, or have worked for NRA, are passionate about the issue, don’t get paid much for their work, and have to deal with a lot of crap that would drive you and me bonkers.  It’s easy to be critical, but not easy to have to deal with a hostile media, hostile politicians, the courts, Congress and 50 state legislatures, all the while taking heat from your own side that you’re not doing enough.

What frustrates me is that the other side has all their factions working together. The people that want to ban .50 BMG rifles play nice with the people who want to ban all guns who play nice with the people who just want to ban handguns, and so it goes.

It’s much easier for them because they lack any serious grassroots.  We’re millions of people, each with different quirks, views, and interests.  When you’re well financed by the few, you get the advantage of having it be easier to stay on message, and keep your ducks in a row.

Bitter had pictures earlier in the week.   Here are some more pictures from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Bloomberg Gun Giveaway. He got some of the protesters.