Gillibrand on HR4900

Kirsten Gillibrand gave an interview with New York News 4 where she seemed to back off the provisions of HR4900 that would make the Tiahrt Amendment a matter of law, rather than a matter of having to repass a spending provision each year refusing ATF funding to release trace data except for law enforcement investigations.

I saw the video interview, and it’s pretty heavily edited, which makes me wonder what the full context was of what she said.  Bloomberg is also speaking of productive meetings with her, but he will say that because it’s smart politics for him in terms of twisting her arm.  I should note that HR4900 is dead letter, because it was a bill in the 110th Congress.  Such a bill might be introduced in the 111th Congress, but chances of the bill going anywhere are slim.

I’ve never seen such arm twisting of a politician as the New York media and political establishment are doing to Gillibrand over the gun issue.  We’re now seeing why New York puts F rated politicians into office.  I’m hoping against hope that Gillibrand will dodge, triangulate, and say what she has to say to get the New York Media and Bloomberg off her back, but will vote with us on the really important things.   I would not be surprised if Gillibrand decides to surrender her A, and stakes out a middle ground.  Politically, she might have to.  If she drops to a B or even C rated politician, occupying the seat once occupied by Hillary Clinton, I still say it wasn’t a bad trade.  Given the chance, I’d say the same thing for Schumer’s seat.  This is New York.

NRA Board of Directors Endorsements

At the beginning of the week, I mentioned we’d be issuing our board endorsements soon, in addition to talking about the NRA board composition, and how candidates are nominated.  We wanted to do this yesterday, but mother nature had other ideas.

Bitter and I are happy to endorse the following candidates for election or re-election to the Board of Directors for the National Rifle Association.  There are plenty of other candidates who are worthy out there, and you get 25 votes, but we felt we needed to narrow the field for our endorsements.  We’d ask the blogging and blog reading community to vote for our six candidates.

  • Scott Bach
    When most gun owners have given up on New Jersey, Scott has stayed to fight. He defends gun owners regardless of their interest – .50 caliber bans, bear hunters, collectors who want the freedom to buy more than one gun a month, and many more.

    Scott is the President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the state organization leading the fight for gun rights in the Garden State. He’s an attorney who has used his skills and network to defend both the First & Second Amendment. When a public school was caught sending home anti-gun literature, he sued to mandate that pro-gun literature be honored in the same way.  When NY/NJ Port Authority police locked up a Utah man for lawfully traveling with firearms, Bach put the resources of ANJRPC to work to sue the officials who unlawfully arrested him in violation of federal protections.  Through ANJRPC, Scott also works with competitive shooters and manages a large shooting range. Their member clubs have trained Olympic shooters. He is also a member of state groups in seven other states, actively supporting their efforts with what he has learned from the political and cultural fights to preserve gun rights in New Jersey.

    On the new media front, Scott has been very active in reaching out to bloggers and launched his own blog on the Star-Ledger’s website to counter the anti-gun Bryan Miller.  He did an interview for the Blog Bash site last year to discuss his thoughts on how new media can be leveraged to advance Second Amendment rights and develop the shooting sports.  He notes that the ANJRPC range may have been the first in the country to offer its members free wifi in the clubhouse.

    See Scott’s interview with Sebastian here.

  • Robert Brown
    Brown is the well-known publisher of Soldier of Fortune magazine. He has a distinguished military career, and is currently a very active member of the NRA Board. More importantly for purposes of this endorsement, he’s also a vocal advocate in the leadership for new media publishers.

    During the Second Amendment Blog Bash in Louisville, Brown joined The Outdoor Channel for a reception and brought along complimentary copies of the magazine for bloggers and readers alike. At the following board meeting in September, he used his position on the Legislative Policy Committee to question ILA’s Chris Cox about their work with bloggers, encouraging them to work more closely with the group and applauding their efforts thus far. He was clear that this medium of reaching out to the most outspoken of the grassroots could be an important tool for the organization, a view we clearly support.

    In other interesting SOF/new media news, it appears that the magazine’s website is run using WordPress.

  • Edie Reynolds
    Our political debate on gun rights will no longer be relevant if there is no shooting culture. Competitive shooting and outreach programs will make sure that Americans maintain at least a basic understanding of firearms, and give them a glimpse of how fun responsible gun ownership can be.

    Reynolds is an outspoken advocate of competitive shooting and walks the walk as an active coach and recruiter to the sports. She has been a certified rifle instructor for more than 30 years and served as assistant rifle coach at North Carolina State University from 1974 to 2000, as well as a rifle counselor at a girls’ summer camp in Vermont. She also serves as the Youth Development Director of the Amateur Trap Association, and her focus on the board has been on programs designed to get women and young people involved in hunting and competitive shooting. Edie started shooting competitively in 1966 and is a five-time Women’s National Champion in Smallbore Prone and holds numerous other shooting titles.

    The work of folks like Edie cannot be taken for granted. Edie Reynolds deserves your vote for the Board of Directors.

    See Edie’s interview with Sebastian here.

  • Steve Hornady
    This is a rather unique endorsement in that we don’t have specific new media citations or close personal experience. What we do have is the opinion of other trusted leaders who have repeatedly noted that Steve Hornady has been known to ask very good questions, and not be a rubber stamp board member when issues need to be discussed. It shouldn’t be shocking since Hornady has been involved with the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Wildlife Management Institute, Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Foundation, and Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation leadership over the years. In the past, Hornady has served on the Publications Policies, Public Affairs and Membership Committees.

    Board members who ask intelligent and thoughtful questions, who aren’t afraid to challenge others for the good of the organization, are a valuable resource. And based on what we have heard about Steve’s experience, we believe he should remain on the board.

  • Joe DeBergalis
    Joe DeBergalis is a career law enforcement professional fighting for gun rights in New York as Vice-President of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. He’s also a competitive shooter in pistol, rifle, and shotgun sports, as well as a certified instructor.

    DeBergalis has put his background to good use by serving on the Education & Training Committee and Law Enforcement Assistance Committee of the Board. He’s no slacker politically, either. He’s the Election Volunteer Coordinator for 8 New York Congressional Districts and the District of Columbia. In addition to his political work for the NRA, he’s bridging gaps in the community by serving as a member of the Government Affairs Committee of Safari Club International while also being an active AR15.com participant.

    While his website lists dozens of memberships, it’s worth noting his work in New York, and not just because it’s a challenging state. Other pro-gun leaders in the state have heaped praise on Joe for his efforts there, and I suspect that gun owners in his home state will see him around for years to come.

  • Ronnie Barrett
    Barrett’s activism and rifles are known far and wide, so he is not likely in need of an endorsement to turn out votes. However, he’s worth highlighting on the ballot for several reasons. First, his strong positions against further gun control should be rewarded. Even when he could continue to make money serving law enforcement officials who buy enjoy his products, but try to ban them from civilian ownership, he very publicly refuses them. He has called on the industry to follow his lead, and it would be nice if others would.

    Second, his outspoken nature may prove useful for the NRA Board of Directors. He’s a bit of a renegade in the industry, and hopefully he could bring that to a board in need of a little infusion of energy every once in a while. It would appear that he would not necessarily accept the status quo at face value, which, when tempered with more senior members of the board with more institutional experience, can be a healthy mix.

    Oh yeah, and he’s a time traveler.

Crossbow Hunting

One issue happening, probably below the radar for most gun blogs, is the controversy going on right now in Pennsylvania over crossbow hunting.  Many bow hunters are angry at NRA for their support of crossbow hunting in Pennsylvania, which was recently approved by the Game Commission over the objections of United Bow Hunters of Pennsylvania.

I question whether this was an issue NRA should have been involved in, but I think more from a “is it worth the trouble” perspective, rather than because I agree with the bow hunters.   Hunting is in decline.  By many measures, this decline is serious, and is only going to get worse as more hunters die off, or get too old to go afield.  Opportunities for hunting are dwindling.  Anything that opens up more opportunities to get more people into the sport is ultimately beneficial to both the hunting and shooting communities.

The Humane Society of the United States will relentlessly dog hunters until they ban hunting in this country, one species at a time.  They’ve already had success ending dove hunting in Michigan, and we all know about the bear hunts in New Jersey.  They were also instrumental in the California lead ammunition ban, and are supporting a nationwide ban on lead ammunition.  These people are good at what they do, and they are organized and well funded.  In a lot of ways, they make the Brady Campaign look like pikers in comparison.

If hunters want to commit slow motion political suicide by supporting policies that restrict access to their sport, and ultimately reduce their numbers, and their political power right along with it, I’m not sure NRA really ought to stop them.  Perhaps it’s not worth the grief.  But both hunters and shooters will suffer if hunting disappears in North America.  Hunters should get behind anything that expands opportunties for hunting.  Bow hunters are being dangerously short sighted on the crossbow issue.

Sporting Purposes Restrictions Afoot?

Apparently Representative Engel is under the belief that enforcement of the “sporting purposes” provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 have been unenforced for the history of the Bush Administration:

In recent years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has quietly abandoned enforcement of the import ban (which was authorized by provisions in the 1968 Gun Control Act and enforced by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton). As a result, the civilian firearms market is flooded with imported, inexpensive military-style assault weapons, primarily from former Eastern bloc countries including Romania, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia. Importers are also able to skirt the restrictions by bringing in assault weapons parts and reassembling them with a small number of US-made parts. Assault weapon “parts kits” for assembly by individuals are also being imported. ATF has further weakened the prohibition by placing certain extremely problematic assault rifles on the “curios or relics” list, making certain firearms automatically eligible for importation.

So what is he proposing?  No importation of gun parts?  Those guns are assembled in the United States.  I also think he misunderstands that this isn’t an enforcement issue, they are enforcing what’s in the United States Code, and Code of Federal Regulations.  Here’s the relevant law, Title 18, section 922(r) of the United States Code:

It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—

(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

Right now, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 27 478.39) allows up to ten imported parts to be used in the manufacture of firearms that are otherwise prohibited from importation.  How is Congressman Engle proposing this be handled?  The fortunate thing is, it will require a change in the federal regulations to implement his wishes, which is subject to the rulemaking process.

Obama can certainly undertake rulemaking here, but he’ll risk the wrath of gun owners in 2010 if he does so.  This will not be something he can do sneaky, behind the scenes.  It’s also not a matter of ATF just enforcing the law, like the Congressman seems to think.

Import/Export of Arms Concerns

There are rumblings out of Canada that the first attempts at a low-key administrative attack on guns is beginning.  Jim Sheperd reports in this morning’s Shooting Wire:

A report making the rounds in Canada that says officials have it on “good authority” that our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.

Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we’re hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.

In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance. …

Additionally, Canadian officials tell me they are hearing rumblings of blanket export bans on certain firearms to Canada and the attachment of DSP-83 End Use Certificates (with their $250 Export Fee) attached to all other types of American firearms.

I would question whether there is the authority to regulate importation/exportation of ammunition and assess fees on firearm exports, but I haven’t read all the relevant federal statutes and regulations.

AR-15 .22LR Upper Bleg

So with spring coming, our club hosts CMP matches.  Any rifle capable of rapid fire will do.  I plan to get out with the AR-15 and shoot a few this year, and I think I’ll keep shooting the Langhorne Rod and Gun practical matches, since they are on the last Saturday, and don’t conflict with much else.

I’ve found Thursday indoor silhouette at the club keeps me getting on the range at least once a week, but typically I bring Bitter’s CZ 452, or my Kimber Government Model 82.  I’m thinking it might be of good benefit to be able to practice offhand shooting with an AR-15 on Thursday nights at indoor silhouette, but this would mean I’d need a .22LR upper for the AR, and the special magazines for that caliber.  I know they make such things, but I’m curious if anyone among my readers has any experience with them, and can tell me which manufacturers of .22LR uppers and magazines for the AR-15 are making quality products.

What I’ve Been Doing in My Spare Time

The local rifle and pistol club that I belong to was looking for some new ideas for their web site.  Since I have a bit of experience with operating web sites, I volunteered to have a stab at it.  Tonight, this is what I’ll be presenting to our board.  Hopefully they’ll like it.  It’s served off WordPress, same as this blog.

More rifle and pistol clubs need a healthy web presence.  There’s plenty of crap out there about people misusing guns, so it’s worthwhile to have live examples of people having fun and using them responsibly.  I’m hoping WordPress is going to be easier for match directors and club leaders to update, so our web site will give the impression of an active, fun shooting club.

NRA Board Nominations

We’ve already covered the composition of the NRA Board of Directors and how members are elected to the board. One of the next frequently misunderstood topics I’ve observed on the internet is how people get on the ballot in the first place.

There are two types of nominations you will see listed in your NRA magazine if you are a voting member. One is by the Nominating Committee, and the other is by Petition. Some director candidates choose to do both to demonstrate grassroots support, even if they have the support of other board members through the Nominating Committee.

First, I’ll address those nominated by petition. Candidates for the board may submit the names and personal information of 250 voting-eligible NRA members to be placed on the ballot. No more than five petition candidates from a single state may be on the ballot in the same year. If more than five submit their petitions, the five with the most valid signatures will be included on the ballot.

Next, we have the Nominating Committee candidates. Each year, the full board votes for a smaller committee made up of nine board members to process through nominations and select candidates they feel would best represent members on the board. For obvious reasons, this process has – at times – been controversial when some did not like the slate of endorsed candidates.

Historically speaking, those candidates endorsed by the Nominating Committee are typically the top vote getters. The candidates themselves usually note their support by the Committee in their official bios to show that they have the support of their fellow board members. In addition, the Committee will publish a list of their endorsed nominees in the same issue as the ballot. Regardless, being endorsed by the Committee is by no means a promise of being winning a seat on the board. In most years, the Committee will endorse more than 25 candidates – more than the number who could possibly win. It’s not unusual to see 30 or more endorsed candidates.

Case Against Lead Ammunition Building

We’re seeing more and more stories like this.  This one from Wisconsin pointing out birds are dying of lead poisoning, and it’s the fault of ammunition from hunting and lead sinkers.  Here are some questions I ask when I see these studies:

But, he said, “I think the lead bullets in venison reopened the door again. I do believe that over the past couple of years that a lot of things have changed.”

What studies have shown that lead fragments in venison contribute to lead poisoning in humans?  Humans have been consuming animals killed by lead shot and lead bullets (musket bullets have a lot more lead in them, in fact) for centuries.  Why is it only now that it’s a problem?

The DNR study also found lead fishing tackle in all loons that died of lead poisoning.

What’s the overall incidence of lead fishing tackle in loons?  Have they found loons that had lead fishing tackle in their gizzards that did not have lead poisoning?

Elemental lead is actually not that remarkably toxic.  Cases have been reported of human ingestion of lead shot with little ill effect.  Most cases of human lead poisoning come from people (mostly kids) consuming oxides of lead found in chips from leaded paints.  Hunting groups need to fund their own studies that start asking the right question.  Right now, the environmentalist are driving the debate, and for them, no amount of lead in the environment is acceptable.

Clarification on Gillibrand

I should have made it clearer that I wasn’t taking the position that Kirsten Gillibrand was changing her position on guns in my post yesterday, and actually meant to use a question mark in the post title.  I agree with both Bitter and Uncle about what the Times is trying to do here, and that’s she’s given little indication she’s changing her position.

What she is doing is trying to find some cover on the issue as a pro-gun candidate in a very anti-gun media market (Downstate New York).  Because of the intense media pressure, and pressure from within her own party, to change her position, I think it would be a bit bold to count her as a reliable pro-gun vote, largely because I don’t like how the politics work out for her if she continues to vote with the NRA.

This is why originally Bitter was an advocate of donating to her campaign.  She has a record on the issue, and while it’s not long, it’s good. Gun owners will wield more influence over her during a critical vote if they are on board already.  If they are not, her fellow Democrats are going to tell her “Those cousin-humpers upstate will never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Democrat, so you can forget about them and vote the way we expect you to,” and she will have nothing to fight back with.

Politicians pay considerably more attention to campaign donors than they do ordinary constituents, and the threat she could use that kind of support might be enough to keep her with us.  My fear, however, is that New York gun owners will take a wait and see approach in regards to Gillibrand, which I think is incorrect.  The time to influence and help her is now, because she’s politically at her weakest.  If she keeps voting with us, and wins in 2010, it’s likely she’ll stay with us.  The New York Times is doing their level best to take advantage of Gillibrand’s weakness, and tie her hands on the gun issue.  What are gun owners willing to do for her?