1968 gun control act

[Frank Ettin]

There is such a thing as political reality. In the political climate of the late 1960s, after the assignations by gunfire of three wildly popular public figures, nothing could have completely stopped GCA68.

And since then the NRA has done what it could with the resources available and given the politics of the situation. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the impossible; and even an organization as powerful as the NRA can not work magic. It can only do the best it can with what it has.

For an authoritative look at Nazi gun control see Stephen Halbrook's Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State" (Independent Institute (November 1, 2013)).

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Tagged.

This is fascinating.

 

[jason41987]

Dodd wanted to ban all handguns and register all long guns. The political quid pro quo of the NRA was that they'd go along with banning mail order if Dodd would back off on bans and registration (registration had little support, overall).

So, no mail order, but no ban on handguns.

and you feel the NRA had a right to make concession on our rights? a handgun ban would have never been able to pass anyway.. the NRA traded our rights away like this is some sort of a card game to them and dont give me the crap that they tried the best they could, the only stand the NRA has made against gun control has been a concession stand

 

[Midwest]

Dodd wanted to ban all handguns and register all long guns. The political quid pro quo of the NRA was that they'd go along with banning mail order if Dodd would back off on bans and registration (registration had little support, overall).

So, no mail order, but no ban on handguns.

President Johnson also wanted licensing and registration.


"http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gun-control-lessons-from-lyndon-johnson/2012/12/16/38f3941e-47b4-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html"


"Johnson’s bill would ban all mail-order and out-of-state sales of handguns, shotguns and rifles; prohibit the sale of guns to minors; and require national registration of all guns and licensing of all gun owners."


.

 

[JohnBT]

"theyve made concessions on our second amendment rights they had no business nor authority"

No authority. The NRA doesn't vote in the House or the Senate. The NRA doesn't have the veto power that the President has. The NRA doesn't vote in any of the state legislatures. They can throw some weight around, but the NRA does not pass laws. That's the reality of it.

 

[JohnBT]

"on another note our government wants all veterans to be classified as having mental health problems.. "

Stephen King doesn't have fantasies this good.

 

[lxd55]

as far as the last post. I think the military does.
and as far as the whole mental health issue, O care ought to scare the hell
out of you all. the cdc makes a report, the .gov docs are on the payroll, you go to the clinic and the doc goes mr smith do have any firearms in the house? yes. flagged. no. noted could be used later, it is the .gov kinda like taxes. none of your business.
combative. flagged.
say what you will boys and girls.
but this is all about control

 

[jason41987]

"on another note our government wants all veterans to be classified as having mental health problems.. "

Stephen King doesn't have fantasies this good.

so then.. the NRA doesnt put up a fight when it comes to mental health issues.. come up with some bogus claim that they had to allow that to pass, to prevent them from passing "universal background checks" or registry.. and the worst part.. hell the most dangerous part to this is their subscribers believe it, that they actually did all they could and if they gave up on the fight in certain areas, made concessions it was really only to protect other things

few years down the road theres another gun control bill.. and the NRA claims they had to conceed something to protect others again.. and their subscribers believe it... so what happens whenever someone proposes legislation or a shooting happens?... open your wallets and give till it hurts because the NRA is going to try their best

i seriously doubt dodd would have gotten anything past that he was trying for and its likely the entire bill would have fallen apart of such concessions were not made and the pressure on them relieved

you know.. at $25/year for a subscription it takes 40,000 subscriptions per year just to pay wayne lapierre's salary, 40,000 subscriptions before a single cent goes to a lawyer, or to fight some case.. the NRA just gets rich on selling fear while real organizations that attempt to fight unlawful anti-gun legislation are vastly overshadowed, underfunded, and ignored by the size and the attention of the NRA

 

[Sol]

^ Well, somebody has to pay for that house on K Street.

 

[Jim Watson]

One observer quipped that if he were as crooked as Sen. Thomas Dodd, he would not want his constituents to have guns, either.

 

[Sam1911]

i seriously doubt dodd would have gotten anything past that he was trying for and its likely the entire bill would have fallen apart of such concessions were not made and the pressure on them relieved

Utter fantasy.

In 1968 the NRA wasn't anything like the lobbying powerhouse it is today. Today politicians actually have to consider what the NRA will do. In 1968 there was large scale public willingness to "do something" and really no cohesive national pro-gun voice.

The dialog was more like, "Hey, we're going to pass a big slug of crap that's going to affect you guys. Y'all have anything to say about it before we get to voting?"

The idea that without the NRA's complicity it wouldn't have passed is just unrealistic.

...

Further, you're railing about what of our rights the NRA conceded almost 50 years ago. The NRA of 50 years ago was incredibly different from what it is today. Practically none of its members, or its staff for that matter, were die hard gun rights absolutists like we all rolleyes are today. The average NRA member was a hunter, might maybe enjoy taking his Garand or Springfield out for a High Power match occasionally, and was a whole lot more interested in the latest Field & Stream article than what the NRA might report about national politics. If you'd asked the average NRA member whether any civilians should own the new M-16, he'd have said no. If you asked the average NRA member whether folks "should" go around with a gun hidden under their clothes when out at the grocery store, they'd have said NO. If you asked the average NRA member whether it was reasonable to stop this business of buying guns through the mail like that Oswald nut case did, the average response would have been somewhere between "OK" and "well, let me think about it..."

There was not great sense of the NRA "selling out" the rights of its members. It wasn't until much later, in hindsight, that "we" the average NRA member of the '80s, '90s, and '00s really started to align behind a gun rights uber alles banner and we started seeing the "cold dead hands" and "jackbooted thugs" type rhetoric from the national organization. (After the 1977 Knoxian revolution had started to have a serious affect.)

You want irony? This is the first thing that popped up when I was looking something up: http://books.google.com/books?id=dA...EwAg#v=onepage&q=neal knox revolution&f=false

Just read the first page of the foreword by Ms. Metaska. Says it all.

 

[JN01]

the NRA just gets rich on selling fear while real organizations that attempt to fight unlawful anti-gun legislation are vastly overshadowed, underfunded, and ignored by the size and the attention of the NRA

And the no compromise, all-or-nothing organizations like the GOA have accomplished, well, nothing. Larry Pratt can fear-monger with the best of them (and often includes rival pro-gun groups as a target) but hasn't managed to translate that into riches. The message that guys like Pratt deliver can be a valuable part of the debate, but results are what matter, not just preaching to the choir.

The SAF is a smaller group that has done extremely well for the RKBA, but they too have occasionally been accused of selling out also.

 

[gyvel]

US gun makers were supportive of GCA 1968, too. It restricts imports, bans mailorder sale of surplus and generally reduces competition from European firearms.

Exactly. On the surface it was a feel-good knee-jerk reaction to the assassinations, but the underlying motivation was trade protectionism. That's why the U.S. gun companies supported it.

 

[Art Eatman]

Sam's correct. My father and uncle became Life Members of the NRA in the late 1930s. I joined in 1964. I've read all the American Rifleman magazines from 1940 on. Hunting, new guns, ballistics, gunsmithing, target shooting. Very little about gun control until the late 1960s.

And in the late 1960s, I gay-ron-damned-tee you that we didn't have the votes in Congress to stop the GCA. Our basically-novice lobbying efforts kept it from being as onerous as Old Senator Dodd wanted.

It was not until the 1994 elections that we had enough people mad enough over things like the Assault Weapons Ban to make a difference in Congress.

As I said before, there were no other organizations of any note in the fight about GCA '68. Me, I welcome the newbies: The 2AF, GOA, CCRKBA, JPFO and all the state organizations who have joined in the fight.

"We must hang together or most assuredly we shall be hanged separately," said a pretty wise fella.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Exactly. On the surface it was a feel-good knee-jerk reaction to the assassinations, but the underlying motivation was trade protectionism. That's why the U.S. gun companies supported it.

That's also why the argument that "the gun industry" is behind the NRA, or is responsible for all pro-gun legislation is nonsense.

What's good for gun manufacturers, and what's good for gun owners are sometimes two different things.

Not to mention, it's very difficult to create a movement from the top-down. Pure Astrourfing doesn't work very well. Look at Bloomberg and his MAIG. Lots of money, little success.

 

[AlexanderA]

In 1968, feelings were much less polarized around the gun issue than they are today. I remember spending quite a bit of time hanging around my local gun shop (McBride's in Austin, Texas) and the general view was that banning mail-order sales would be a good thing for the gun industry (especially local gun shops). Nevertheless, Dodd would not have been able to ban handguns. That simply wasn't in the cards.

 

[vamo]

Not to mention, it's very difficult to create a movement from the top-down. Pure Astrourfing doesn't work very well. Look at Bloomberg and his MAIG. Lots of money, little success.

True today, not necessarily true in 1968. Today we have the internet and several 24hr news channels all with political pundits that have their own particular view points. In 1968 there were like 3 channels and the local news paper. There is always going to be a dissenter with a voice today.

 

[improperlyaged]

all it takes is one or several terrible events to shock us into stupor, and tyrants are always ready to swoop in to save us from ourselves

And I ain't saying what a lot of Americans are thinking, but I will say, those that be know this as well.

 

[Art Eatman]

I was in McBride's in the spring of 1968, bulling with Jack and a couple of ATF agents.

The agents allowed that if Dodd's ban went through, they'd put in for early retirement. If the GCA called for confiscation, and I quote, "We wouldn't get past the second house in Austin."

 

[barnbwt]

"And the no compromise, all-or-nothing organizations like the GOA have accomplished, well, nothing."
More than being 'no compromise, all or nothing,' these organizations are really just louder in their rhetoric (more to make up for their small size than anything). In their quest for 'loudness,' which is how they keep the troops in line and donating, and maintain any level of influence, they invariably have to appeal to off-message subjects, and that is where they falter.

Too often, I hear of non-NRA organizations commenting on Gay marriage or abortion, or fiscal responsibility, and the like. Regardless what your views may be on those things, they have nothing to do with the organization's mission. That means, that while they may bring in a few extra donations beyond dues, they invariably alienate some portion of their membership (after all, the only common theme in the membership is pro-gun issues), and now have a smaller pool to draw from within and without --thus the need for even louder and more off-message rhetoric. Vicious circle of zealotry.

The NRA is big enough and has enough to lose that it seems to maintain a great deal of discipline in its ranks and strategy, and I can't recall a single instance since I've been paying attention where they've strayed. Even after Newtown and other shootings, they refuse to comment, because that particular shooting is itself divorced from the topic at hand, and instead save their comments for the inevitable breathless exploitation by the anti's.

A lot of folks like to bash the NRA for what they've done in the past or have failed to do today, but they are making the same mistake as the anti's in assuming the organization is either a) not made up of millions of members that are quite representative, or b) bought and paid for by an industry whose contributions pale in comparison to those from individuals (IIRC it was like 70% private donations, or something). The NRA was passive/complicit in the '60s because American gunowners were. The leadership marketed to hunting groups and target shooting and white guys in flannel, because the membership was that. To be honest, given the mere demographics of the old NRA, it could have very easily become a racist organization, but again, the leadership kept the message on the shooting sports and spreading their appeal --even to minorities in the deep south.

The '94 AWB is what finally got the membership attuned to what was really happening, and made them receptive to the doom-saying the NRA is now so famous for. Wayne LaPierre's salary may be worth 40,000 memberships, but how much influence would that many members spending 25$ a year on postage to their representatives accomplish compared to a single schmoozy steak dinner? How many of those 40,000 would remain steadfast in their advocacy if exposed to the kind of vitriol and personal attacks (and death threats) leveled against Mr. LaPierre? Honestly, I could care less if the NRA leadership gets rich, so long as they say and lobby for what I want effectively, which they do. They are providing a service by representing us, when there is no better alternative.

******************
I've been asking repeatedly in a couple of these threads whether the NRA has a legislation-writing group or think-tank like the Brady's obviously do; does anybody know? I can't find nuthin', and that may explain the lack of legislative substance from our side at the federal level (to be honest, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against the NRA to stay away from bill-writing, since it is somewhat different from advocacy, which is their stated mission, and because anything they did write would obviously be treated as anathema by the anti's)

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

I've been asking repeatedly in a couple of these threads whether the NRA has a legislation-writing group or think-tank like the Brady's obviously do; does anybody know? I can't find nuthin', and that may explain the lack of legislative substance from our side at the federal level (to be honest, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against the NRA to stay away from bill-writing, since it is somewhat different from advocacy, which is their stated mission, and because anything they did write would obviously be treated as anathema by the anti's)

Answered by ugaarguy in another thread, quoted below.

Here are three organizations with results and so little hype that you haven't heard of them: The CATO Institute (Responsible for Heller v. DC) NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (Largely responsible for funding McDonald v. Chicago) and the NRA Institute For Legislative Action (one of the most effective gun rights legislation lobbying organizations). Most gun folks don't even know that the NRA CRDF and the NRA ILA are separately funded entities: When you donate to the CRDF or the ILA all of your money stays in that sub entity and doesn't go to "big" NRA.

Also of note, Knife Rights, the incredibly successful group that's gotten tons of pro knife legislation passed in their very short existence, is modeled after the NRA ILA.

The organizations are out there, but since they spend their money on getting results rather than hyping themselves you have to look a little harder to find them.​

I believe you will find that most of the legislative action is at the state, rather than federal, level.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

In the 60's, there was also a great prevalence of TV shows which capitalized on the benevolent, do-gooder cop/G-man persona as well. There was a culture of government trust being cultivated within the American public that can be seen throughout the 50's and 60's which was not successfully countered in any significant manner until the 70's and later.

You would have been hard pressed to find powerful lobby agencies for anything at all like what we know of today, especially having to do with rights of citizens.

 

[JRH6856]

In the 60's, there was also a great prevalence of TV shows which capitalized on the benevolent, do-gooder cop/G-man persona as well. There was a culture of government trust being cultivated within the American public that can be seen throughout the 50's and 60's which was not successfully countered in any significant manner until the 70's and later.

You would have been hard pressed to find powerful lobby agencies for anything at all like what we know of today, especially having to do with rights of citizens.

With the '70s can Watergate and the public's opinion of government changed considerably. Plus, every no-name reporter started trying to be the next Woodward or Bernstein and uncover the next WhateverGate story. Everything that used to be ignored out of courtesy or respect fro privacy, or not reported until confirmed was reported at first rumor just in case it was the next big Pulitzer prize winning story. The overall effect turned trusted statesmen" into suspect politicians in the public eye.

Probably a more realistic view. Governemt shoudl never be trusted too much.

 

[JERRY]

the NRA is made up of its members. the more members, the more money. the more money the more they listen. the more they listen, the more they talk, the more they talk the more the politicians listen.

4 million NRA members out of 80 million gun owners; that's only 5%. not a loud enough voice obviously, yet 75 million gun owners don't care enough to support the best voice they have in d.c. ....

 

[alsaqr]

The second largest monetary contributor our gun rights is almost never mentioned on these boards. The Safari Club International represents the sport shooting community.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=Q13&cycle=2012