An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, October 4, 2007


It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.

In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.

Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much pro-gun legislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.

Understand this:

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex. Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun control measure in over a decade."

* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status quo."

* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer. It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability" provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this letter and pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,


Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman

Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel
 
You know, as far as I'm concerned, the GOA burned their credibility to a crisp over the last year with their shrill hysterics.

And -now- they're trying to speak in a low, calm voice?

{shakes head}
 
GOA's anti NRA FUD has reduced their credibility. They seem to be more interested in attacking the NRA than attacking VPC/Brady/et al ... which is a shame because its clear they are highly dedicated to RKBA.

I'm not 100% pleased with the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, but without NRA involvement it would have been worse ... this isn't about a "gain" for our side its about reducing a loss.

If the GOA was to calmly debate the finer points of the legislation that would be fine, but their tact seems to be "OMG TEH NRA IS SELLING US OUT...THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END...WAYNE LAPIERRE IS GOING TO START CONFISCATING YOUR GUNS HIMSELF!!! AAAAARRRRGGGG!!!"

GOA seems to think they can just sit there and demand the Antis shut up, respect the constitution and go home ... and the antis are just going to go "ya know, you're right, we SHOULD respect your 2A rights ... we'll just go away now ... sorry about all the fuss."

Fact is that there are always going to be antis in positions of power and sometimes you have to work with them. If you are never willing to work with them, then be intellectually honest and take up arms against them.
 
GOA's wolf-crying nuttery over the NRA in the past year or so have absolutely soured me on the belief that they have anything positive to offer the gun culture at all.

This press release would be a joke if the whole thing weren't so pathetic.
 
NRA response

The NRA's detailed explanation of the bill and their position (2 clicks away from the link in mrreynolds's own post):

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html

I find it hard to believe that the NRA, after being the chief defender of our 2A rights since EVER, is busily betraying us to the antigunners now. The only differences I've ever had with the NRA were on issues where I thought they were TOO zealous, like in opposing a ban on blind mailorder sales of firearms. I doubt very much they've suddenly changed into Handgun Control, Inc.

Something isn't right here, and speaking only for myself (and in Texas parlance), I'll "dance with who brung me."

I know the NRA. Who are these GOA guys?
 
My turn to *sigh* dramatically, twice.

First I'm mad at the GoA for presenting this in the wrong light. I'm really mad at them for not acknowledging that at least the legislation contains provisions for people to get off the NICS lists.

*sigh*

Second I'm mad at the NRA for supporting this. The problem is, when you support something like this, you are tacitly acknowledging that the NICS system is okay, and it's not. It's wrong. Passing more legislation like this is like admitting that Congress has such authority, and it doesn't, d### it.

*sigh*

I'm really sick and tired of the "damage control" and "compromise" mentality prevalent in the pro gun movement. The RKBA is no arena for any sort of compromise.

But I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand some of the provisions may actually weaken the NICS system, which is good, but it also seems to mean the NRA is committed to gun control measures like background checks, which is bad.
 
I am going to get flamed for this but it must be said: FOPA 1986 the machine gun "clause" thought they could get it over-turned in court yes, well, alright. I patiently wait to get flamed.
 
Does anyone else see the humor in Gun Owners of America saying "We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership" while it is working hysterically to start that battle?

I've read the bill so I'm not inclined to battle the NRA for it. More and more I am convinced that Gun Owners of America is the destructive force, no less damaging to gun owners than Chuck Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy because of its inherent bad judgment and inabilty to work constructively for gun owners.

Euclidian, your comment that "the NRA is committed to gun control measures like background checks, which is bad" doesn't seem to take into account some basic realities.

NICS is indeed bad, but there is no chance--none at all--of repealing it, at least not now or in the foreseeable future. No one except some relatively tiny number of gun owners would care to argue that lunatics and criminals should be allowed to buy or own firearms legally. Never mind that they can get them illegally: no rational society would approve it, even if the approval is only symbolic. I don't want gun stores able to sell firearms to someone who has been adjudicated a danger to himself or to others, and I suspect that a great many other gun owners don't want it either. I don't want to argue for some right of dangerous people to buy a gun so he can shoot a police officer, a kid, me, you, or anyone else.

I grew to manhood, married, and raised children during the time before there were background checks. Most people seemed to live without fear of some lunatic running amok and shooting people at random, but that was before Sarah Brady spread her wings and the Clintons gave her the gift of flight and guns became scarey things owned only by scarey people.

That was then. Now is a different time. The options now, especially with respect to NICs, is whether to: 1. let it remain seriously flawed for gun owners, or 2. risk the good chance that it will be amended by the Congress so it becomes even worse for gun owners, or 3. negotiate compromises with the Congress to remove its worst features and defang other features that bite gun owners.

NRA has chosen option 3. It is the wisest, most beneficial course for gun owners to pursue at this time. It keeps us in the game and able to play the next hand. Playing dog in the manger, a la Gun Owners of America, will not kill NICS. It can't. It will result in either Option 1 or Option 2. NICS won't go away in the near future. Because it won't go away and can't be made to go away, I would prefer to have NICS information accurate and current instead of wrong and obsolete, and for it to have clear statements about what is prohibited and the path someone can take to right a wrong. Who wouldn't?

Do you play poker? If not, surely you remember Kenny Rogers' song, "The Gambler":

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count you r money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.

It's a good strategy for gun owners who want to keep the Second Amendment alive, much better than labelling every hand "gun control" so that every hand seems to be just like every other. Not all hands are the same for a winning poker player or for winning gun owners either. The winning comes from knowing which hands to play, and when, not from dropping out of every game on the theory that all hands are bad. This hand isn't perfect but it's not bad, and it's better than the alternatives, and certainly not as bad as refusing to play at all.

Bogie, you evidently know how to read readin' and write writin' but you need more experience in reading rotten.

Cnorman18, when you say "I know the NRA. Who are these GOA guys?" it might be because you don't know that these GOA guys are a little like the rooster who crows because he thinks he makes the sun rise. The difference between them and the rooster, though, is that their cockadoodledoo always brings darknesss. They are aginners: whatever the NRA is for, GOA is agin. Some gun owners listen to their crowing and join in the din. It is noisy, it is a nuisance, and it is a distraction from productive work.

I am glad, though, to see GOA declare its affection for "our wonderful friends who are NRA members." It makes me feel all warm and cuddly. I shall, however, keep looking behind my back. And so should we all. The last stranger who assured me of so much affection tried to rob me blind.
 
"Who are these GOA guys?"

Let's look and see.

"Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman"

He was a California State Senator. I wonder what he knows about national politics. I also wonder if he is still a member of the John Birch Society.
______________

From The Political Graveyard:

Richardson, Hubert Leon — also known as H. L. Richardson; Bill Richardson — of California. Republican. Candidate for U.S. Representative from California, 1964, 1992; member of California state senate, 1966-88; candidate for U.S. Senator from California, 1974; candidate in primary for Lieutenant Governor of California, 1986. Member, John Birch Society. Still living as of 1992.
 
I'm not 100% pleased with the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, but without NRA involvement it would have been worse ... this isn't about a "gain" for our side its about reducing a loss.

Maybe so, but I have to wonder why we should settle for any losses, especially so close to an election year, when we can be reasonably sure at least some leftist extremists are shrewd enough to stay away from overt anti-Second Amendment bigotry.
 
I am going to get flamed for this but it must be said: FOPA 1986 the machine gun "clause" thought they could get it over-turned in court yes, well, alright. I patiently wait to get flamed.

What?

Springmom
 
Apparently (from what I have read) when FOPA went to Reagen's desk he asked the NRA if he should sign it, NRA said yes knowing about the machine gun bit and thinking once it got passed they could file a suit and get it disregarded, as you can see that did not work. That and when the NRA works with 2 of the biggest anti's out there I get nervous.
 
And -now- they're trying to speak in a low, calm voice?

perhaps they're responding to your (and many others') criticism. this should be viewed as an improvement; a good thing.

I find it hard to believe that the NRA, after being the chief defender of our 2A rights since EVER, is busily betraying us to the antigunners now.

most of us consider their rolling over in '86 and '94 a betrayal. and I'm not at all convinced any execs at the NRA believe any of us peons should own full-auto or suppressors, etc.

it's never wise to put all your eggs in one easily corruptible basket.
 
Looks like it's time for a history lesson if the FOPA is going to get tossed around.

The FOPA is quite interesting. Read some of the history of it. It's a complex bill that accomplished a lot for gunowners by changing the '68 GCA.

From www.gunlawnews.org/FOPA-86.html

The FOPA (99th Congress, S.49), also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, significantly amended GCA68, providing gun owners some positives and some negatives. Specifically:

Opens up interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis.
Allows interstate transport of firearms in some circumstances. (Do not try to check in at a New York airport without NY permits. When you declare your firearms, they may arrest you).
Makes it illegal for anyone to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.
Provides any prohibited persons can get relief of their disability by applying to the Treasury Secretary. This has been repealed in practice by the program being specifically unfunded in the federal budget.
It prevents the government from creating a list of gun owners from dealer records.
Limits the number of inspections on a dealer by the BATF without a search warrant.
Allows FFL holders to engage in business away from their normal business location, if at a ‘gun show’ in their home state.
Allows ammunition shipments through the US Postal Service (a repeal of part of GCA68).
Ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing (the real stuff, not what Kennedy calls armor piercing).
Prohibits civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.
Redefines 'machine gun' to include those sets of parts or parts that could be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun.
Adds serious drug offenses to the list of crimes receiving enhanced penalties.
Doubles the penalties for use of a machine gun, silencer or muffler in a violent federal felony.
Eliminates the FFL requirement for ammunition only dealers.
Specifically states that those disposing of personal firearm collections do not need an FFL and to get an FFL firearms do not have to be a principle business activity.

The majority of the amendment is spent reducing the power of the BATF, who had a reputation for abusing its power. The 1982 report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution concluded that seventy-five percent of BATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper." More information is available at No More Wacos by Dave Kopel.


The Hughes Amendment
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.


More information is available in the July 1986 issue of the American Rifleman. It is not available online.


A long review of FOPA 86 is available at THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.



www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

This page also contains good summaries of the earlier laws: '33, '68
 
Well....

What is the point of a safe-passage law if a state (looking at you New York) does not obey it.

I thought it was already illegal to rob a bank with or without a machine gun before that.

I concede it is nice to be able to get ammo cheaper, but I am still fairly certain the ATF has some sort of records from purchases (4473 they need your name and the gun's #), and from reading about Red's it does not look like the inspection thing is working.

So a few more penalties for criminals and ease of buying ammo. IMO.
 
i'll give you a little summary, bogie:

paragraphs 1-6: "we don't hate the NRA, honest! so get off our back about it"

paragraphs 7-9: "but we really don't like them, and this new bill is going to suck"

paragraphs 10-14: "it really will and here's why, and by the way, the other side has a track record of not honoring their part of the NRA's bargains"

paragraphs 15-16: "friends don't let friends put their heads in lion's mouths"
 
I'm not anti-NRA,but i don't like this bill and I was actually happy when it becamed stalled by a single Senator. I woud think that it is okay to disagree with the NRA on certain matters, but apparantly at least to some of you, it is not. I oppose this bill for the following reasons;

1. The NICS is an unecessary invasion of privacy, and is not only easy to abuse, but has already been abused. Any possible good, (arrrest and prosecution of criminals) was not realized because Clinton was president and managed to ignore the law and not enforce it.

2. This bill represents an expansion of that database, and resulting in an increased number of denials as well as a significant financial investment, which will be wasted since the realtively small number of individuals it will prevent from legally purchasing a gun, will probably not even be statistically significant. Not irrelevant either is the FACT! that even the NICS, as it is currently configured, doesn't reduce crime either, as confirmed by Lott's studies, and a Clinton initiated study by the National Academy of Science.

3. There is a process for restoring gun rights for criminals now, as well as other infractions like minor infractions of federal gun laws, intentional or unintentional. But the rights are almost NEVER restored, in spite of the innocence of the infraction.

4. Like averything else, this law is too easy to abuse. The trend, as it is already moving, is to adjudicate minor or temporary matters into a pathology, and thus expand the number of those denied the purchase of a gun. There have been more than a few kids, 10years old an such, arrested at school for drawing pictures of guns or even holding their hand like it was a gun. Perhaps, even a child's interest in firearms will be declared a mental defect. Right after the Brady Bill, the idea of denial of gun rights to those guilty of "domestic violence" was passed without significant opposition. Not only could a person lose their gun rights for life retroactively for misdemenor charges, they could lose their rights even when the individual hadn't committed a crime.(e.g. Doctor Emerson) FWIK, Cho wasn't "adjudicated" as mentally defective, he was just let out because those responsible were afraid of lawsuits.

So we have another law, this time "approved and endorsed by the NRA", that will be expensive, wide open to abuse, and ineffective in protecting anyone from some crazy with a gun. So the GOA opposes it and suddenly they're the problem. I am alarmed when anyone trashes the reputation of a progun organization, especially when they're a moderator on this forum. Certainly, there are reasons to not support the bill, and we who don't shouldn't be trashed by other gun owners for our views. I mean, a legitimate opposition is demonized into a sinister plot to trash the NRA. There are quite a few things that the NRA is demonized for, and little of it is true: Giving guns to kids; being obsessed with guns; not caving in to strange interests in firearms or sensible restrictions; serving the interests of the GUN INDUSTRY; or being stupid and dull witted. Remember ZUMBO! Zumbo didn't deserve to be flamed because of his beliefs, he deserved to be flamed because of his ignorance and careless criticism of his fellow shooters. Think what you will of the GOA, just don't make unfair accusations, that's what the Brady's do.
 
Last edited:
"So a few more penalties for criminals and ease of buying ammo. IMO."

That's ALL you got out of it?

I'd love to get rid of all the gun laws, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon and certainly not with nearly unitelligible spin GOA is putting out.

John
 
That was then. Now is a different time. The options now, especially with respect to NICs, is whether to: 1. let it remain seriously flawed for gun owners, or 2. risk the good chance that it will be amended by the Congress so it becomes even worse for gun owners, or 3. negotiate compromises with the Congress to remove its worst features and defang other features that bite gun owners.

I choose option 4. Realize a right is a right and is not subject to a background check, and fight the NICS system tooth and nail.

I'm 26. I don't really remember a world without NICS, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.
 
Euclidean, you're a fortunate man because you already have Option 4 if only you will choose to exercise it. I suspect, though, that you have not yet done so and are only talking about it instead of fighting for it "tooth and nail."

You can start fighting for it tooth and nail without anyone else's help. It's easy and you can start to do it the very next business day.

When you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply refuse to complete the BATF form or participate in the NICS check. Show him a copy of the Second Amendment and tell him what you've just said: a right is a right.

Refuse to budge. Insist that it is your right to buy that gun without a NICS check. Do not compromise, do not bend: stand up for your right and fight for it, tooth and nail.

What is most important, of course, is that you be willing to pay the price for your civil disobedience. Lawbreakers who break the law only when they cannot be caught or who try to wheedle out of the penalties are not acting out of principle.

And people who won't stand up for their principles alone, only in crowds or mobs or millions of moms, are not principled either. They are participants in a social activity. It also is doubtful that people who urge others to fight for them are motivated by principle.

I'm infinitely older than you and in my long life I've observed that a great many highly principled people will fight tooth and nail as long as it doesn't cost them much of anything. Most of those highly principled people, it turned out, were trying to urge me to fight for what they believe. Alas they were charlatans.

As an old man who has lived not only long but also most happily, I see for myself only the three options I've outlined. But there is no need you to be bound by my limitations.

There is no need for you to wait for anyone else to abolish NICS for you. A right, as you say, is a right and you have realized it. I am too old for you to urge me to realize it too. I am not only too old but also just not as smart as most other people. I never was very bright.
 
how am i suppose to shoot at birds flying over my back yard with an ak47/suppressed if they do this to us? BLASPHOMY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top