Jim March
Member
Derek, let's start with your first questions:
>> The NRA supported the NFA, didn't they? <<
They were neutral.
They did take an active stance about CCW and handgun ownership around that time period (1920 - 1935ish). What happened was, a bunch of states started to copy NYC's handgun ownership permit system. The concept spread all over the South and hit as far as Oregon. This was thought to be too much of a pain and the previously non-political NRA pushed carry permits (with no gun ownership permits) as an alternative.
The NRA started out as a marksmanship program, and got involved in shooting sports organization, range safety certification, instructor training and the like. They dabbled a bit in politics during the brief period of grabberism which hit between 1911 (NYC Sullivan Law) and ended some time just before WW2.
After that, grabberism faded until the 60's and the NRA's involvement with gun politics faded with it.
>> What about GCA '68? <<
GCA 68 caught 'em off guard. They were dragged into the proposals "kicking and screaming", and did minor consulting on the bill. It's quite possible it would have been worse without NRA input but they could have done better.
My question to you: SO WHAT? Dammit, it's not "the organization" that matters, it's the people. And the people leading the NRA today are completely different than who was there in '68. The only possible reason you might bring this crap up is to unfairly slander the current leaders.
>> How about what happened in '86 re: manufacture and licensing of new automatic weapons? <<
We gained a whole bunch in that horsetrade session, but lost in NFA stuff. Was that a good thing? No, but overall we gained more than we lost. Just for starters, travel with a gun in your trunk became 100% guaranteed legal by Federal law. No longer could a Vermont resident be arrested for New York state-law felonies for traveling to Pennsylvania on a hunting trip.
The NRA decided that eliminating a large source of "accidental felon" gun owners was a priority and I have a hard time saying they're wrong, especially since existing Class3 owners were grandfathered and didn't get screwed.
>> Did the NRA end up supporting or opposing the Brady Bill after all the backroom deals were made?<<
Neutral. But at least they got a time-cap set on the Fed waiting period. The problem was, the Brady Bill was *going* to pass, all they could do was blunt the effects. It happens like that sometimes.
>> Does the NRA seem more likely to give high rankings to those most likely to "fight the good fight," or to those who have a bad voting record but are most likely to win? <<
The "wrongful ratings" was indeed a bad policy. It doesn't happen as often as it used to. It's what happens when you play "party politics".
First, you have to understand that the Dems are 95% grabber in most places, and the GOP about 40%. So it's easy to get a situation where the GOP has a majority in a state assembly or senate, or in one branch of congress at the Fed level, and yet the net vote in that legislative house is anti-gun. BUT, if the GOP party leadership is pro-gun, not all is lost...by making sure the GOP has the lead regardless of whether the individual GOP legicritters are all pro-gun or not, you give the state or Fed GOP party leadership the ability to pick committee seats.
That allows them to "stack" a key committee such as "Public Safety" (where any gun bill has to turn up) with pro-gun GOPers and even pro-gun Dems. That committee then becomes a "kill zone" for the passage of gun control bills.
In other words, that sort of "party politics" is a desperate "defensive holding action play".
At the moment, the GOP leadership in California and at the Fed level is on our side. In NY state, it ain't.
Such "party politics" is incredibly dangerous because by making the NRA a "GOP auxilliary", it drives Dems away. It also dilutes the value of an NRA endorsement. So they don't do it as often...but individual middle-managers at Fairfax sometimes get tempted to play out of desperation.
>> If you're a local activist working on CCW reform in your own area, are you relieved or disturbed when you hear an NRA rep is stepping into the fray? <<
RELIEVED. I can't begin to describe how much help and information I've gotten from Cal-state NRA folks, including Ed Worley, Paul Payne and Chuck Michel. I don't do anything major without consulting them; I have never had them "slow me down" and at key times their help has been crucial.
Look, I know why you're probably asking that question: I would almost bet money you're a "Vermont Carry" advocate, right?
If so, you're aware that in state after state, Ohio being the latest, proposals for shall-issue CCW often face competition with "Vermont Carry" bills. In such cases, the state NRA affiliates know that "Vermont" ain't gonna fly, while the Vermont crowd calls shall-issue "unconstitutional licencing" and they get in a squabble. Happen all the friggin' time. :banghead:
Problem is, when there's political reform afoot and there are two possible reform options, the odds are neither one will pass. Put another way, if the NRA affiliates are pushing shall-issue, the best way to BLOCK that reform is to push for Vermont. In some cases, the "no compromise" folks think they're putting forward an alternative...in others, it's clear they KNOW they're tossing a monkey-wrench into the works. In at least one case, yes, the NRA threatened a "pro-gun" state legislator with an "F" rating if he/she (I think "she", can't recall for sure) sponsored a Vermont bill to compete with a shall-issue bill. They did that because they knew that the legislator knew that this would torpedo both proposals.
Do you know why Vermont still has Vermont Carry? They originally got it back in 1903 by court decision, but why do they still have it, given how flaming liberal the little dump is.
The reason they have it is because the state GOP and Dem leadership wants to keep state politics "completely local, within the state". They don't want outside agitators with big money financing big-money campaigns either way. If that happens, they fear that their teensy little state will be overwhelmed by outside interests. They're probably right. So they avoid certain hot-topic issues, especially gun control and abortion. Every Dem legicritter that tries to come up with grabber BS gets shut down by their OWN party.
If it wasn't for that, there'd be no "Vermont Carry". There's no way IN HELL it'll pass anywhere else.
>> The NRA supported the NFA, didn't they? <<
They were neutral.
They did take an active stance about CCW and handgun ownership around that time period (1920 - 1935ish). What happened was, a bunch of states started to copy NYC's handgun ownership permit system. The concept spread all over the South and hit as far as Oregon. This was thought to be too much of a pain and the previously non-political NRA pushed carry permits (with no gun ownership permits) as an alternative.
The NRA started out as a marksmanship program, and got involved in shooting sports organization, range safety certification, instructor training and the like. They dabbled a bit in politics during the brief period of grabberism which hit between 1911 (NYC Sullivan Law) and ended some time just before WW2.
After that, grabberism faded until the 60's and the NRA's involvement with gun politics faded with it.
>> What about GCA '68? <<
GCA 68 caught 'em off guard. They were dragged into the proposals "kicking and screaming", and did minor consulting on the bill. It's quite possible it would have been worse without NRA input but they could have done better.
My question to you: SO WHAT? Dammit, it's not "the organization" that matters, it's the people. And the people leading the NRA today are completely different than who was there in '68. The only possible reason you might bring this crap up is to unfairly slander the current leaders.
>> How about what happened in '86 re: manufacture and licensing of new automatic weapons? <<
We gained a whole bunch in that horsetrade session, but lost in NFA stuff. Was that a good thing? No, but overall we gained more than we lost. Just for starters, travel with a gun in your trunk became 100% guaranteed legal by Federal law. No longer could a Vermont resident be arrested for New York state-law felonies for traveling to Pennsylvania on a hunting trip.
The NRA decided that eliminating a large source of "accidental felon" gun owners was a priority and I have a hard time saying they're wrong, especially since existing Class3 owners were grandfathered and didn't get screwed.
>> Did the NRA end up supporting or opposing the Brady Bill after all the backroom deals were made?<<
Neutral. But at least they got a time-cap set on the Fed waiting period. The problem was, the Brady Bill was *going* to pass, all they could do was blunt the effects. It happens like that sometimes.
>> Does the NRA seem more likely to give high rankings to those most likely to "fight the good fight," or to those who have a bad voting record but are most likely to win? <<
The "wrongful ratings" was indeed a bad policy. It doesn't happen as often as it used to. It's what happens when you play "party politics".
First, you have to understand that the Dems are 95% grabber in most places, and the GOP about 40%. So it's easy to get a situation where the GOP has a majority in a state assembly or senate, or in one branch of congress at the Fed level, and yet the net vote in that legislative house is anti-gun. BUT, if the GOP party leadership is pro-gun, not all is lost...by making sure the GOP has the lead regardless of whether the individual GOP legicritters are all pro-gun or not, you give the state or Fed GOP party leadership the ability to pick committee seats.
That allows them to "stack" a key committee such as "Public Safety" (where any gun bill has to turn up) with pro-gun GOPers and even pro-gun Dems. That committee then becomes a "kill zone" for the passage of gun control bills.
In other words, that sort of "party politics" is a desperate "defensive holding action play".
At the moment, the GOP leadership in California and at the Fed level is on our side. In NY state, it ain't.
Such "party politics" is incredibly dangerous because by making the NRA a "GOP auxilliary", it drives Dems away. It also dilutes the value of an NRA endorsement. So they don't do it as often...but individual middle-managers at Fairfax sometimes get tempted to play out of desperation.
>> If you're a local activist working on CCW reform in your own area, are you relieved or disturbed when you hear an NRA rep is stepping into the fray? <<
RELIEVED. I can't begin to describe how much help and information I've gotten from Cal-state NRA folks, including Ed Worley, Paul Payne and Chuck Michel. I don't do anything major without consulting them; I have never had them "slow me down" and at key times their help has been crucial.
Look, I know why you're probably asking that question: I would almost bet money you're a "Vermont Carry" advocate, right?
If so, you're aware that in state after state, Ohio being the latest, proposals for shall-issue CCW often face competition with "Vermont Carry" bills. In such cases, the state NRA affiliates know that "Vermont" ain't gonna fly, while the Vermont crowd calls shall-issue "unconstitutional licencing" and they get in a squabble. Happen all the friggin' time. :banghead:
Problem is, when there's political reform afoot and there are two possible reform options, the odds are neither one will pass. Put another way, if the NRA affiliates are pushing shall-issue, the best way to BLOCK that reform is to push for Vermont. In some cases, the "no compromise" folks think they're putting forward an alternative...in others, it's clear they KNOW they're tossing a monkey-wrench into the works. In at least one case, yes, the NRA threatened a "pro-gun" state legislator with an "F" rating if he/she (I think "she", can't recall for sure) sponsored a Vermont bill to compete with a shall-issue bill. They did that because they knew that the legislator knew that this would torpedo both proposals.
Do you know why Vermont still has Vermont Carry? They originally got it back in 1903 by court decision, but why do they still have it, given how flaming liberal the little dump is.
The reason they have it is because the state GOP and Dem leadership wants to keep state politics "completely local, within the state". They don't want outside agitators with big money financing big-money campaigns either way. If that happens, they fear that their teensy little state will be overwhelmed by outside interests. They're probably right. So they avoid certain hot-topic issues, especially gun control and abortion. Every Dem legicritter that tries to come up with grabber BS gets shut down by their OWN party.
If it wasn't for that, there'd be no "Vermont Carry". There's no way IN HELL it'll pass anywhere else.
