by Cam Edwards interviewed John Frazier, the NRA-ILA’s Research and Information Division Director, on the OMB’s delay in the multi-rifle reporting requirement for the Southwest border states yesterday. Frazier also discusses Operation Gunwalker a bit. I think on that he lets the ATF off a little easy.
NRA-ILA
NRA On Shotgun Study
The NRA-ILA released this statement on the just released ATF study on shotgun imports and the “sporting test”. I couldn’t agree more that the sporting test needs to be abolished.
Proposed Shotgun Import Ban Shows Need To Change Law
Friday, January 28, 2011
On Thursday, Jan. 27, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns, which proposes that “military shotguns, or shotguns with common military features that are unsuitable for traditional shotgun sports” be prohibited from importation. This would apply to all shotguns—not just semi-automatics. As in previous “working group” studies on rifles, the study fails to give proper credit to the widespread use of these guns in newer shooting sports, or to their adaptability to hunting.
The study underscores the need for Congress to change the firearm importation law. That law requires the Attorney General to approve the importation of any firearm “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” This “sporting purposes” test was imposed by the Gun Control Act in 1968, a time when the right to self-defense with a firearm was not as widely respected by the courts as it is today.
Clearly, the main reason to change the law is that the Second Amendment—as the Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller—protects our right to keep and bear arms for defense, not for sports. In its 2008 Heller decision, the court observed that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” and ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” particularly within the home, where “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” The court also dismissed the notion that the amendment doesn’t protect modern arms, saying “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.”
Another reason to change the law is to end the BATFE’s 22-year history of misinterpreting it. In 1989, the bureau banned the importation of semi-automatic rifles, claiming they were not used for “organized marksmanship competition.” (In fact, the banned guns were of the type most commonly used by competitors in the most popular marksmanship competitions in the United States—the National Matches, and the hundreds of local, state and regional competitions that precede the national events each year.) In 1998, BATFE expanded the ban, absurdly claiming that semi-automatic rifles’ “suitability for this activity [marksmanship competition] is limited.” At the time, a Clinton White House official said “we’re taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”
Now, BATFE is bending the law one more time. As this issue develops, the NRA will be looking at every legislative and legal option to bring our firearms import laws back in line with the Constitution.
NRA members and other concerned gun owners can submit comments on the study until May 1, 2011. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202)648-9601. Faxed comments may not exceed five pages. All comments must include name and mailing address.
NRA Opposes Traver Re-nomination
From the NRA-ILA:
NRA Strongly Opposes Obama’s Re-nomination Of Anti-Gun-Leaning Andrew Traver To Head BATFE
Friday, January 07, 2011
This week, President Obama re-nominated Andrew Traver to be director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Obama first nominated Traver on November 17, 2010, but the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act on his nomination.
Last November, NRA strongly opposed Obama’s nomination of Traver. Our strong opposition has not changed.
Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers.
Please contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose Andrew Traver’s ill-advised nomination to head BATFE. You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121.
NRA-ILA’s Assessment of Mid-Term Elections
In an email sent out today by the NRA-ILA, they had this assessment of the mid-term elections with regards to gun rights:
U.S. Senate
* 19 of NRA-PVF’s 25 endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won. This marks a pro-gun upgrade of eight Senate seats.
* In the 111th Congress, there were 43 A-rated and 34 F-rated Senators. The 112th Congress will contain 50 A-rated (+7) and 33 F-rated Senators (-1).
* There will be 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen.U.S. House
* Of the 262 candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF for the U.S. House, 225 were victorious, for an 85% winning percentage. In every case but one where an NRA-PVF endorsed candidate lost, a pro-gun challenger replaced him.
* In the 111th Congress, there were 226 A-rated and 151 F-rated Representatives. The 112th Congress will contain 258 A-rated (+32) and 133 F-rated (-18) Members.
* There were pro-gun election upgrades in 27 House districts.Note: As of today, 9 races remain too close to call.
Gubernatorial & State Legislatures
* Of the 21 gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF, 15 were victorious. (Note: Two races remain too close to call.)
* We made major gains in state legislative races, which will position us well in the upcoming legislative sessions next year.
If one uses the NRA endorsements and grades as the measure, it certainly does appear that there is a majority of A-rated members of Congress in both houses.
GRNC vs NRA
I received the email below from the NRA-ILA on Saturday. It was sent to NRA members living in western North Carolina. They are reacting to Grass Roots North Carolina’s radio ads and mailers attacking Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC-11) in his re-election efforts.
Shooting Straight About Congressman Heath Shuler
Dear John Richardson:
A group purporting to support the Second Amendment is either grossly misinformed or deliberately attempting to mislead voters in North Carolina’s eleventh congressional district about the record of Congressman Heath Shuler.
In their communication, they claim that Congressman Heath Shuler “brokered House passage of the misnamed DISCLOSE Act – legislation that would require gun ‘orgs’ . . . to REPORT MEMBERSHIP LISTS to the federal government . . .” In fact, Congressman Shuler filed an amendment (http://tinyurl.com/382njjf) to H.R. 5175 with the House Rules Committee to exempt all 501(C)(4) non-profit organizations that fund election activities with individual contributions from the adverse effects of this legislation. While that is not the amendment eventually adopted by the House, it was Congressman Shuler’s effort to change this legislation. It is important that you know the real story about this legislation and not be misled by others who seem to have their own agenda.
Congressman Heath Shuler tried to protect the First Amendment rights of all gun rights organizations. He has consistently voted to protect our Second Amendment rights and he has earned our endorsement and support.
On November 2, Vote Freedom First -Vote Heath Shuler for Congress!
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
GRNC responded to this email with one of their own to their members and supporters. As I am a member of both organizations, I got both emails.
GRNC-PVF Alert 10-31-10:
NRA’s Shot in the Dark for Shuler
In defending their endorsement for HEATH SHULER, NRA lashes out at a
“group purporting to support the Second Amendment” claiming that the
unnamed organization is “either grossly misinformed or deliberately
attempting to mislead voters in North Carolina’s eleventh
congressional district about the record of Congressman Heath Shuler.”
Oh really?They further state that “Congressman Heath Shuler tried to protect
the First Amendment rights of all gun rights organizations,” and that
Shuler “has consistently voted to protect our Second Amendment rights
and he has earned our endorsement and support.” Is that a fact? Well,
let’s see…DISCLOSE ACT, THE FACTS
Where do we start? After finishing scratching our heads over how much
of a champion of the First Amendment (not to mention the Second
Amendment on which he has a GRNC 0% voting record) — according to the
NRA — Shuler is, the question occurs of why the NRA waited to remove
their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act until their champion Shuler
introduced an amendment with an exemption so narrow that the only
Second Amendment organization that was exempted was THEM. Of course
according to their latest communication, they are the only true
defenders of the Second Amendment and everyone else simply “purports”
to support the Second Amendment.So, why does a congressman with a ZERO percent voting record on the
Second Amendment suddenly get a favorable rating from NRA after
cutting a deal to allow them to be the only 2A organization who is
allowed to speak without having to turn over their donor list to the
government during an election cycle?So, what would the DISCLOSE Act do to 2A groups not fortunate enough
to have an anti-gun politician willing to go to bat for them?Organizations such as GRNC, Gun Owners of America and CCRKBA will be
effectively banned from engaging in political debate. The demand would
be on such organizations to enumerate their donors any time they issue
any kind of campaign advocacy ad.Along with that it also does the following:
* Bans political speech by government contractors and TARP recipients
but not unions with collective bargaining agreements with the
government or unions who receive dues from government payroll
deductions.* Imposes legally unsound limitations on coordinated communications
between federal candidates and organizations – possibly subjecting
candidates to investigations and fines for activity they don’t know
took place.* Creates highly complex reporting requirements – unlikely to impact
unions – that would have high compliance costs and disproportionate
effects on small businesses.* Places more stringent “stand by your ad” requirements on
organizations than candidates by forcing organization heads and top
funders to appear in ads, stating their organizations’ names up to
five times.* Deliberately and recklessly seeks to affect the 2010 elections by
taking effect in 30 days without waiting for the FEC to issue
instructions and rules so people can follow the law and avoid criminal
and civil punishment.
GRNC and the NRA have clashed for years on the best way to advance gun rights in North Carolina. The best comparison I can give between the two organizations is that GRNC is the Tea Party movement and the NRA is the Republican establishment (even though I know that the R doesn’t stand for Republican). The former uses guerrilla tactics to wage the battle for gun rights while the latter believes in the set-piece battle. The NRA believes compromise is often needed in order to advance the cause of gun rights while GRNC finds compromise anathema. GRNC and its leadership can sometimes be intemperate in their actions while often the NRA on the state level has been temperate to the point of ineffectiveness.
A couple of weekends ago on Tom Gresham’s GunTalk radio show, Tom had Chris Cox on the show to ask him about the NRA taking all the credit for the McDonald decision (among other things). Tom didn’t think much of it and I have previously called it tacky. Cox was both very dismissive as well as defensive about it.
Chris Cox argued that the NRA was “the tip of the spear” in the battle for Second Amendment rights. He went on to say that the criticism of the NRA only helps the opponents of the Second Amendment. Cox thought the Brady Campaign and their allies will use any conflict between the NRA and other gun rights organizations as a means to hurt our Second Amendment rights. If this is truly what Chris Cox thinks, then why did he allow the organization which he heads, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, to send out an email attacking another gun rights organization? Doesn’t this contradict what he just said should not be done?
You can listen for yourself here and here. It is towards the end of Part A and it begins again in Part B.
UPDATE: For another perspective on the NRA-ILA’s actions, you should read the comments of Sebastian at the Snow Flakes in Hell blog. He may have a better perspective of the thinking of the insider’s in the NRA than I do.
As my comments on his blog makes clear, I feel the NRA comes across like a bully in this situation. By doing so, they serve to publicize and legitimize Grass Roots North Carolina. The stronger organization shouldn’t need to respond to a provocation by the smaller state organization. However, as Sebastian alludes to in his comment back to me, the GRNC attacks on Shuler may be cutting much closer to the bone than either the NRA or Shuler is comfortable with and the NRA felt they had to respond.
I wonder if similar emails have gone out in Davidson County to NRA members regarding NC House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman who is also a NRA endorsed candidate and GRNC target. Holliman, for those not familiar with NC politics, did nothing to prevent an anti-gun committee chair from bottling up a bill on the Castle Doctrine in committee.