I’m Was An NRA Lobbyist – And I’m A Quisling And Controller
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 3 months ago
I’m a long-time gun rights proponent with pretty solid credentials. I lobbied for the NRA. I am the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and I even gave Ronald Reagan his first shooting lesson with a customized AR-15 when I ran the Firearm Industry’s Trade Association in 1992. I am also someone who has worked successfully on bipartisan gun control measures, specifically a child safety lock agreement supported by Bill Clinton, which explains in part why I am also a former NRA lobbyist.
So now that he’s established his creds, let’s take a look at what he’s proposing to mend the wounds that America suffers.
Today’s current gun control mantra is “universal background checks.” The Brady law passed in 1993 mandated background checks for gun purchasers at retail gun shops. These transactions are commercial in nature and generally between strangers—the firearms dealer and the buyer. Twenty years ago, the firearms industry (and even the NRA) supported these checks at gun shows as well as retail gun shops, but the original legislation extended only to federally licensed dealers, with no attempt made to extend that jurisdiction to nondealers. Today, you’ll find gun owners support background checks for all commercial transactions. That includes gun shows, flea markets and internet sales purchases. Strangers can’t possibly know the backgrounds of the buyer and these checks can prevent the unintentional transfer of a gun to a disqualified individual.
But when the word “universal” is used, gun owners rebel. Why? They don’t want to be turned into criminals for giving a firearm to their wife, their kids or their parents without a background check—which is exactly what they fear could happen if a law mandates background checks for all gun sales in the U.S.
So why not extend the Brady background check to all commercial sales, including gun shows, internet sales and flea markets, while carefully and responsibly crafting exemptions for relatives, friends and co-workers whom the seller has personally known for more than a year? And in cases where there is some doubt about the relationship, let’s encourage people to get the checks by giving them the same liability protection when crimes are committed with those guns that retail dealers have now. Compromise, that dirty word, means we both get something in the transaction that’s useful to us.
With these exemptions in place, opposition would be diminished, and legislation based on sound policy not “gotcha politics” will more easily be enacted. Most importantly, disqualified individuals would find it harder (though admittedly not impossible) to obtain guns. Isn’t that what we seek?
So right out of the gate, he proposes a compromise. Extend the background check to all sales. Give up person-to-person sales as long as there is an exemption for family gifts. In other words, universal background checks. Just don’t call it that – it’ll get everybody on my side riled up.
“Red Flag Laws” are getting a lot of attention, but I prefer the term Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). Something about the words “red flag” reminds me of “red herring.” But there’s a good reason for them. The theory behind this initiative is that people sometimes give us useful signals that they intend to commit violence—whether it’s against themselves or others—and if we act upon those signals by removing their guns we might sometimes prevent tragedies. But gun owners have legitimate fears that the system can be abused to their detriment. In order to amplify the good and minimize the bad, we need to build safeguards against a surveillance state that, in the wake of 9/11, has proved susceptible to overreach. If the process becomes punitive, not salutary, faith in the stated objective is defeated and people loss more respect for the laws and any changes are seen as new retributions to be opposed from the get go. A detailed description of a workable and fair policy can be found in David French’s article “A Gun-Policy Measure Conservatives Should Consider” from National Review of February of last year.
So, let’s put a few things in places to keep the Leviathan state from overreaching and prevent abuses, and we’ll support these confiscatory policies. David French says so. And so does he.
Sheesh. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Is it any wonder with “Lobbyists” like this, we’ve been compromised almost to the point of no return?
On August 21, 2019 at 10:45 pm, George said:
David French is a reprehensible neo-con. He never saw a war or a piece of gun control he didn’t like. He would be a typical Buckley conservative except that he is a little to the left, in deference to the times. He is a perfect example of why conservatives have lost nearly everything to the progs in the past 40 years or so.
French would gladly wave goodbye to the 2nd Amendment in order to virtue signal to his liberal friends. His kind are the reason we literally have almost nothing left to conserve. With people like him as one of the elites we have not even conserved the ladies restroom.
Conservatives need to throw people like him and his elite conservative friends like Bill Kristol completely out of their company. The good news is a lot of them are.
On August 22, 2019 at 7:10 am, Todd said:
Does this guy not know that all sales, relatability, gun shows, internet involve background checks? Flea markets? I have no idea if checks occur, I’d suspect not if private sellers. Anyway, it’s all smoke and mirrors to appear reasonable while infringing on our rights. Why don’t we have red flag laws for all predictions of impending violence? Why is it only a scary gun these communists care about? More smoke and mirrors to dissuade people from waking up and realizing that the tool isn’t the problem, it’s the inherent evil in people.
On August 22, 2019 at 7:22 am, Arthur Sido said:
At some point regular conservatives are going to wake up and realize that most “conservative” leaders and almost the entire Republican party think as little of the average American as Democrats do. People get outraged and act shocked at the latest public betrayal but still think the rest of the “conservative” movement has their interests at heart. Wake up, they don’t care about you and are mostly revolted and frightened by you.
On August 22, 2019 at 7:22 am, Fred said:
Law based on theory? What could possibly go wrong? I already have no faith in the laws of men, and I already have ZERO respect for the laws of the United States. While not written about America, Revelation 18 might as well be. And I will rejoice with heaven when God has avenged this harlot!
“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.”
On August 22, 2019 at 8:36 am, Pat Hines said:
(((Feldman))), yes, I see the core of the probblem.
On August 22, 2019 at 12:31 pm, ExpatNJ said:
“With these exemptions in place … disqualified individuals would find it harder (though admittedly not impossible) to obtain guns.”
Q. So, is the author acknowledging that criminals will not submit to a his “background check” before breaking in somewhere to steal guns? And, from what I read in the newspaper, gun storage locations extend far beyond private homes and FFA stores to National Guard armories, military bases, police stations, etc.
“people sometimes give us useful signals that they intend to commit violence – whether it’s against themselves or others – and if we act upon those signals by removing their guns we might sometimes prevent tragedies.”
Q. What’s a “signal”? Voting? Peaceful public protest and rallies? Internet postings? Membership/activism in particular group(s) or organizations?
The only “tragedies” the author wants to prevent are “tragedies” to himself, his tyrannical buddies, and State actors.
On August 22, 2019 at 6:31 pm, Heywood said:
It’s Politico. ‘Nuff said.
On August 22, 2019 at 7:16 pm, TRX said:
> Today, you’ll find gun owners support background checks for all commercial transactions.
—
We *do*?! Oh, noes! Nobody passed me the memo!
On August 24, 2019 at 4:43 pm, Badger said:
His self-promoting credentials indicate he’s not ignorant of the facts. Thus, the vomitous lies furthering the communist’s myth make him complicit in a traitorous way. Someone knows his heart and that Someone will get their due, even if it’s hastened by a mortal. The notion of abrograting the transfer of property, by whatever means of barter agreed upon, between two free men, should boil any reasonable person’s blood. Private property is called that for a reason.
On August 29, 2019 at 3:32 pm, Jack Crabb said:
He exposes himself as a liar in the first paragraph.
“I’m a long-time gun rights proponent with pretty solid credentials. I lobbied for the NRA”
A true guns rights proponent would have nothing to do with the NRA.