Archive for the 'National Rifle Association' Category

Via Reddit/r/Firearms.  Liberty Magazine, May 1994.

Specifically, Reddit has the episode as:

Larry King Live: Season 4, Episode 17

Oliver North; comedian Bill Maher.

Show: Larry King Live

Episode number: 17

Air date: January 26, 1994

Some Redditor will eventually get this (even if from a library) and put it on YouTube.  It will be even more embarrassing than it is now, but the damage is done.

So I suspect that Oliver North, a figure head, is in place to encourage military and former military membership in the NRA.  It’s all about money.

The NRA is hoping that folks will remember “War Stories,” the Fox News series.  Most people the NRA should be after don’t watch TV any more, and none of them remember the scandal in which he was embroiled during the Reagan administration.  All they see now if that North wants to take their AR-15s.  That sounds like a real winner in the gun community.

In reality, we have another Charlon Heston.  I’m sure the NRA is comfortable with him, even if the Redditors aren’t.

Reason:

Following the Waco stand-off of 1993, where 82 members of the Branch Davidian sect were killed following a failed attempt to serve a warrant on the group’s leader, David Koresh, on weapons charges, North offered a full-throated defense of the feds, criticizing “arm-chair critics…second-guessing law enforcement officers on the scene.”

Wayne and Chris run things.  Until they are out, it’s the same old compromising, statist NRA.  North will toe the line.

Trump spoke at the NRA convention in Dallas to a hero’s welcome.  David Codrea has other thoughts.

No one is expecting the president to exceed his authority or the proper bounds of federalism, but the office does come with a bully pulpit and, depending on your point of view, the man is either famous or notorious for issuing public statements through Twitter. If we’re to believe the “assault on [our] Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end,” what kind of statements would it be reasonable to expect when states are infringing on a right articulated in “the supreme Law of the Land”?

Donald “Ban the bump stocks take the guns first” Trump was heralded at the NRA convention, but by my calculus he has given us (a) a progressive Ninth Circuit judge, (b) a bump stock ban, (c) Fix-NICS, (d) more funding for the CDC to pump out anti-gun garbage.

Tim Harmsen, whom I like and whose videos I enjoy, was interviewed by NPR.  Normally I’d say as I always do, “The first rule of gun club is don’t talk about gun club.”  But NPR did a fair job.

The National Rifle Association’s annual meeting begins Friday in Dallas, and some members of the organization plan to voice their discontent with the positions the NRA has taken in the past year.

Lifetime member Tim Harmsen, the owner of Copper Custom Gun Shop in Valparaiso, Ind., and the creator and host of the Military Arms Channel on YouTube, says he’s bringing boxes of T-shirts that reflect his disappointment.

“The shirts say ‘NRA: Not Real Activists.’ So, we’re not happy with the direction that [NRA leaders] Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox have taken,” Harmsen says. “They think that the resolution to all that ails the country is constant compromise on our constitutional rights, and there’s a growing number of us who are dissatisfied with that.”

They constantly negotiate our rights away. And my opinion is this — that in a compromise, it’s assumed that both parties will get something of equal value, and that’s not what happens. We don’t really compromise — we surrender our rights, endlessly trying to appease the factions that simply want to erase the Second Amendment as though it never existed….

Two issues that they’ve recently pushed through with the assistance of Trump is their NICS fix, which is an expansion of the NICS background check system, which has about a 97 percent false positive rate. … The NRA originally wrote the bill during the Clinton administration, and then they had President Trump expand it, which is a de facto waiting period for most Americans. It inaccurately flags most people.

Then, the second thing that they did is bump stock regulation. It’s really poorly written, and it goes so far as to tell you how to get around the regulations change.

I’m going for two reasons: First of all, I’m a voting member, and I plan to vote — and we keep trying to vote in a board that more reflects the opinions of the membership, which is myself and a large number of NRA members. If you get online and look, go through the discussion forms (sic) and the pro-Second Amendment forms (sic), you’ll see what I’m saying is true….

You’d think that NPR could at least get the word forum right.  As I said, I like Tim, but I don’t believe in compromise.  The problem is not just that we don’t really compromise and the other side gets everything.  The fundamental problem is that when God has spoken and decreed rights, man has no business stepping in to intercede in that right.  Man usurps the position of God, and it makes Him angry.  It also makes men who love God angry.

The problem with the bump stock ban isn’t that it is poorly written, or that it’s a slippery slope, or that we didn’t get anything in the compromise.  If it was well written and we got something in the give-and-take, it’s still wrong.

All gun control is wicked.  Compromise is evil when God has spoken and dictated the terms and conditions of our existence.  But always remember what Trump said in the debates, and what I’ve rehearsed here on these pages many times.

“Everything is negotiable.”

This video is worth watching to the end.  First of all, I dislike the fawning over the NRA and even more over cops.  Stephen is a good man, a very good man, but the thing about this service to the community is that it was unpaid and without regard for the safety of his own life.

As to the part about cops being “sheepdogs,” for me to think of cops that way would require a massive change in culture.  For any individual to rise to the level of being a “sheepdog,” he must be unpaid, and Willeford didn’t think for one second about “coming home safely at the end of the day.”  That’s why this was self-sacrifice.  Cops who write and follow procedures that put officer safety first are not involved in self-sacrifice.

Here is the video.

He’s of course right about the sheepdogs needing a shepherd.

NRA:

Even as the nation was grieving the terrible loss of life in Parkland, Fla., gun control activists were doing what they do best: exploiting tragedy to advance their political agenda.  Gun control activists are pushing a message that you are to blame for the criminal violence that took place last month. They’re attempting to capitalize on this tragedy to convince members of Congress to vote for their gun control wish list. 

Proposals to ban the most popular rifles in America, arbitrarily limit magazine capacity, require a waiting period on all firearm sales, and restrict the right of law-abiding young adults to acquire rifles and shotguns have been suggested as “solutions” by those who wish to curtail the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Legislation encompassing these proposals could be voted on in the U.S. Congress in the coming weeks. That’s why it’s imperative that you contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.

Hey, wasn’t it the NRA who went on record saying that bump stocks should be banned, or at least an NFA item?  Yea, it sure was.

It’s almost like the NRA is stirring up trouble in Congress trying to get them to do things against the wishes of the gun community in order to get the gun community to donate dollars to try to fight what they’ve stirred up.  If you can get it, that’s a sweet gig.

NRA:

There is a general consensus that uniformed and ununiformed current and former law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry a firearm for the public benefit. That is why in 2004 Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (LEOSA). Under LEOSA, current and former law enforcement officers who meet certain basic criteria, such as carrying qualified identification, are permitted to carry a firearm throughout the country. 

Showing the strong bipartisan support for this measure, the original legislation, H.R. 218, had 297 co-sponsors in the House of Representative and passed the Senate unanimously. Subsequent changes that have been made to increase the number of officers able to take advantage of this protection have been similarly popular.

I’m not sure where this “general consensus” comes from, but I’ll bet it’s not among my readers.  In other news, a SAPD officer just about killed a colleague.

A San Antonio Police Department officer was suspended for three days without pay after he accidentally fired his personal AR-15 inside a police station and injured another officer, according to police records.

Officer Jordan Ramirez accidentally fired a round from his AR-15 on Nov. 1 inside the SAPD Street Crimes Unit office, according to suspension records obtained by mySA.com.

Other people were inside the office with him and a bullet fragment or flying debris hit an officer, causing minor injuries.

Gosh I do hate it when that happens to me.  But leave it to the NRA to miss the opportunity to make the point that this has nothing whatsoever to do with LEOs and everything to do with the policy itself.

David Codrea links this Ammoland piece by Jeff Knox.  Boy is this some disturbing reading.  I cannot possibly rehearse all of the dirty laundry there, but there is this titillating little fact that may catch your interest.

Heston won that election by four votes, and immediately left the meeting to jet back to LA and appear on a radio talk show, during which he repeatedly stated that it was inappropriate or civilians to own AK47 type rifles. He eventually learned his script better, and the following year stepped up to become President of the NRA.

Embarrassingly, I didn’t know that.  Well then, Charlton Heston was a traitor, clear and simple.  I need no other evidence.  Jeff also discusses Adam Kraut, whom he supports for the board, and after reading his response to Marrion Hammer, I do too.

As for me, you could easily guess my own position.  Marrion Hammer can go traffic in her lies and misdirection somewhere else.  I’m not impressed in the least.

There is a deep, dark problem within the NRA.  Their history is a divided one, and their traitorous actions (e.g., the Hughes amendment) have harmed the firearms community, and I might also point out something I have before.  By outlawing the manufacture of machineguns after 1968, which the NRA didn’t fight, and also by the existence of the National Firearms Act, the engineering and design of open bolt firearms essentially ceased within the United States.  This has weakened the U.S. military and possibly lead to deaths of service members on the field of battle.

I cannot cipher the NRA willingness to hop in bed with traitors unless they are in fact traitorous themselves.  Let’s assume for a moment that the NRA actually chose to wield their power on Capital Hill.  Let’s assume for a moment that the this forthcoming bump stock ban wasn’t the NRA’s idea.  Let’s assume for a moment that they informed every Congressman and Senator that they expected a vote on this, and that the vote would be tallied and scored, with NRA money behind their efforts to primary enemies of the second amendment.

In other words, let’s assume that the NRA was doing its job.  Wayne Lapierre could be literally one of the most powerful men in Washington.  The red carpet would be rolled out for him everywhere he goes.  Who wouldn’t want that?  But instead of this, we see that the board is so discombobulated that it cannot accomplish anything of value or worth, and Wayne and Chris continue their deconstruction of the second amendment unabated.  Note this comment on Adam’s piece by Rob Pincus.

The Board of Directors is far too large and almost completely powerless, but voting out the Status Quo Old and voting in the new is what it needs.

Creating a large board and hamstringing their efforts with rules is the surest way to render them powerless.  What happens if the NRA sells us out over bump stock bans and other future gun control laws (I also suspect Marrion Hammer is the reason we don’t have open carry in Florida)?  Well, the gist of various comments from TTAG sums it up nicely for me.  If the NRA doesn’t do an about-face, and that, very soon and very quickly, and without any more of our money, they need to be destroyed.

They need to be finished as an organization.  They can turn their board over to the Fudds for gun control, or some other such nonsense group, and go broke for all I care.  But if they don’t do a U-turn, they will have no more of my money or attention.  This war needs to get ugly, and fast.  I realize that many of my readers have already come to the same conclusion long ago.

I had covered this act (H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477) here, albeit briefly.  I was skeptical.  Now I’ve read the bill, and I’m even more skeptical and I have begun to trust my initial inclinations on things like this.  I’ve covered gun rights and politics long enough to know a turd pile when I smell it.

This opinion will place be squarely out of accord with 99% of gun writers and analysts, and much of the gun community, but I’m okay with that.  We’ll see who was right, and if I’m wrong I’ll say so when proven so.

Reddit/r/firearms is simply giddy over this, as are most in the gun community as best as I can tell.  The active thread is here.  I actually read the bill before recent amendments, and the bill as passed can be located here.  Not much has changed with the amendments.

The first thing I’ll observe is that meeting the stipulations of the alleged “fix” of the NICS will be onerous and detailed, and will absolutely required a huge bureaucracy along with a permanent electronic system of prohibited persons managed and adjudicated by bureaucrats.  The details are too numerous to outline here, but go read the bill for yourself and make your own decisions.  I don’t like this aspect of the bill.

NOTE: [David Codrea sent me a note and asked me, “Where is the bump stock wording?”  My answer: It was apparently removed by amendment.  It is in the draft bill.  Thanks to David for the correction.  I missed its removal.  I’m trying.  It’s difficult to keep up.]

The second thing I’ll observe is that they throw bump stocks under the bus.  I neither have a bump stock nor am I inclined to purchase one, but if I did want one in the future, bump stocks will (I suspect) either be illegal or an NFA item.  The bill requires the attorney general’s office (he’ll assign it to lawyers in the DoJ) to study bump stocks and report back on why they shouldn’t be controlled like machine guns.

I said earlier that “I do not support any bill, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, that includes more gun laws.  I do not believe in compromise.”  I maintain my position, and I oppose “throwing anything under the bus” or sacrificing anything else to the god of the state like pagans sacrificed children to Baal.

Perhaps the most problematic thing to me about this whole effort is the way it reads straight out of the gate.  Consider the following language.

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm

Think hard about this.  Why is it necessary to include the language stipulating that this is for states that have a statute under which residents of the state may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm?

The answer of course is that it isn’t necessary.  They could have stopped without even including that stipulation.  You mark my words on this.  This will be the subject of endless court deliberations, endless contradictory bureaucratic rulings, endless AG interpretations, and endless arrests of concealed carriers across state lines.

So how many permits to carry have been issued in Hawaii?  How many permits to carry have been issued in New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts to holders who weren’t retired LEOs?  Is it possible for Maura Healey to decide that if her state doesn’t really do that sort of thing for regular people, you know, the peasants like you and me, then her state isn’t subject to this law?

You bet it is, and it will happen.  But the language is there, right up front, and it didn’t have to be.  It could have been omitted entirely and still have accomplished everything it needed.  And it will go through endless appeals, and the SCOTUS will not – I repeat, WILL NOT – take up the cases.  This will all lead to endless fund raising emails and flyers from the NRA to fight the good fight in endless court battles.  Speaking of the NRA, they have really staked out an awful position with their name calling and the ugliness with which they are treating fellow gun groups.

“We are in the thick of the legislative process and a so-called ‘pro-gun group,’ which is nothing more than a fundraising entity, is spreading lies about the FIX NICS legislation that was attached to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” Lars Dalseide, a spokesperson for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Their talking points are nothing but lies. Unfortunately, they are misleading well-meaning members of Congress with these false and inaccurate talking points.”

Differences of opinion and different interpretations aren’t lies, sir.  Are you calling me a liar?  Or stupid?  I have very strong opinions on this piece of legislation, and I’m willing to say I’m wrong if proven so in the future.  I’ve never once heard that from the NRA.

I suspect that no one who is permitted to carry in North Carolina or Texas will ever legally carry in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut or Hawaii under this bill.  That is, if the Senate passes such a bill, which I doubt.  It may pass something worse, and deliberations in committee may even water down what little good is there about the right to carry on federally controlled lands.

Chicago Tribune:

In the early 1930s, with gangsters like John Dillinger mowing down his enemies with machine guns on the streets, Congress held hearings on a sweeping proposal to severely restrict firearm sales.

The testimony of one man — now totally forgotten — stood out.

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said Karl T. Frederick, according to a transcript of the hearings. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

Well then, thank goodness he’s dead and unable to effect his gun control schemes any more.  Remember this?

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

The earlier NRA didn’t agree with the Christian heritage of our country, which was to carry all the time, everywhere.

NYT:

The National Rifle Association on Thursday endorsed tighter restrictions on devices that allow a rifle to fire bullets as fast as a machine gun — a rare, if small, step for a group that for years has vehemently opposed any new gun controls.

Twelve of the rifles the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock, had in a high-rise hotel suite when he opened fire on a crowd on Sunday were outfitted with “bump stocks,” devices that allow a semiautomatic rifle to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, which may explain how he was able to shoot so quickly, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds of others. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has ruled that bump stocks do not violate laws that tightly limit ownership of machine guns, and some lawmakers have called for them to be banned.

The bureau should revisit the issue and “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” the N.R.A. said in a statement released Thursday. “The N.R.A. believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

Ignoring the small issues of “shall not be infringed,” the NRA caves on bump fire stocks, as surely as most of the senators and congresscritters will cave, many of whom will have high marks from the NRA.

The NRA is still conflicted as to whether it wants to be a hunter and sportsman organization of a second amendment and gun rights organization.  As I mentioned, I don’t have one, and consider them to be mostly a novelty and range toy.  I would never put one on a personal defense weapon, accuracy and control being too important for such things for me to consider a high rate of fire as more important, especially near or around other people.

That said, I cannot be convinced that the shooter who landed all of this crap in our lap would have been less effective if he had aimed and fired in a controlled manner than with the bump fire stock, if in fact such a device was used.

The point to be taken here is not that of the bump fire stocks (the senate and congress is always looking for ways to further regulate your rights, even if not constitutionally allowed).  Bump fire stocks are merely the latest incarnation of the boogeyman.  Tomorrow it will be something else.  The point is that there is a world of difference between knowing that you’ll lose a fight, and actually going on record stating that you agree with your enemy.

The NRA.  Always squishy, never completely fulfilling their stated purpose, and always disappointing.