The year of the NRA..

[virginia mountainman]

A very interesting and fact filled read, very interesting indeed!!!

A few nice snippits..

...I wrote several commentaries saying the opposite--basically that a lot of Democrats are pro-gun, pro-2A, and many others wouldn’t touch the gun issue because it’s a political poison pill.

So, what happened?

Well, I was a bit off in my prediction. Democrats in Congress and many state legislatures did “touch the gun issue,” but ended up posing no threat our right to bear arms. Quite to the contrary, they probably passed more pro-gun laws than any year in history.

Therefore, may I suggest that the National Rifle Association (NRA), probably the most powerful lobby in our country and the architect or facilitator of most new pro-gun laws as well as court victories, should erect a statue of Barack Obama in front of its D.C. headquarters. Obama, with help from his fellow Dems throughout the country, has done more for firearm owners than any President in recent history, including vocally pro-gun Republicans....

.....Finally, a Real Bipartisan Issue. Are we all getting tired of politicians championing bipartisanship, but never doing it? Well, I say the right to bear arms is emerging from our two-party system as a true bipartisan issue.

Perhaps the most notable testimony to that claim was the amendment to H.R. 627, the so-called ”MasterBlaster Bill,” which reformed credit card regulations. Credit card reform might have been “must-pass,” but the amendment to allow loaded, concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges certainly wasn’t. Nonetheless, Congress easily approved the amendment and President Obama didn’t object to it as he immediately signed the bill.

Nowadays, most politicians are so gunshy about a recordable vote casting them as anti-gun and lowering their NRA grade--therefore making them vulnerable to defeat in the next election--they go to untold lengths to avoid it. But when they can no longer avoid taking a stand, most vote for guns and the 2A, including a lot of those purportedly anti-gun Democrats. On the national park gun amendment, the votes were 67-29 in the Senate and 279-147 in the House, with 27 Democratic Senators and 105 Democratic Representatives joining all but two Republicans in each house to form a veto-proof, pro-gun, bipartisan majority standing up for the 2A.

Having checked the lists, it’s clear that the gun issue is no longer related to which party, but instead, which state. Politicos hailing from urbanized states, mostly on the Left Coast and in the Northeast, still dare to vote against the 2A, but geographically, not in the rest of the country, particularly in southern and western states.
......

This whole article is a gem, and in plain language, lays it out clearly in language that only a gun control advocate could hate....WE ARE WINNING....Keep the pressure on!

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_year_of_the_nra/C37/L37/

[tsuki]

1. I looked up the membership of the NRA, 4 million. Then I looked up

the membership of MoveOn, 5 million.

The NRA is a force to be feared. MoveOn is a looney, fringe, leftist group to be ignored.

Strange.

[tburnsten]

2. 4 million current members paying annual dues

I don't know if there is a number anywhere for former members, but either way, it is four million paying at lesat the bare minimum of $35 a year, and they are the ones protecting the rights of the other 296 million US Citizens, and more specifically the other 76 million non-member gun owners.

[vincna]

3. Why strange?

The NRA is a one-issue organization in which there is widespread agreement on the agenda. MoveOn is a big tent with lots of agendas and competing interests. I would expect the NRA to be more effective in accomplishing their political objectives (which include electing politicians that support RKBA and defeating politicians who would deny us our rights). In many parts of the country, an "F" rating from the NRA means losing at the polls and politicians know that. I do not believe the same can be said for MoveOn.

[DonP]

6. What's the membership fee for MoveOn and how many issues do they track?

The clout for the NRA comes from the members, their extended families and the money they contribute to literally put their money where their mouth is.

Add the independent state rifle associations and you have a lot of feet on the ground and highly motivated voters that have a measurable impact on local, state and Federal elections.

Plus there is a concentration of effort. The NRA has no POV on abortion, NAFTA, Health Care, Gay rights or about anything that doesn't pretty directly impact the RKBA.

MoveOn and most other interest groups are splintered between a half dozen or more disparate issues.

Plus, the 4+ million members (They are closing on 5 million pretty quickly now) are just the tip if the iceberg. As the Brady people found out when they started rattling their cage back in the '90's. Brady the AWB and people like Schumer and Feinstein were probably the most effective recruitment tools the NRA ever had. Every time someone comes out pushing for more gun laws, registration etc. the membership numbers bounce up by a few thousand to a few hundred thousand.

[benEzra]

7. The MSM tends to give the NRA all the credit for gun owner activism...

but the so-called "gun lobby" isn't just the NRA, it is 80+ million gun owners, including 40 or 50 million handgun owners, 20+ million "assault weapon" owners, and 13-16 million hunters, many of whom were burned badly by the 1994 Feinstein law and motivated into grassroots activism.

[tsuki]

9. How were they burned? I thought that was the ban against full

automatic assault weapons.

[X_Digger]

10. Sadly you're not the only one misinformed..

The 1994 Assault Weapons Bill had nothing to do with fully automatic weaponry. That was regulated in 1934 by the National Firearms Act, and to a lesser degree (of legislation, not impact) by the 1986 McClure-Volkmer act.

The 1994 AWB covered semi-automatic rifles identified either by model or by meeting a certain number of 'features'.

To qualify, it had to be a semi-auto that accepts detachable magazine and two of the following: threaded muzzle, bayonet lug, pistol grip, grenade launcher, and collapsible / folding stock.

[derby378]

11. I've got an article you really need to look at

http://a2dems.net/terms.htm

[benEzra]

14. Here's my rifle that was affected.

No, full autos and guns easily convertible to full auto are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, and still are.

Here's my rifle that was affected, a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, which is an autoloading centerfire .22 (specifically .223 Remington):



The 1994 Feinstein law made it a Federal felony to put the Butler Creek stock I wanted on the rifle. I could have done so anyway (the stock was perfectly legal to sell, it just wasn't legal for me to put it on the rifle), but I didn't because I am picky about following the law. I finally bought the stock in October 2004, after ten years of waiting, when the law expired.

Here are the three stocks I owned for it as of November 2004:



The Feinstein law made it a Federal felony to install the third stock. The second stock is the one I had on it at the time the law was passed. Installing this stock is a felony in California to this day. H.R.1022 would have banned the rifle with the first (straight wooden) stock as well.

The Feinstein law also prohibited the new manufacture of full-capacity pistol magazines, meaning that the price of replacement or extra magazines for many of the most popular pistols went through the roof. My wife paid over $100 for a $20 Glock magazine in the late '90s. Rifle magazine prices weren't affected nearly as much, except for those that use proprietary magazines. Again, H.R.1022 would have gone much further, but thankfully common sense and pragmatism finally killed that albatross.

"Assault weapon" is scare-speak for the most popular NON-automatic civilian rifles in America. As I've pointed out elsewhere, taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, and they dominate competitive and recreational target shooting in the United States. They are also the most popular defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

[SteveM]

15. A big reason for your error:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restriction on these weapons." Josh Sugarmann, then of the Violence Policy Center, 1988.

This gives you a little insight into the caliber of the gun-control movement when it intentionally confuses two weapons types. It is amazing Sugarmann had the chutzpah to actually reveal his Machiavellian ideas in public. Much to his regret I'm sure, the quote is known 'round the world.

[SteveM]

13. The numbers don't tell all...

MoveOn could have 10 million, but it is still "generalist." It deals with a number of issues and policies. The NRA is a "special interest" group and can focus its resources on that interest. Further, it is quite clear that the NRA can count on many, many more PEOPLE to support this special interest. That is why they are powerful.

Your other characterizations of MoveOn need to be explained. Frankly, I don't know how "leftist" they really are.

[gorfle]

4. Great article!

"In conclusion, you might not agree with all the NRA does or how it does things, but you have to agree that the gun lobby gets the job done for gun owners and puts up an almost impenetrable defense of the Second Amendment."

Every year when I write my check this is why I smile when I do it.

The NRA works.

[taurus145]

12. I don't write dues checks anymore

life membership.

While I don't agree with all the NRA does, it is the most vocal and visible group at this time working to protect most of our 2A right.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. 2010 will be even stronger.

When SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd to hold against the states, then a large number of anti-gun laws will be challenged.

[X_Digger]

8. I predict..

We'll be seeing the fallout of MacDonald for at least 10 years.

Unfortunately, it's going to take a separate challenge for many individual laws, at least in states without a legislature capable of seeing the writing on the wall. Each of those challenges will require someone affected by them to be found, so that they have standing to raise the issue. And it'll have to be the 'perfect' challenger in each case, with no other distracting issues. (a la Dick Heller who carried a gun as security for the court in his 9 to 5.)

[Euromutt]

16. The term "Left Coast" rankles with me

Certainly in the context of firearms law, in which Washington and Oregon can not be lumped together with California. In Washington, if you are a legislator in the House of Representatives or the State Legislature whose district does not cover part of Seattle and/or the "East Side" (Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond), you vote for gun control legislation at your peril. Even though the political map is overwhelmingly blue west of the Cascades, we like our gun rights. I wouldn't count on too many Oregonian legislators outside greater Portland to be too supportive of gun control either.