NRA-ILA

Too Young or Too Old… To Own a Gun?

A common theme among anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Rather than admit that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.

In the 70s, the goal was to ban handguns. Since they could be carried concealed for personal protection, they were seen as being “too small.” That argument fell out of fashion as more and more states passed Right-to-Carry laws that recognized the right to personal protection.

One subset of the anti-handgun hysteria included inexpensive handguns (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), which were deemed “too cheap.” When NRA and others pointed out this was an obvious attempt to disarm lower income citizens (who are often at higher risk to being victims of violent crime), the term “Saturday Night Special” faded from the gun-ban lexicon.

Another subset of the attack on handguns came with the introduction of Glocks, and other handguns that used polymers as part of their construction. These were falsely claimed to be able to pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines undetected, and, thus, “too invisible” to be screened where firearm are prohibited (think airports). Of course, this canard was quickly dispelled.

Ammunition has been attacked as “too lethal,” “too untraceable,” “too bad for the environment (lead),” “too inexpensive (so tax it),” and any number of other “toos.”

Rifles have been called “too powerful,” “too modifiable,” “too accurate,” “too similar to actual military arms,” and the list goes on.

Boiled down to its essence, after wading through myriad “too this” and “too that” arguments, the just-right “Goldilocks” of guns would likely be a break action .22 rifle, although finding acceptable lead-free ammunition might be a bit difficult. But anti-gun extremists can still claim they don’t want to ban “all” guns.

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control,” though, seems to be focusing less on what you can own, and focusing more on who can own firearms. And we don’t mean people with criminal records.

After the horrific tragedy that took place in Parkland, Florida, this year, age became the new battle cry for those seeking to limit gun ownership. Rather than focusing on the obvious failures at various levels of government to identify the copious warning signs exhibited by the alleged perpetrator, extremists decided to focus on the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment when they reach the age of 18. Although responsible young adults regularly leave home, join the military, get married, and begin voting at this age, the anti-gun community has decided this age is too young for one to exercise the right of gun ownership.

Eighteen-year-olds have not been prohibited from purchasing and possessing rifles and shotguns at the federal level, and in the vast majority of states, since the founding of our country. Nonetheless, because of the violent acts of one individual, we have seen an onslaught of legislation throughout the country that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase and/or possess rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. Because common sense has taken a back seat to raw emotionalism in today’s gun control debate, some of these efforts have seen success.   Continue reading

Vice President Pence to Speak at the 2018 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum

The National Rifle Association (NRA) Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced that Vice President Mike Pence will keynote the annual NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday, May 4, in Dallas, Texas. The event kicks off the 2018 election cycle and will feature a powerful lineup of pro-freedom speakers.

NRA-ILA executive director, Chris Cox, says of Pence’s appearance, “It’s an honor to have Vice President Pence address our members in Dallas. He is a lifetime supporter of the Second Amendment and he has a long a record of fighting to defend our freedoms. Now more than ever we need principled people in public office who will fight to defend the Constitution. Our members are excited to hear him speak and thank him for his leadership.”

Both the NRA and President Trump, who has appeared at previous Leadership Forums during the NRA Annual Meetings, have taken heat recently for their support of certain gun control measures, such as placing restrictions on firearm accessories including bump-stocks, which the ATF had previously determined did not fall under their purview.

The NRA-ILA Leadership Forum takes place Friday, May 4, 2018 from noon to 3PM. The lineup of speakers includes NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre; NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox; Hon. Mike Pence, Vice President; Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas; Sen. John Cornyn, Texas; Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas; Gov. Pete Ricketts, Nebraska; Rep. Richard Hudson, North Carolina; Mark Geist, Benghazi Survivor; Diamond & Silk, Social Media Personalities; Dana Loesch, NRA Spokesperson; Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA Founder.

More details are available on the NRAAM website. While the NRAAM is free to attend for current NRA members and their immediate family, the Leadership Forum requires an additional paid ticket.

The Enemy Within – Marion Hammer’s Revised NRA History

On January 15, Marion Hammer, NRA past president and a current member of both the Board of Directors and Executive Council, published an outrageous editorial on Ammoland Shooting Sports News warning of current and past threats to the NRA, and listing a slate of candidates she supports for the upcoming NRA Board of Directors election.

Marion is free to endorse any Board candidate she likes. But in her endorsement she can’t rewrite history to suit herself, nor can she expect to cast aspersions on the motives of good people without challenge

In her screed, Ms. Hammer carefully avoids naming names, but anyone who has been paying any attention at all to NRA politics – past and present – knows exactly whom she is referring to.

She begins with muddy praise for the stalwart NRA members who staged a revolt at the NRA Members’ Meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1977. It was the night when the members wrested control of the NRA from a hidebound and self-perpetuating management and put the Association on the road to being the premier defender of the human right to armed self defense. Then she jumps forward to 1997 to talk about an attempted “coup” by a group of “dissident malcontents,” but fails to mention that both actions were staged by many of the same people, and for many of the same reasons.

I put “coup” in quotes in the second instance because the group that she claims was staging the “coup” was actually the duly elected Officers and Directors attempting, unsuccessfully, to exercise their fiduciary responsibility against actions by paid staff and key contractors with multimillion-dollar contracts.

The 1997 fight was not a coup; it was a mutiny.

In contrast to Cincinnati, the prize in 1977 was not the heart, soul, and destiny of the NRA, but control of the organization’s checkbook and prudent management of its resources. The goal in both instances was to give the members control over their NRA. The 1997 action included First Vice President Neal Knox, Second Vice President Albert Ross, and a majority of the NRA Board of Directors.

But, history is written by the victors, so the attempts of the Board of Directors to demand fiscal accountability from their hired staff was later reported as a “coup.”

The core issue was how the NRA’s PR company, Ackerman McQueen, was drawing millions of dollars a month from the organization and improperly controlling NRA staff. The Board directed Wayne to sever ties with Ack-Mac, and Wayne promised to do so, then claimed to have done so, by bringing in a new PR company called Mercury Group. The “new” PR company turned out to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ack-Mac, with all of the same players in all of the same positions, still bleeding the association of the same millions of dollars.   Continue reading

Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters

kennedylewisterrorwatchlistHave you noticed that all the hot takes about the supposed need for more gun control have something in common? Whether it’s a call to limit gun ownership to two firearms or a desire to ban firearms completely, America’s anti-gun pundits have no shortage of different “solutions” they’d like to see turned into laws. But not many of them seem particularly eager to talk about what it would take to actually enforce those laws, or maybe they haven’t even considered that aspect of legislation. All we have to do is a pass a law, apparently. Enforcement is optional.

In the real world, of course, it doesn’t work that way. Now, even some gun control advocates are having to reluctantly accept the fact that passing a gun control law doesn’t automatically lead to less crime. Recently, anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute took a look at “universal” background check laws in Washington, Colorado and Delaware. All three states passed similar laws in 2013, and Wintemute wanted to see if the laws had led to an increase in the number of background checks. As it turns out, the answer was “no,” at least for Washington and Colorado. Universal background check laws clearly don’t lead to universal background checks for every transfer of a firearm. Gun owners know this, and we’ve tried to point this out to anti-gun activists on many occasions, but they needed to see the science. Now they have.

Wintemute and others are now trying to claim that the problem with the “universal” background check laws can be fixed with “more assertive enforcement.” Yet the study’s authors can’t really point to more assertive enforcement in Delaware, even though it did see an increase in background checks for both handguns and long guns. What would “more assertive enforcement” look like, anyway? It’s a pretty imprecise phrase for a man of science like Wintemute to throw around without offering up specific examples.   Continue reading

NRA Calls ‘Shenanigans’ on WaPo SHARE Act Fake news

Fact Checking the Washington Post on SHARE Act

PinocchioA recent piece in the Washington Post on the SHARE Act, legislation in Congress aimed at protecting the rights of America’s sportsmen and women, was fake news at its worst.

Washington Post Fake News:

Under the Share Act, hunters would “load their automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets, strap on silencers, head off to the picnic grounds on nearby public lakes — and start shooting.”

The Facts:

Automatic Weapons

It is generally unlawful in every state to hunt with fully automatic firearms. Such weapons are highly restricted and very rare due to the 1986 ban on their manufacture or importation. The SHARE Act doesn’t change this.

“Armor piercing bullets”

The current interpretation of the federal law on “armor piercing ammunition” substantially limits the availability of certain non-toxic projectiles for hunting ammunition. The law, as originally passed by Congress in 1986, was never meant to apply to projectiles that were intended for use in a rifle or shotgun. The SHARE Act simply clarifies congressional intent and ensures that the law is not misinterpreted by future administrations.

Picnic grounds and public lakes

Laws restrict hunting and shooting to designated areas on public lands. You can’t just go to any casual “picnic ground” and “start shooting.”    Continue reading

NRA Backed SHARE Act Passes Committee

NRA16_7442The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) commends the House Committee on Natural Resources for markup and passage of H.R. 3668, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. Under the successful leadership of Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA), the SHARE Act now moves to the full U.S. House of Representatives.

“Today marks an important step in protecting the Second Amendment freedoms of America’s hunters and sportsmen and strengthening our outdoor heritage,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The SHARE Act will cut burdensome red tape that restricts millions of hunters and sportsmen.”

The bill secures access to Federal public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and includes the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). The HPA is an important safety-oriented aspect of the bill that will help protect the hearing of America’s hunters by eliminating expensive and excessive regulations on suppressors. Other key provisions include:

  • Securing the future of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting by increasing access to federal public lands.
  • Reforming of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which protects the lawful, legal transport of unloaded firearms.
  • Strengthening protections for carrying firearms on land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  • Removing the undefined and antiquated “sporting purposes test”, which opens the door to arbitrary ammunition bans.
  • Returning wildlife management of the gray wolf back to states adversely affected by rising populations.

“I would like to thank Chairman Rob Bishop and Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock for their leadership and critical roles in ensuring committee passage of the SHARE Act. Thanks to their efforts, we are one step closer to the day that all Americans will have better access to our outdoor heritage and the tools that ensure the safety of hunters and sportsmen alike,” concluded Cox.

Partners

Categories

Archives

R.K.B.A

Join NRA Save $10


GunLink is a proud member of NSSF