The gun ban crowd has engaged a guy who once had an association with the NRA, but left when it became clear that it was swerving to the political right and no longer prepared to give up ground through compromise... big deal. Just because he's been engaged to have the conversation doesn't mean it's occurring.
But even if it were, if I were the head of the NRA and the authors of a new law wanted to talk to us about it, I would certainly do that. It doesn't mean we would endorse it, only that we would talk. I'd listen, and then calmly explain that our membership will not support any politician of any political stripe who thinks the solution to any problem is to punish the 90 million American law abiding gun owners who have done nothing wrong.
And the "quotes" regarding NRA policy aren't attributed to anyone at the NRA but to the Washington Post... not exactly a reliable source of inside information on the details of goings on at the NRA.
Also, with the recent Zumbo incident, the NRA has to know that their members are not prepared to negotiate anything away. If they signed on to any other gun law it would mean a change in the leadership of the organization. Several million members would be looking for Wayne LaPierre's head on a bayonet. The NRA doesn't dictate it's policies to it's members as the post would have you believe, but has those policies dictated to it.
All this sounds like a hit piece to me, which is designed more to reduce NRA credibility than to protect gun owners rights.
With that said, I think any new gun law of any kind should be resisted on every level. In fact, the recent VT shooting should be used to show how important it is to repeal the idiotic feel good legislation already in place regarding firearms.
But I wouldn't go rushing away from the NRA just yet.
I wish that were so, but as pointed out in posting #11 by facedown, the NRA-ILA has this at on its FactSheets and it appears to me that they do support HR 297:
Background Checks/ NICS This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.
H.R. 297, the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007”
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control—especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation—center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers. This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects—an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person’s eligibility to receive a firearm.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state’s Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on “substantial evidence” of the state’s “reasonable effort” to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
Posted: 1/8/2007 12:00:00 AM
The NRA doesn't dictate it's policies to it's members as the post would have you believe, but has those policies dictated to it.
Very true: I have always felt that I had very good response from NRA staff and senior people on concerns that I have expressed. That's one area where I think GOA is valuable: the GOA (and the JPFO) seem to me closer to my stance as an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment, and when they express a concern, it's valuable to me to know about it.
But I wouldn't go rushing away from the NRA just yet.
There is no way that I will rush away from the NRA, or support doing that. The NRA is a fantastic organization that has done a lot of good. And when it's a little off-track in my opinion, that means it is up to me as a member to help push it back on-track.
I am also a member of the American Automobile Association, and I feel that while I get reasonable value for the road service that I receive as a member, I disagree with most of their political activities. I just wish that I had the same feeling of influence on the AAA as that I have with the NRA.
You summed up the situation quite precisely.
The GOA seems to exist to make the NRA appear reasonable to the fencesitters. I hope our NRA is giving them a little money. I’ve sat for a couple of hours and talked to Larry Pratt. He is a reasonable guy and is unbending on our gun rights. The two organizations are very good at good cop, bad cop.
I tend to agree here. I will be watching this. But,, I have this to add,, I believe the NRA has supported in the past to keep people with mental problems from owning a gun, while the Dems have in the past have supported allowing the mentally ill to buy guns. (reason being, I believe, they would not mind nuts owning guns due to in the long run, it would help their agenda) Now, here is the thing,,, I strongly agree that there are some mental cases out there that should not be allowed to own a gun. But,, what will mental illness be defined as??? That is the key! While, I do believe this is the one area that we could use a little caution in,, I am stating this from some personal knowledge here,, there is a segment in the mental health community that walk around always on the verge of doing something. Some can and do own weapons. They were in hospitals before,, but due to new laws,, are now walking the streets. These people should never own a gun.