STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON
Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.
In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.
In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.
As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.
But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.
Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.
I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.
I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899
Well, from his statement it seems like he’s being slandered by the JFPFO.
Ed
I see ... Is he one of the bastards the sold machine-gun owners down the river in '86?
Looks like the guy is a liar too. A full auto that ought to be good with 1 round, but ought to limited to a max of 5 rounds? BS. He knows damn well full suto is class III and very few folks have that option.
"I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms."
Yeah, you think the people are stupid. Mistake my butt!
"I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future."
Yeah, BS walks, you're interview talked.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Anyone else see a disconnect here?
Damn.....
He needs to stand down for the good of the cause.
Even if NRA board member Joaquin Jackson truly was opposed to 'semi-automatics' and standard capacity magazines being owned by civilians, it would still be a reasonable position in my view for the following reason:
There are millions of NRA members and they're bound to have varying views on RKBA. The NRA board seats are elected positions, so it's only natural that you can expect that a skeet geek "Fudd" or two are going to get seats.
I disagree with those Fudds entirely, but the notion that one or two NRA board members may believe differently than I do about RKBA doesn't cast a bad light on the NRA as a whole. It's simply an internal debate where some less philosophical NRA members don't realize that we're all in this together and that the anti-gun forces don't believe in such a thing as a good and decent gun. They're willing to compromise our rights away, but the NRA structure has a remedy for that: Their board member elections conducted by voting NRA Life Members. Just like in modern America, we hold scheduled revolutions rather than taking to the streets in anarchy when faced with someone we disagree with. If you don't like a particular Fudd on the NRA board, replace them with a Neal Knox (RIP, Neal) type that I prefer.
If the NRA demanded of it's elected representatives a cult-like adherence to fanatic doctrine without question under threat of excommunication, they'd be the much smaller and far less effective 'Gun Owners of America' (GOA) outfit.
So, not only do I accept Joaquin Jackson's explanation, I believe that there is no need for an apology of any kind.
So NRA BoD Member Jackson believes in magazine limits of five rounds for fully-automatic firearms. Just... wow.
Ok, I managed to watch and listen to his interview. He was not cut short on it. He states (transcript available at http://www.firearmscoalition.org/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=29) “Well, I’m a person that believes in a weapon should never…I personally believe a weapon should never have over a – far as civilian – 5 round capacity. If a hunter, if you’re a hunter if you’re gonna go hunting with a weapon, you shouldn’t need over but one round…”
Then he states when asked about assault weapons “Well we’ve talked, we’ve discussed it you know, but uh this thing about assault weapons has been a kind of a touchy deal, but personally, I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it’s alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five…five, five… Good to go. Five rounds or some…”
So yes he did mention hunting and 5 rounds, but he also mentions 5 rounds for civilians having “assault weapons”. If he was actually talking about full boogey firearms, he should have clarified it in the interview. He could have used it as an educational tool about what “assault weapons” are, etc. I am still not convinced with his statement that you posted.
It is not atypical of the enemedia to put the substance of a statement on the cutting room floor, using only the things which suit their bias.
In light of more evidence, so to speak, I recant my earlier post, admittedly made in haste. I'm touchy that way.
It is good that we all remind those in a position to be quoted to be more media savvy and try to make statements in such a way as to be difficult to be misquoted.
It is a pity that the squabbling between organizations apparently in agreement about our Second Amendment Rights does little to further the cause, and wastes valuable resources which could have been better utilized to the benefit of us all.
Utter BS. He clearly speaks of a 5 round limit for civilians.
As a machine gun owner, I can tell you a five round magazine would be less than worthless.
This buffoon is another Zumbo.
I could go all through this piece of CYA krap(tm) line by line, but picking just one point of his that shows his sheer stupidity and ignorance, it's the above.
He obviously doesn't understand the Constitution and the BOR, or otherwise he would know that those rights enumerated by the BOR are not "handed down" by either our Founding Fathers or the government. These are God given rights that all men have, that are infringed by the government or others.
If he spent 39 years as a law enforcement officer and is on the Board of the NRA, then he sure doesn't understand either his oath to uphold the Constitution or the reasons and beliefs behind that document. If he doesn't understand such an elementary principle, he doesn't deserve a place on the Board of the NRA. This is exactly why I have not and will not "join" the NRA. They don't represent either my views or those of the Constitution.
Like the stupid idea that we don't have the right to own fully automatic weapons. This jerk needs euthanasia now.
Thanks for posting the offender’s statement. That makes my critique much easier.
“I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms.”
According to the Founders, an armed citizenry was essential - “for in such manner is tyranny kept in check”.
Historically, Americans could and did own crew served weapons (cannons to lurking Liberals) and even war ships now known to historians and non-Liberal Americans as “privateers”.
Just how does a NRA Director suddenly believe that just because some socialism impaired goober in a gooberment agency wants to ban or license machine guns, that such acts are Constitutional?
Saying “But it is the law!” won’t do - remember Dred Scott?
Now for Da Director’s:
“I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution.”
Very good. Then start by so doing. How about starting by getting that Nazi weapons control act off our law books.
You know, the Federal Weapons Control Act which was an exact translation of the Nazi law! That law, the one doddering Senator Dodd had the Library of Congress translate from the original German.
Thank G*d for JPFO.