A disarming man (lobbyist traitor)

Townhall.com ^ | April 11, 2003 | Debra Saunders

[Atlas Sneezed]

When The New York Times runs stories about a former gun lobbyist who has become an expert witness for groups suing gunmakers and dealers, and (some 15 years ago) you were friendly with that guy and his wife, if you're a columnist, you get on the phone, you call the guy, you call people who know the guy and then you write a column on Bob Ricker.

To anti-gunners, Ricker is a hero, a whistle-blower who bristled at the gun lobby's zealous resistance to any attempts at reform. To the "gunnies," he's a turncoat. Off the record, some of Ricker's former brethren suggest that Ricker is a sellout who makes $225 an hour testifying against his former friends.

The Bob Ricker I know is an honest man who probably never should have been a gun lawyer or lobbyist. He's not a true believer. Ricker believed his job was to compromise, as lobbyists do. The gunnies have an almost religious belief that the gun lobby should fight, as National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam put it, any regulations that target "law-abiding citizens," not criminals.

On some issues, Ricker was on the side of the angels. Anti-gunners wanted mandatory gun locks. Gunnies opposed them. Arulanandam explained that his group opposes a "one-size-fits-all" approach to safety.

Ricker says he helped craft a voluntary agreement whereby gunmakers now offer a lock with every gun they make. Ricker figures the move saved lives and spared the industry from regulatory overkill. It angered him that the NRA had opposed something so benign. (Randy Rossi of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office can recite a list of "safety" legislation the industry opposed.)

Then Ricker went too far. He endorsed a 1999 Clinton White House proposal to prohibit Americans under the age of 21 from purchasing handguns. It was a betrayal for Ricker, as executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, to support a measure that would make it illegal for 19-year-old Pfc. Jessica Lynch to buy a gun.

Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said that Ricker's accommodating ways lost him the support of his association's board.

This week, Ricker testified for the NAACP in a lawsuit aimed at the gun industry. As Keane sees it, "These lawsuits aren't about locks, they're about destroying the industry through litigation." You see, the NAACP wants a federal judge to write regulations in response to the suit. "It's unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers," Keane noted.

I asked Ricker if he supported a case designed to boost judicial activism. In principle, Ricker said, he opposed courts making law, "but sometimes you have to hold your nose and move forward."

Sometimes, you get pushed, and then you push back too far.

Only time will tell if hardball lobbies such as the NRA -- or NARAL Pro-Choice America -- are right to oppose almost all compromises. To them, this is war, and the other side is the enemy.

Arulanandam said of anti-gun groups, "Their aim is to repeal the Second Amendment and make the very act of owning a firearm illegal. This begs the question, 'Why do you compromise with someone whose endgame is to drive you into the sea?'"

Ricker argued that if the gun industry doesn't bend, another Columbine will occur, and the other side will be able to enact worse, draconian gun laws. As a cure, oddly, Ricker is supporting draconian lawsuits that are poison to his old buddies.

"I've now been banished, if you will. I've crossed over that line," said Ricker.

Only time will tell if the NRA's hard-line keeps bad laws from creeping in, or pushes out all but the truest of believers.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Only time will tell if hardball lobbies such as the NRA ... are right to oppose almost all compromises."

Ironically, the NRA is believed by many to be one of those great compromisers. Compromise seesm to be part of their nature. How do you think we got to the point where we have been pushed back so far that the waves are lapping at our heels?

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[wastoute]

I believe it was Ayn Rand who pointed out that "When you compromise between food and poison, you still have poison."

[jjm2111]

Supporting the "no handguns for adults between 18 and 21" bill was a dumb idea on his part.

I'm an adamant 2nd Amendment supporter. We've already compromised way too much. Time for the Brady Bunch to start compromising.

National CCW!

[jdege]

On some issues, Ricker was on the side of the angels.

Working to enable criminals is not being "on the side of the angels."

[mbynack]

21 year olds can't be trusted to purchase handguns! However we can trust them to vote and serve in the military, and in some cases be law enforcement officers. Strange logic at work.

[Dead Corpse]

"But it is such a benign change. Such a small thing. What harm could there be?"

Every mountain is made of individual grains of sand and rock. If you slow down only one mile per hour per hour, you will still eventually be going backwards.

If people like these are our friends... no wonder our Rights are slipping away.

Another thing they glossed over in this article, if it hadn't be for the "Victim Enforcement Zone" around Columbine, then maybe a teacher carrying concealed could have stopped it soon after the first shot.

[Shooter 2.5]

OK, once and for all, if you don't have the votes in the Congress or the Senate and they decide to pass a gun control Bill, How do you stop it?

Where were all the other groups when this was happening?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"OK, once and for all, if you don't have the votes in the Congress or the Senate and they decide to pass a gun control Bill, How do you stop it?"

You don't stop it. You punish those who supported it (especially the ones you should have been able to count on) so that they don't get re-elected. Ideally, they get replaced by liberal anti-gunners, so that the lesson really sticks. Then, the party power brokers will stop nominating spineless losers, and future votes (such as to repeal the tyranny) will be more favorable.

Liberty is not to be compromised, unless your only concern is to prolong its "inevitable" loss.

[Shooter 2.5]

"Ideally, they get replaced by liberal anti-gunners, so that the lesson really sticks.

Oh, that makes things work really well. Sure, fine, Thanks for playing.

[Iconoclast2]

Ricker argued that if the gun industry doesn't bend, another Columbine will occur, and the other side will be able to enact worse, draconian gun laws Can he possibly be so uninformed as not to know that the Columbine killers violated existing gun laws to get their guns? Only morons believe that piling on more laws will make any difference in the real world. Perhaps he is just a liar like most of them who know the endgame is the English model.

[Shooter 2.5]

I have to believe they know exactly what they are doing. After all, when the time comes, they think they will always keep their guns.