NRA on Sotomayor: Extremism Revealed
The National Rifle Association is not known for fighting battles it cannot win. But its opposition to the Sotomayor nomination was destined to be an exercise in futility. Many observers are puzzled as to how the NRA could make such an obviously misguided strategic decision. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) called it "dumb". Actually, the gun lobby's behavior in the Sotomayor matter reveals much about what makes the organization tick and even more about the politics of gun control.
The NRA's denunciation of Sotomayor was expressed in the strongest possible terms. Charging the nominee with having "a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense," the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox found her unqualified to "serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land." They added, darkly, that the vote on the nomination "will be considered in NRA's future candidate evaluations."
Many of the NRA's Congressional stalwarts have reacted with defiance. The day after the LaPierre/Cox letter was issued, four members of the House Hispanic Caucus, who described themselves as having "consistently high ratings from the NRA," wrote to the two NRA executives asking them to reconsider their opposition to Sotomayor. Their extraordinary letter said they were "mystified" by the NRA's characterization of Judge Sotomayor as "hostile to the rights of gun owners." The letter suggested that the NRA may be judging her "by a different standard" than it applied to nominees Roberts and Alito, who gave similarly noncommittal answers on the Second Amendment, but did not incur the NRA's wrath.
We have since witnessed a steady parade of NRA "A-rated" Senators announcing that they would vote for the nominee over the gun lobby's objection. Senators Baucus and Tester of Montana, Nelson of Nebraska, Webb and Warner of Virginia, Graham of South Carolina, Alexander of Tennessee, Martinez of Florida, Specter of Pennsylvania, and Johnson of South Dakota, among others. Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) told The Hill newspaper that he was "very disappointed" in the gun lobby, and added, "The NRA at some point has gone beyond its mission, and are perhaps allowing themselves to get hijacked by those who are in the extreme."
Senator Warner had it almost right. It's not that the NRA has been "hijacked" by extremists on the single issue of the Sotomayor nomination. The plain truth is that the NRA's policy positions long have reflected the extremist ideology of its leadership, and a core group of "Second Amendment absolutists" in its membership to which its leadership must be responsive. Once the NRA's policies are understood as driven primarily by ideological extremism, its behavior during the Sotomayor nomination becomes far easier to understand. The only way Judge Sotomayor could have satisfied the NRA's Second Amendment ideologues was to repeat the constitutional catechism that is their Holy Writ. But that would have been either to defy well-established precedent or to prejudge issues likely to come before the High Court. Even Robert Levy of the CATO Institute, the "Godfather" of last year's landmark Heller Supreme Court decision expanding Second Amendment rights, found her rulings on the Second Amendment "well within the bounds of responsible judging."
Obviously, the Senators who have decided to sacrifice their NRA "A-ratings" to vote for confirmation do not regard their vote as an act of political suicide. Rather, they have made a calculation that implicitly recognizes a fact of great significance: most gun owners (and, indeed, most NRA members), are not "Second Amendment absolutists." For example, over 80 percent of gun owners support closing the "gun show loophole" by extending Brady Act background checks to private sales at gun shows. Most self-identified members of the NRA support handgun registration and mandatory safety training before purchasing a gun. The NRA's policy views are driven by ideologues who do not represent its membership.
In short, the story of the NRA and the Sotomayor nomination is a "teachable moment" for those in Congress traditionally allied with the NRA. The lesson is this: to reject the extremist positions of the NRA is not to turn your backs on gun owners.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ethanellie, since you are so deeply involved with the Brady Campaign, perhaps you can speak to this.
In a recent Fox News interview, Brady Pres. Paul Helmke made the following statements regarding Airsoft (toy) guns. I forget exactly how the conversation got there.
1. "The BC does not want to regulate guns"
2. "There are more regulations on toy guns than there are on real guns."
3. "Gun manufacturers are painting the tips of their guns orange, to look like Airsoft Guns."
4. "We (the BC) get more upset about toy guns than we do about real guns."
Now, call me crazy, but doesn't gun control involve regulating guns? Can you, with any honesty in you at all, find a word of truth in any of that?
I can not, but there is a disconnect in the gun ban brigade logic circuits
And no attempt to reply.
As Mr. Pennington (a BC employee) intimated, they are too busy too deal with their own blog.
Paul, I'll wager that your headline, which is obviously designed to raise ire and fear among women, toward gun owners, will actually serve to increase the number of women buying guns for self protection.
LOL.
Wrong blog, LT, but I've got you covered.
Oops! Thanks M102.
"Many observers are puzzled as to how the NRA could make such an obviously misguided strategic decision."
It is called standing by your principles.
"For example, over 80 percent of gun owners support closing the "gun show loophole""
Because they mistakenly believe such a loophole exists.
Did anyone actually check Dennis' sources? They are two studies from gun control groups (one from the misamed "Mayors Against Illegal guns" and the other from gun control advocate David Hemenway.
Furthermore, both studies only surveyed 600-800 people. In a land with millions and millions of gun owners, 600-800 people cannot be considered a legitimate representative sample.
Their sources are ALWAYS gun control groups, or funded by gun grabbers.
if we have the right to bear arms, who says the arms have to be muskets and cannonballs? if muskets and cannonballs were the big weapons of the day, why did the writers of the constitution not specify that citizens can defend themselves with rocks and spears, but not muskets and cannonball?
ok, so, in today's modern world, with its frightening technology, why cant i own a bunker buster bomb, or a shoulder-mounted missile launcher, or even a nuke?? why not, especially in the view of a strict traditional constitutionalist.
The point of the 2nd Am was to ensure that the militia -- defined elsewhere in the Constitution -- was armed and able to do its job. Not the National Guard, not the Army, not the police, but the average citizen who, in times of natural disaster, invasion, or insurrection, could protect their homes and lives and families and assist in restoring order. That meant small arms, not artillary. Katrina was an excellent case in point about why the 2nd Am is so vital to the strength of our Republic. When the national and local order breaks down, the militia is responsible for keeping order -- just as many armed citizens did in New Orleans, once the police broke down.
Another good example is the 1992 Rodney King riots here in Los Angeles--one of the big factors that kept Koreatown from burning was news footage of people patrolling the rooftops and streets with civilian ARs, AKs and SKSs while nearby communities burned
"why cant i own a bunker buster bomb, or a shoulder-mounted missile launcher,"
Because those are not "arms" as that term is used in the 2nd Amend.
"cant i own a bunker buster bomb, or a shoulder-mounted missile launcher, or even a nuke??"
What you are engaging in has become, over the decades, known as "the nuke argument". And it was refutted about 30 seconds after it was first made.
Do you honestly believe that the Founders were morons who never entertained the notion that firearms technology would advance beyond single shot front stuffers, even as firearms tech. was evolving during their own lifetimes?
Also, the 2nd Amendment does not refer to crew-served weapons.
You can't 'bear' a nuke.
There may be an angle here that you've not considered: Don't you think it's possible that the higher ranks of NRA leadership are of the same racist intolerant stripe as the repug leadership that's come out against the Wise Latina?
Certainly, not all members should be painted with this broad brush, but I smell a rat.
and that rat is packing
And you sound hysterical.
jmengr,
Don't know much about history, so you? The 1960’s Voting Rights Act was only passed because of the support of the majority of Republicans. Nowhere near enough Democrats supported it! Also, the entire first flush of gun control legislation was passed to keep firearms out of the hands of immigrants and newly freed slaves! Those laws were supported almost entirely be – well, let me guess…Oh yeah – Democrats!
Don't know much about current events either, it seems! The NRA has taken its position on Ms. Sotomayor because she has taken a position that is inconsistent with 39 of the 40 SCOUS cases where the 2d Amendment was directly or tangently addressed as well as the 2d Amendment interpretation - that of an individual right - of the vast majority of CREDIBLE Constitutional scholars who generally refer to the ‘individual rights model’ as ‘the Standard Model!’
Old SF MJT
(Martin)
And the reason so many democrats didn't vote for the Voting Rights Act was because they were Southern Democrats, who had much more in common with the most conservative Republicans but who would have died rather than belong to the party of Abe Lincoln. Your generalizations about political parties, especially about them in the past, are as weak as your generalizations about the Supreme Court -- read the Earl Warren analysis of the Second Amendment, for just one example. As an anti-gun guy, I can't say I understand any of the NRA reasoning. (And I know the irrational vituperation the following clarification will receive, but just to be clear about my own position: to me, no private right to own guns exists as derived from the selective use of the second part of the 2nd Amendment -- think about what a dependent clause does.) However, it appears that the reason the NRA takes its position is because it thinks that ruling against one particular martial arts weapons means Sotomayor is against private ownership of guns, one of the weakest slippery slope arguments I've ever encountered.
Don't know much about history do you? Before the Civil Rights movement, the Democrats were largely made up of the Southern contingent, ie segregationists. So when all of those Jim Crow laws were passed in the South, yes, they were Democrats passing them.
But then, when the Northern Democrats started moving for Civil Rights in the 1960s, the Southerners jumped ship and became Republicans. Republicans then created the "Southern Strategy," whereby inflaming racist fears they could guarantee winning the white vote in every Southern state. Gotta love those Republicans!
Seriously, this talking point has been played out. Let it die.
Today's republicans ain't the 60's republicans. Today's repugs are absolutely convinced that they're right and unwilling to compromise one inch on ANYTHING. The NRA is the firearms wing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-gun. In fact I bought a handgun today. I had to wait two days for the deal to clear here in Indiana. I found that satisfactory. I'm just saying that I think there's more going on with the NRA than gun enthusiasm.
Do not forget that the people who call themselves "wise" rarely are
I agree. Furthermore, people who have a compelling need to proclaim their professional creds usually don't have them and are typically "quite" insecure .
"Many observers are puzzled as to how the NRA could make such an obviously misguided strategic decision." DUH --- the NRA endorsed G.W. Bush -- twice !!
Senator Mark Warner (D), Virginia?? Yeah -- he might be an A lister but the NRA refused to endorse him over Jim Gilmore (the guy the RNC had the good sense to fire) in the recent election.
As I've said before --- the NRA trashed its credibility on the two Bush endorsements. Seems that anybody who has stood too close to the shrub suffered the same fate.
Get the NRA out of the political arena !!
*s k r i t c h ! ! ! *
Toon, it's quite simple. The NRA, like the BC, had to support somebody. They certainly weren't going to support known gungrabbers, like Gore and Kerry. Bush was just the lesser of two evils.
Who did the NRA endorse in 96 against Clinton in the 1st POTUS election that occurred after the 94 AWB?
Yes --- it''s quite simple.
Lunatics all of them. What is the psychological reason that they need their precious guns, but say nothing about other amendments? I understand wanting to be able to defend yourself of course. But they want assault weapons as well. A handgun will suffice for self defense. Hunting for sport is barbaric plain and simple. How is it fun to gun down a defenseless animal so you can mount it's head? Hunting for food is of course understandable. I'm from Pennsylvania and we've got tons of deer that taste great. I support a right to have weapons, but being armed is not a fundamental right in a democracy like free speech and due process are. I think it's ridiculous to think the Founders had the intension of arming the populace for a popular uprising against anunpopular government when they wrote the Second Amendment. Why would they put a legal right to government overthrow in the Constitution? If the government becomes despotic, then we have a natural right to defend ourselves, but it's never legal to overthrow a government. It's only ok if the rebellion works.
Why should "assault weapons" be banned since "assault weapon" is a term popularized by the VPC and the Brady Campaign to describe firearms that look like military weapons. In terms of the 2nd amendment NOT protecting a fundamental right--the Supreme Court has said otherwise about 40 times--and even if you ignore the 2nd amendment the right of self defense is emphatically fundamental--and possession of defensive firearms (and yes that includes semiauto only ARs, AKs, SKSs etc--the utility of these firearms for community defense was well proven during the Rodney King riots in 1992)
So it's an amorphous term analogous to partial-birth abortion. The point remains the same that's it's unnecessary and unsafe. Why in the world would you think an AK is ok in a civilian area? Of course self defense is fundamental. Being your own commando unit is not. The Second Ammendment is not a license to let people to own whatever the heck they want, same as the First Ammendment isn't a license to yell "fire" in a theatre. Self defense is a fundamental natural right, not simply owning a military-style weapon.
You realize of course that the Brady Campaign supports bans on handguns right?
Can you define what an 'assault weapon' is and how it's different from other types of firearms?
An assault weapon is a military-style firearm. It's unnecessary for self-defence. A hand-gun is all that's needed if you want to defend your home. A riffle is fine for hunting, but anything that needs to be used in a war zone is not ok in a community.
No, of course the Brady Campaign does not support a ban on handguns. As someone very closely involved with the Brady Campaign, I can speak to this directly. We are not interested in coming to your house and asking you for your guns. You can keep them as long as you don't shoot anyone. No one wants to be shot or have a loved one shot. That is what the Brady Campaign is interested in. Why did you ask the question about assault weapons? Does that have anything to do with the point?
Who says gun rights supporters don't support the other amendments besides the 2nd?
All gun right supporters I know are fans of the entire bill of rights.
If you look closely at what the gun banners advocate, you can see they are the ones that don't respect any of the bill of rights (that's logical considering that don't care about the 2nd amendment). A great example is their blind support for banning people on the "terrorist watch list" from buying guns.
People get their names on the list with no due process and there is no appeals process to get their names removed. The GOA office has admitted that tens of thousands of names on the list are based on false or out of date information. Yet Dennis and his cohorts are all in favor of prohibiting gun sales to everyone on the list. That would be a violation of not only of second amendment rights, but also fourth amendment rights as well (due process). But do the gun banners care? Not at all. If something restricts gun ownership in any way, they will always support it.
What about the first amendment? All the gun right supporters i know want the state religion to be christian. The FIRST amendment establishes the separation of church and state, and allows crazy people to collect guns like it is going out of style. Who wants to kill you?? There is no government conspiracy.
My comment was about the NRA specifically and radical conservative gun lovers in general. Not all gun owners. I don't think it's wise to ban guns, because law-abiding citizens would be powerless in defending themselves from criminals. The cops can't keep us all safe all the time. I don't think it's ok for actual terrorist suspects to have weapons, but until proven guilty, they have that right. The whole terror suspects list is an invention of the Bush misadministration though, not something gun haters cooked up. The Fifth Amendment (due process) should apply to them, but the right-wing started that denial, not the left. Restrictions on gun ownership are reasonable. Their are restrictions on other Bill of Rights-protected rights, why not guns to? The First Amendment is more fundamental to democracy than being armed. Being able to say "this isn't right" and not being punished for it is more democratic than an armed rebellion against the government. Lunatics should not have guns period. People should have to be trained in using a gun, same as when driving a car. Kids under 18 should not have guns just like they can't have cigarettes, or drink alcohol- even though they're old enough to die in a godforsaken desert over a lie. I support the WHOLE Constitution, even the Second Amendment. I don't own a gun, but I like the option.
"I think it's ridiculous to think the Founders had the intension of arming the populace for a popular uprising against anunpopular government when they wrote the Second Amendment.
I completely agree. That's why the Founding Fathers did no such thing. The founding Fathers simply wanted a constitutional guarantee which prevented the government from disarming a populace whom already had the inalienable right to arm themselves for protection.
BTW, when you start a post with an ad hominem, you tend to lose credibility right off the bat.
Good try though. At least there were no "It's Bush's Fault!"(tm).
Doing my best to keep up.
"....it's ridiculous to think the Founders had the intension of arming the populace for a popular uprising against anunpopular government when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Noah Webster, 1787:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 6-8-1789
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arm
I rest my case.
You go, Liberal Angel; nicely phrased and argued.
"a core group of "Second Amendment absolutists" in its membership" ?????
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
The 'Second Amendment absolutists' hate the NRA for being to compromising.
Of course compared to the Brady ideology of 'any gun ban is a good gun ban', supporting firearms in any way is 'extremist'.
"The 'Second Amendment absolutists' hate the NRA for being to compromisi
Agreed... I have run across a few that detest the NRA, and even the GOA . They are kinda fun to debate though.
Hey, I understand. THE NRA, the nation's first civil rights organization, trying to protect The People's interest, is extremist.
Sotomayor is not extreme trying to reverse the Heller v. DC Supreme Court's ruling and the intent of the nation's Founders who made clear in The Federalist and the US Constitution what the Second Amendment means (the "militia" are The People, and NOT, a standing army; The People are responsible to secure their own weapons and pay for them, and self defense -- NOT HUNTING -- is an OBLIGATION of all able bodied men.)
I understand that the 2nd Amendment ratified in 1791 actually meant The National Guard established in 1903.
The extremist would accept that last statement and not accept the previous.
and in Bradyworld
Mr. Hennigan defending the Bill of RIghts through the political and judicial system IS NOT EXTREMISM. What is extremism is the BC position of complete civilian disarmament. The BC support for bans of "military style weapons" means BC support for banning EVERY firearm out there because there is NOT A SINGLE FIREARM DESIGN THAT THE MILITARY OR POLICE has not used
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
