The NRA's Double Standard for Obama and McCain

I'm an endowment member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- that's one step above the venerated "life member" status. Most of the time I agree with NRA's stand supporting the rights of gun owners over the regulatory authority of the government. Mistakes can be made either way, but when in doubt, I prefer erring on the side of the citizen over the police power of the state.

This past June the US Supreme Court, in the landmark case, DC v. Heller, ruled that the government may not ban commonly owned guns for self protection. It was a very tempered decision, but a humongous victory for American gun owners. Gun owners across the country should be rejoicing after this victory. We achieved one of our most important goals.

Yet, watching the NRA's current ad wars against Sen. Obama you'd never know there was a Supreme Court case. As I pointed out in my book, Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, the NRA leadership would rather fight than win. Fighting is good for membership recruitment; it's good for direct mail fundraising and it's good for lots of press coverage, but is it really good for American gun owners?

NRA's exorbitantly paid senior staff and consultant corps need to have a dragon to slay in order to feed their incessant money machine. Obama is their latest dragon. But, it's without merit. Obama supports the Second Amendment and he's unabashed about saying so.

If Obama wins the Presidency NRA leaders will have a new enemy to fight (even if he doesn't want to be our enemy). If McCain wins, their lobbyist buddies and former senior staffers will have access and high-level appointments in a McCain administration. So, NRA executives win either way. There is, however, a double standard at play. Let me provide one example: If Barack Obama announced he was bringing Andrew Cuomo, the former Secretary of HUD who fancied himself the point-man of Bill Clinton's "anti-gun crusade" into his administration, the NRA's leadership would come unglued. Yet, when John McCain suggested he'd appoint that same Andrew Cuomo to a senior position in his administration, not a peep!

Why aren't the leaders of the "gun rights" movement in America pleased with the fact that the Democratic nominee for President has reached out to gun owners in re-assuring them that he supports gun ownership? True, his past votes from ten years ago were not encouraging, but he's made great strides. I was very impressed by the Obama campaign's TV ad featuring an NRA life member. Also, not too many years ago, in July of 2001, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Chief Executive, was allowing the NRA's magazine, America's First Freedom (no link), to state that John McCain was "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment." But, now McCain is their guy. It seems to me that NRA leaders are more concerned about what's good for NRA leaders than they are about what's good for American gun owners.

This is an exciting moment politically. Both candidates are vying for the votes of almost one hundred million gun owners. This should be a great victory for the gun issue and the NRA. But, they're ignoring this development just like they're ignoring the Supreme Court decision.

As a gun owner, I want both parties' nominees to support my rights. As a gun owner it's in my interests that the gun issue has been largely resolved by the Heller case. I can cast my ballet on the basis of other more contentious and significant issues that need to be decided.

As a gun owner I care about the environment. I want pristine places to shoot, hunt and hike. As a gun owner and taxpayer I care about and am deeply concerned about our failing economy - no jobs and no money means no new guns! As an American, I am mortified about our unraveling financial crises - this is as scary as I've experienced in my lifetime. As an American I care that we're caught in a terrible situation in Iraq with no easy way out and a more compelling need to fight in Afghanistan and our President says we don't have enough troops. As an American I'm disturbed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares that the "American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road." I want America to lead the world again - morally, economically, politically and not be challenged militarily! As an American I want America to be that "shining city on the hill" that Reagan spoke so eloquently about. In short, I want the country I love so much, the country I grew up with back, NOW!

As a voter, I haven't made up my mind who I'm supporting on November. But, in my view, Obama has neutralized gun as an issue. It sure would be helpful if NRA leaders looked ahead to the problems facing Americans who own guns and not just backwards to the good old days of " liberal gun grabber" bashing. It's worn pretty thin and really has gotten kind of old. Frankly, guys, our side won - move on already!

Comments

[ewoman]

I know one gun owner who's voting Obama, and who disdains McCain. Everyone thought this guy was voting Republican because he hunts. Boy, they were surprised when he put an Obama sign up in his yard.

[Sneaky]

Poor guy.

Did he tell you why he's voting for Obama?

[kevinem2]

Because he has a functioning brain?

[XME]

Thank you. My brother always votes Republican for one reason and one reason ONLY: he's convinced Democrats are dermined to take away his right to own guns. So far I've been unable to convince him otherwise, but have forwarded this article to him in the hope that it will have some impact. We have too much to lose to choose a candidate based on just this one issue.

[Berettasskeeter]

Why? As the 2d Amendment is one of the Enumerated Rights of the Bill of Rights, and as Obama has stated and voted his opposition to that Right, how can you possibly vote for him as an enemy of the Constitution?
Semper fi

[desertbloom]

Check the facts about Obama and the Second Amendment. You're making false assumptions. Obama has clearly stated his support for the Second Amendment. By the way, he is a constitutional scholar.

[XME]

Why do we have too much to lose to choose a candidate based on just this one issue??

Because, with McCain in charge, no one will be able to afford to even buy a gun. I care about not losing my 401K and my job!!

[LeftRight]

Did you even READ the article???? Obama is NOT going to try to take away your guns!!!

Good try though, nice attempt to change the debate.

Semper fi is dead.

[lincheryl]

I would think that having food, medicine, housing, etc. would be the most important issue for people, and under four years of McCain/Palin, guns might be the ONLY things some people still have. Logic dictates that no one is going to take away guns.

[djkrlsn]

Lincheryl--if you think all gunbanners are logical--look at shedance's responses on Paul Helmke's blog--about 2 weeks ago--shedances not only advocated suspending the BOR but supported LEOs STEALING guns in NOLA after Katrina.

[Michele Swenson - Huffpost Blogger]

There is still a tremendous gulf between the NRA membership and its leadership - termed by some a "field and stream membership with a soldier of fortune leadership­." Read my post about the "bait and switch of the gun lobby for a different perspective": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/a-vote-for-guns-is-a-vote_b_132482.html

[BlackJAC]

Ten bucks says the only times Wayne LaPierre and Grover Norquist didn't get beaten up by school bullies was when Wayne and Grover weren't in school to begin with.

[Berettasskeeter]

You don't follow the NRA, do you? The membership is like that of any other organization. There are a multiple of factions. However, the membership does, by and large, support the NRA's political efforts. Generally, if there is any disagreement, it is that the NRA doesn't push hard enough!
Semper fi

[fsilber]

As long as fighting firearms are permitted, sportsmen need never fear the loss of sporting arms. On the other hand, If fighting firearms were banned, then sportsmen will be at the edge of the controversy and may find their rights challenged -- with a much smaller remaining community to defend their interests. When that happens, liberals might no longer feel the need to affirm "the rights of sportsmen.­" It has already happened in England, Canada and Australia.

There is always going to be a spectrum of positions within the gun rights movement, and no matter where we draw the line someone is going to be at the edge near the line. If in every legislative session we abandon the people near the edge of the line, eventually everyone is going to be abandoned. To prevent gun rights from being whittled down to nothing, piece by piece over time, we cannot limit our support to whichever people are considered moderate at the moment.

Besides, even the "field and stream" membership largely supports the right to resist looting and arson by rioters, rape, mugging, carjacking, and home-invasion -- even if at this moment there's not much of that sort of thing in the rural areas where the "field and stream" membership lives. Nor are they all so selfish as to want to blow off the urban members living where police do not keep the streets free of muggers, carjackers and burglars.

[Sneaky]

“Obama supports the Second Amendment and he's unabashed about saying so.”

Damn, you were golden up until you said this.

I’m look at his website, under “additional issues” and “sportsmen” specifically, and damn I’m tired of gun owners being equated with hunters. There are roughly 15 million hunters in this country, compared to over 80 million gun owners. Anyway, I keenly notice the lack of the world “keep” when referencing Obama’s desire to protect the “constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms”. My copy of the US Constitution says keep, too, but if his was a different issue I’ll concede an honest mistake.

Wasn’t this the same guy who was a professor of constitutional law and believed the gun BAN in D.C. was constitutional, and voiced support of it? Didn’t he also allude to the rights of citizens in cities being different for those outside of cities?

Anyway, moving on.

Oh, reading under his “urban policies” and “crime and law enforcement”, I note his commitment to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment (which most certainly does NOT restrict “the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information”, which after phone conversation and an email from the ATF they’ve confirmed such restrictions never existed). He also supports closing the mythical “gun show loophole”, you know, that thing that exists independent of gun shows? Any private person selling private property to another private person?

(Cont)

[Sneaky]

And, not to be outdone, he went a step further at the end of that paragraph.

“They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”

It’s there. In print. I hope those words make you cringe, Mr. Feldman, because they’re real. I can screenprint and email the image to you if you like. What does the your vaunted NRA say about this, I ponder. By the way, take a good look at what’s on this latest version of the “new assault weapons ban”. Take a real good look. You tell me how many of those are off on foreign battlefields. Better yet, look at FBI crime statistics, and tell me how many are roaming our streets.

When I snap my fingers, you will wake up...

[lincheryl]

Why would a citizen need an assault weapon?

[Berettasskeeter]

Frankly, your writing is very good. Your ideas are terrific. Though I'm a McCain man, you make a decent case. However, you rather quickly gloss over all of Obama's past votes and statements! He has proven that he does not believe in the 2d Amendment. Words count for little, while actions are ALL that counts. McCain has not been a great friend, but he is more trustworthy on this. And, if Obama is not to be counted on for one Article of the Bill of Rights, how can he be trusted on the other Articles, or the Constitution as a whole.
I've always been a single-issue voter, because I think the 2d Amendment is a bellweather subject on which to judge politicians. I'll stick with McCain, but thanks for your thoughts.
Semper fi

[grata2ude]

So your right to own a gun (which no one has taken away from you since the constitution's inception) is more important than a war by deception, housing crises, the price of gas, banks going under, recession, and unemployment the highest its been in seven years? How shallow.

[Sneaky]

Oh I dunno, are you going to say his idea is invalid? Let me rephrase it in more clear terms:

If the politician can't be trusted to uphold one part of the Constitution how can he be trusted to uphold others, or it as a whole? Are YOU going to fault that logic?

There is exactly one, and only one, thing on your list of grievances that a president can do anything about. None of it's germane to this discussion, though. I've read the Good Senator's website. Several times. Each time infuriates me more than the last. Senator Obama has ZERO concept of the LIMITED ROLE of the president. None. His website indicates he truly believes the Executive to be a legislature unto itself. He has plans to fix the housing crisis, you know. Plans to fix the banks. The recession. Unemployment.

I'm not old enough to remember the snake-oil salesmen, but I'm pretty sure that's snake oil you, and he, are selling.

[slg]

Perhaps the NRA will devote full attention to protecting the rest of the Constitution now they have safely secured their weapons.

[Berettasskeeter]

Can you list for me, from the NRA's founding documents, which of the other Articles of the BOR the NRA is sworn to protect? I doubt it.
The NRA was founded after the dismal shooting of soldiers during the Civil War, to promote riflery and marksmanship. It has expanded a bit to cover most of the other shooting disciplines, and has instituted its political arm, the ILA, to fight for the 2d Amendment.
The NRA has always believed in the Constitution, but if you want it to concentrate on something else but the 2d Amendment, you'll have to join and then work to change the organization. That should only take 30-50 years, but you may find it satisfying?!
Semper fi

[Sneaky]

Define "safely secured". I'm curious as to whether or not we have the same definition

No, I'm not not-picking, I really want to see what you mean by this statement. Heller did next to nothing. It created momentum that fed Congress into doing what should have been done decades ago and effects only the District of Columbia. Please, enlighten me.

[BlackJAC]

A few years back there was this ABC News report about a town police department giving away free trigger locks to anyone who wanted one. It was an extremely popular event, for they ran out of the things. Yet there was this one mope protesting the event by wearing a sandwich board that read "Rapists Love Trigger Locks."

In all seriousness, how often have we been treated to stories of negligent discharges due to someone leaving a loaded gun in an easy-to-open drawer? When I got my riflery merit badge, they drilled gun safety into us right from the start, including Never Leave A Loaded Gun Just Lying Around, and to this day I take my index finger off the trigger of even a Febreze spray bottle when I pick it up. To be honest, it seems like "common sense gun law" is gun fetishist code for "I want real life to be like an action movie."

[lincheryl]

Yes, those people who have cancer and have no insurance will be comforted to know some people have guns. The NRA is using people to up their donations, while people are losing their houses, jobs, and their family members in a war that needs to stop.

[Sneaky]

How does this have anything to do with the NRA? They're a private organization about shooting skills, with a sub-organization dedicated to legal action. Do you really expect them to drop their charter and start delving into the housing market, the work market, and the conflict overseas?

Be sensible, now.

[djkrlsn]

The NRA is a single issue organization--its sole focus is on the Second Amendment and firearms. Other organizations have taken responsibility for the rest of the BOR.