The Gun Control History of the NRA

[mikeb302000]

Adam Winkler writes for The Huffington post

The NRA was founded by William Church and George Wingate after the Civil War. Wingate and Church -- the latter a former reporter for a newspaper not exactly known for its love of gun rights, the New York Times -- both fought in the War on the Union side. They were shocked by the poor marksmanship of Union soldiers and convinced that one reason the Confederacy was able to hold out so long before surrender was because their soldiers had more experience shooting. Church and Wingate's goal for the NRA was to improve the marksmanship of civilians who might one day be called to serve in the military, not to fight gun control.

The author goes on to explain how for most of the 20th century the NRA was actually involved in drafting gun control ligislation. And during those decades they had very little to do with the 2nd Amendment.

All that changed in 1977. That year, the leadership of the NRA decided to retreat from political lobbying and refocus on recreational shooting and outdoors activities. This sparked a backlash among a group of hardline gun rights advocates who were upset that the NRA had endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- the first significant federal gun legislation since the 1930s. Motivated by the belief that guns weren't primarily for hunting but for personal protection in an era of rising crime rates, the hardliners staged a coup at the annual meeting of the membership, ousting the old leaders and committing the organization to political advocacy.

Shortly after that they picked up La Pierre. And the world has seldom seen anything like it.

What's your opinion? We've often spoken about the evolving interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but this article helps us see it from the perspective of the NRA. Do you think that's helpful? Does the dynamic change in direction undertaken by the NRA lend credibility to the theory that the way we view the 2A has been bastardized over the last 5 decades?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[ileus]

1. God Bless the Second Amendment.

[petronius]

2. Link? (nt)

[mikeb302000]

12. sorry I forgot the link to the article and the

several to my blog. But, I'll bet you can find your way if you want to.

[petronius]

21. So you added a link to your blog, but NOT to the original source you cut and pasted from?

:rofl:

[MicaelS]

3. The most ironic thing about your NRA hate

Is that people like you created the modern NRA. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the rise of Gun Prohibitionist movement, the NRA was about teaching firearms safety, marksmanship and conservation. The political side of the NRA was only a shadow of what it is today. After GCA 1968, Pete Shields, and other like him, the NRA-ILA was born (1975). With the Cincinnati Revolt of 1977, the modern NRA was born. When Morton Grove, Il passed their Handgun Ban in 1981 things really started rolling.

Yes, I know GCA 1968 was passed in reaction to assassinations of the 1960s. But answer these questions:

Were the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK really the work of lone nuts with guns?

Or were they the work of vast conspiracies?

If they were the former, then in view of the times GCA 1968 had merit. But that view means that as all three men as the victims of CIA / Military / Big Business / Mafia has to vanish.

If the latter, then the conspirators could have gotten any guns they wanted to murder those three.

[dtexdem]

23. I am proud to hate the NRA as an enemy of the American people.

May it ultimately be smashed to pieces.

[Kennah]

40. If it was lone nuts ...

... would any of them really have been dissuaded from obtaining a gun illegally, if the GCA '68 had been in place at the time of the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations?

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Yay NRA. Yay Wayne.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2052070&mesg_id=2052070

[SteveM]

8. If you met LaPierre in a bar, he'd buy you drinks all night; grateful man. nt

[mikeb302000]

13. yeah, Wayne's laughing all the way to the bank

and I think it's you guys he's laughing at.

[SteveM]

19. Such precision projection. Undeniable, Mike...

Gun-controllers/prohibitionists MADE the modern NRA.

BTW, did you know that anti-gun editorial cartoonists take a fair amount of $$ to the bank? Yup. The NRA has and continues to pay them royalties to enable re-printing of the cartoons in the NRA's house organs.

Funny, the NRA would waste money that way, no?

Are you watching Ken Burns' "Prohibition?" It's being broadcast this week.

[TheCowsCameHome]

26. Probably with your dues money. n/t

[spin]

5. It might help if you posted a link to the article. In order to further discussion, I will ...

Adam Winkler
Professor of Law, UCLA
When the NRA Promoted Gun Control
Posted: 10/3/11 09:43 AM ET

Reports indicate that the Obama administration may be considering new gun control proposals to limit the size of magazines or to strengthen background checks on gun purchasers. One thing you can bet on is that the National Rifle Association will oppose any such measures.

Yet it wasn't always this way. Indeed, the NRA used to draft and promote restrictive gun control laws.

***snip***

The NRA was founded by William Church and George Wingate after the Civil War. Wingate and Church -- the latter a former reporter for a newspaper not exactly known for its love of gun rights, the New York Times -- both fought in the War on the Union side. They were shocked by the poor marksmanship of Union soldiers and convinced that one reason the Confederacy was able to hold out so long before surrender was because their soldiers had more experience shooting. Church and Wingate's goal for the NRA was to improve the marksmanship of civilians who might one day be called to serve in the military, not to fight gun control.

These days, the NRA is known for its anti-government rhetoric; Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president, has called some federal law enforcement officers "a jack-booted group of fascists" and warned that "if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens." Yet it was government largess in the form of subsidies and special sales of discounted firearms that helped the NRA grow in its formative years. Were it not for a generous government grant of $25,000 to buy land for a rifle range by the state of New York -- a modern-day target of much NRA hostility -- the NRA might never have gotten off the ground....emphasis added
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.html

Considering the actions of the ATF and other agencies of the government in the Fast and Furious scandal that allow guns to "walk" from mom and pop gun stores into the hands of criminals and how agencies of the federal government totally ignored existing gun laws, was Wayne LaPierre's comment that far off? Because of this ill conceived operation many people in Mexico and at least one person in the United Sates have been killed.

I will agree that the NRA changed as an organization from one that promoted a sport to one that defends the rights of citizens to use firearms not only for hunting, target shooting and collecting but also for legitimate self defense. Without the NRA and its efforts, citizens in our nation might well be unable to legally own handguns or semi-auto rifles. Those who oppose firearm ownership had started implementing incremental gun control laws that would have eventually led to this result.

Instead the NRA was largely responsible for effectively opposing such laws, reversed many and through the efforts of its members was able to promote "shall issue" concealed carry across our nation.



Despite all the gnashing of teeth from those who dislike civilian ownership of firearms, our violent crime rates have steadily fallen form a peak in the mid 1990s.

Crime in the United States

***snip***




The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

It would be nice if politicians, the NRA and the Brady Campaign would all work together to improve our current gun laws but getting any groups with different views to cooperate and compromise today appears impossible. I don't agree with all the propaganda and the views of the NRA but I owe the fact that I can own firearms and have a concealed weapons permit to their efforts. Therefore, the NRA gets my sincere thanks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. No fair! You're costing Mikey hits at his ad-supported blog.

Meanyhead...

[mikeb302000]

14. why do you call my blog ad-supported?

Do you have no rules as to what you say and what you write. As one who loves to complain about others, I'd expect you to have a bit of integrity.

[gejohnston]

30. it makes sense to have

Google ads or have affiliates. You don't?

[beevul]

32. How would you know...

"I'd expect you to have a bit of integrity."

How would you know whether that poster did or did not have any?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. We know the NRA crafted a lot of gun control legislation.

Why do you think we don't like the NRA?

[gejohnston]

7. Most of us already knew that

I even made an earlier post about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x429241

What's your opinion? We've often spoken about the evolving interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but this article helps us see it from the perspective of the NRA. Do you think that's helpful? Does the dynamic change in direction undertaken by the NRA lend credibility to the theory that the way we view the 2A has been bastardized over the last 5 decades?

In a word no. The SCOTUS maintained it as an individual right, allowing for reasonable regulation at least since Texas v Miller (1894), which upheld the licencing scheme Texas had at the time. If anyone bastardized it, it was your side. What changed was the beginning of the prohibition lobby. The Pioneers of that movment include Dupont executive (who described himself as a conservative) Nelson Shields and San Jose police chief Joe MacNamara who now works for the conservative think tank Hoover Institute. Some urban and suburban liberals jumped on the band wagon for various reasons.

[SteveM]

10. "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks."

Robert Sherrill, early gun-control advocate, expressing disappointment with the motivations for the '68 GCA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

[jmg257]

11. Any interpretation of an amendment that gives more security to the

liberties of the people and less restrictive power to the government is a good thing.

While it is unfortunate that the Militia-related intent of the Constitution and the 2nd was discarded, at least the basic right of the people is still secure.

Numerous reasons why these specific restrictions against governmental abuse of powers were allowed to be watered down and mis-interpreted over 220 years can be likely be given, but in the end it is the people that allow it to happen. Attempts at correcting this loss of freedom seem to be making great headway. If the evolving NRA is a big reason for that, then so be it.

[mikeb302000]

15. no, you got that wrong

in the beginning there was ONLY the militia idea. Much later that individual thing came up. It's called bastardization.

[jmg257]

16. It has said the same thing for 220 years, so the people have always had their rights secured.

At least in theory anyway...true that sometimes the fact that the amendments which became the bill of rights as originally presented and intended "altogether respected personal liberty" might be forgotten.

Really only since the Dick Act and NFA 1934 has the Militia declaration/observation been ignored, and the right to keep and bear militia-grade arms been infringed. (if only Miller was carrying a BAR instead of a SOS - and he didn't croak). The republicans in '86 saw to further such infringments.

Also a shame that the fact that the 2nd IS AN AMENDMENT (and so changes/overules anything in the body of the constitution) has been forgotten. Stupid attempts of mal-feasance such as using the powers of the commerce clause to infringe rights of the people or non-feasance with regards to affecting the necessary Militia would otherwise be scoffed at as unconstitutional.


Anyway, I certainly wouldn't mind the intent of the militia-related declaration of the 2nd being strengthened again - I would love to buy a select fire M4, an H-bbl M16, and an M14 at reasonable cost. Also nice to get those regular capacity mags for my M9 down in cost too.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. Nope. It has always been an individual right.

in the beginning there was ONLY the militia idea. Much later that individual thing came up. It's called bastardization.

Let us look at the second amendment:

"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."

You will note that the militia is only noted here as being necessary to the security of free states. This is because the founders distrusted a centralized military that might be used by a central government to oppress the states. Thus the states each retained their own military forces, preventing them from easily oppressing one another, and also from easily engaging in whimsical foreign pursuits without wide-spread cooperation of the states.

But the right to keep and bear arms is specifically noted as a right of the people. Not the militias. I have no doubt this was because the founders knew that government institutions could be corrupted, as indeed the state militias were when they were federalized in 1903.

Every other right enumerated in the Constitution applies to individuals. Not only do groups of people have the right of free speech, but individuals do also. Not only do groups of people have the right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches, but individuals do also. Not only must groups of people not be persecuted for their religious beliefs, but individuals may not be, either. Individuals also have the right to speedy trials by juries of their peers, and the right to counsel. And so on.

It is absurd at face value to say that there is any right that you have to be in a group in order to exercise. How many people have to get together before you have a right? Two? Three? And why would a solitary person be different from two people?

No. The second amendment has always conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. It just has not been settled Constitutional law until recently.

[SteveM]

22. Quite wrong. The "militia idea" (or clause) was popularized when Motown was popular...

You need to look at Hofstadter and Tribe to find the beginnings of the "militia clause" fad. Tribe, for his part, has now conceded that 2A protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. And so do most scholars who have written on the Second.

Do try to keep up.

[beevul]

33. No, Mike, YOU got it wrong.

"in the beginning there was ONLY the militia idea"

No, Mike, in the beginning, there was ONLY that restriction on government idea:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Applicable whether the individual was part of a militia or not.

[rl6214]

34. "It's called bastardization."

NO, you've got that all wrong. I would elaborate but my post would just be deleted.

"in the beginning there was ONLY the militia idea."

And you've got this one wrong as well since this is just the view of the gun control zealots. Thank goodness there are some people out there with the title of Supreme Court Justice in front of their names that are a whole lot smarter than you are.

[TPaine7]

35. Bullshit

The very first time the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment--along with the First and other personal rights--it made very clear that it was a personal right:

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...

Years later, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment crafted their contribution to the Constitution to force the states to respect the Second Amendment--among others:

<“{The Fourteenth Amendment's} first clause, {which} I regard as very important . . . relates to the [font color="red">privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States . . . . To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear arms. . . .

…{T}hese guarantees . . . stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution … {and} States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them …. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”

Source: Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).

I know you have been lied to--by "reputable" sources. It might not be your fault; you may have actually believed what you wrote. The more interesting question is what will you do now that you know the truth?

Time will tell if you are a victim of misinformation or one of a multitude of bald-faced liars who will continue to repeat this convenient lie after you know better.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Try reading the various state constitutions some time. (You won't of course)

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Gun Control woke up the sleeping giant.

All that changed in 1977. That year, the leadership of the NRA decided to retreat from political lobbying and refocus on recreational shooting and outdoors activities. This sparked a backlash among a group of hardline gun rights advocates who were upset that the NRA had endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- the first significant federal gun legislation since the 1930s. Motivated by the belief that guns weren't primarily for hunting but for personal protection in an era of rising crime rates, the hardliners staged a coup at the annual meeting of the membership, ousting the old leaders and committing the organization to political advocacy.

Gun control woke up the sleeping giant of the NRA membership.

There was no bastardization of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment, from its inception was about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they could function as military troops. The second amendment has never been about "recreational shooting and outdoors activities". It enables such activities, to be sure, but they are simply a side-effect, not the main purpose.

I enjoy paying my NRA membership dues every year to fight against people like you. And we're winning.

[dtexdem]

20. I didn't realize the NRA had gone bad that recently.

But in a third of a century, the NRA has run roughshod over the safety of the American people and trashed sensible controls needed to protect that safety.

Now I'll await the flames from DUers who spout the RW GOP line on guns.

[gejohnston]

24. no flames

Name one Dem that is a major player outside of congress. I repeat:

What changed was the beginning of the prohibition lobby. The Pioneers of that movment include Dupont executive (who described himself as a conservative) Nelson Shields and San Jose police chief Joe MacNamara who now works for the conservative think tank Hoover Institute. Some urban and suburban liberals jumped on the band wagon for various reasons.

[spin]

28. It's not just the RW GOP who supports RKBA ...

World's largest shooting range opened today in North Las Vegas
Aug 25, 2009 by Jay David Murphy

The world's largest and most comprehensive shooting range opened in North Las Vegas. The massive range and support facilities cost $60 million to construct.

The world’s largest and most advanced shooting range officially opened today in North Las Vegas with a host of dignitaries. The $60 million Clark County Shooting Park is both large and comprehensive, designed to attract not only locals, but shooting enthusiasts from around the world.

Nevada’s politicians came to praise the facility along with the NRA, National Rifle Association.

Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke today at the opening ceremony for the Clark County Shooting Park. Reid was instrumental in securing land and more than $60 million in funding for the park.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/278257#ixzz1Zqi58j6o

While many gun owners fail to appreciate Harry Reid, he is one of our best friends in Congress.

Harry Reid

Issues and positions

Reid's voting record has been moderate. He has opposed most gun control legislation;...

***snip***

... He has a mixed record on gun control, voting against the ban on assault weapons and in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but in favor of the Brady Bill and background checks at gun shows.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_Reid

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Violent crime and murder rates are at historic lows, so what's your beef with the NRA?

They most certainly helped trash what you call "sensible controls"- and it looks like they were correct.

Seems you are more interested in laws as liturgy than their effects on crime...

[ileus]

25. The NRA has been working for the freedom and safty of the American people for several years now.

[Pullo]

27. +1 for the Cincinatti Revolt

Wayne LaPierre wasn't the driving force back then. Harlon Carter and Neil Knox were the transformative leaders of the new guard. Taking a hardline position on the 2A that was much more in line with membership, they turned the NRA into one of, if not the, most effective lobbying forces in Washington and across the country in state houses.

The NRA faced a similar fork in the road in the early 90's after the passage of the Brady Bill and AWB. Some(surrender monkeys) within the organization wanted to push the NRA to soften its defense of "military style" rifles, in hopes of protecting more traditional looking firearms from burdensome regulation. They became known as "Fudds."

Again the hardliners within the NRA doubled down, launching a major counter lobbying offensive against the gun control movement. This would include a staunch campaign to repeal the AWB, vastly expanding the advocacy of CCW laws in the states, and taking a political pound of flesh from any politician opposed to gun rights. The hardliners were again rewarded with tremendous success, not only on their firearm policy initiatives, but also increasing the NRA's political reach.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. It is considered very poor taste to quote an article and not link to it.

It may also violate DU rules on giving proper citation to original work.

[rl6214]

31. Where's the link for this opinion piece?

Without any proof this IS just an opinion piece from a VERY slanted source.

[Union Scribe]

36. Does Adam Winkler write for your blog?

Why are you using a writer's work to drive traffic to your blog instead of their article?

[PavePusher]

37. Link broken. Whodathunk it..... n/t

[petronius]

39. A link to the copyrighted material you're quoting would be correct here, not just

a link to your own blog... :shrug:

[Union Scribe]

42. It bothers me as a working writer that DU is not acting on a violation

of its own copyright policy, which requires a link to the source--not to a third party's blog.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. ah --

interesting tactic . . .

:popcorn: