Join the NRA

UPDATE: October 23, 2020

I finally bit the bullet and did it. I joined another gun-rights organization. I'm still a proud member of the NRA, bit the 2nd Amendment crowd needs to put its eggs in more than one basket.

Wayne LaPierre has overstayed his welcome. The State of New York has some legitimate claims against the NRA's top brass and definitely wants to neuter the organization. But the NRA is made up of million's of members and is a multi-faceted group that offers much value to its members and other fellow citizens.

But there are other organizations that are better at providing more targeted services for our natural right, and they are smaller and more nimble and are able to move quickly.

One such organization is the Second Amendment Foundation. As of last week, they are one stronger.

But again, the NRA is still vastly important. They provide tons of safety training, sponsor many events where gun owners exercise their rights, actively lobby legislatures, and make legal challenges to unconstitutional laws. I'm still a member. You too should maintain your membership or join the NRA. 

ORIGINAL POST: January, 2013

You might not like everything the NRA says. You might not like what Wayne LaPierre said about video games. You might not like that the NRA wants the federal government to fund putting police in every school on a short-term basis. You may want the NRA to help with mental-health research. There's a lot you might not like about the NRA, or that you want the NRA to do something, but the NRA is the 800-lb gorilla for gun rights.

I put a note on my calendar to ask my wife tonight to get an NRA membership. She hadn't had one for a while. I didn't have to ask. The NRA is now 4,300,001 strong.

And I'll be joining my second gun-rights organization shortly.

Obama threw down the gauntlet and sniped at gun owners right after Sandy Hook. The NRA launched the first real volley. Now Obama has loosed his return fire in this pitched battle, throwing one of the NRA's missiles back at us ("school resource officers", "a police officer in every school").

The NRA is a special-interest group, no doubt. It is my special-interest group. It defends a vital natural right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I defend a vital natural right.

I am the NRA.

Time to write some letters, again. Congress, state house, governor, sheriff, etc, etc, etc.

My Reasoning for Black Listing Anti-Gun Organizations

Some companies discriminate against gunmakers, distributors, retailers, and firearm shoppers and owners. This is a problem that I have witnessed for decades. While I was living out west, there was a gun dealer that sold primarily black rifles - before black rifles were popular. The local branch of a national bank declined to open a checking account for the company. They settled out of court, and the gun dealer signed a nondisclosure agreement. I almost switched banks, but the bank was convenient.

But since Obama won his first election, the political environment has definitely changed. There were harbingers of a renewed politically correct move against the firearms industry within the last year. I vaguely remember that several months ago after Aurora and before Sandy Hook, Bank of America closed the account of a stock manufacturer, because the bank manager handling the account said that BoA did not approve of what the company sold. But now there is a wave of companies forming new internal policies or discoverying old internal policies that restrict the companies involvement in the free-trade of arms.

I've slowly been accumulating info about such companies. I'm doing so because I've read that some lists, such as the NRA's, are possibly inaccurate, outdated, and incomplete. Also, I wanted more detailed information of the extent of the discrimination against the free market of private arms and the proof for the accusations.

I respect the right of private companies to choose who they do business with - that is their right. But I do have a problem with government entities and corporations discriminating against the private-arms community. And I feel that is it my duty to direct my business away from companies that discriminate against those who are exercising their rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.

Oly Arms Stops Sales to NY Government Orgs

Another strong response to the NY SAFE Act.

Olympic Arms, maker of ARs and pistols - including some interesting looking pistol-caliber carbines - announced that it will no longer sell or provide services to the NYS government, law-enforcement agencies, and police or other first responders in that state.

In a press release posted on Facebook by President Brian Schuetz, Olympic Arms is following in the footsteps of LaRue Tactical. But Olympic Arms is taking its response one step further. LaRue had stated that they would limit sales to NY LEO to what is available to non-LEO civilians in NY.



Now we just need to see one of the big gun companies follow suit.

Couple People Destroying Arguments For Gun Control

Bill Stevens, Newtown resident, and parent of girl that survived the Sandy Hook murders, speaking before a "working group" in the Connecticut General Assembly.

"I’m not here to cite crime statistics, lives saved with guns, or the economic impact of the proposed asinine legislation – some of these gun control bills you have proposed – I will, however, read from the Connecticut state constitution. Section 15 reads very clearly – we all know what the Second Amendment says – but Section 15 in the state constitution says very clearly 'every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.' There’s no registration, there’s no permitting, there’s no background checks. It’s quite clear."

- Bill Stevens

And then there was Ted Nugent, being interviewed by Piers Morgan.

"I care about all death." - Piers Morgan

"I don't think you do. I think you care about guns. You're obsessed with guns ... Would you leave us the hell alone?" - Ted Nugent

Thanks to Walls of the City blog for the transcript.

Resistance to New York SAFE Act is Public

Some western New York citizens appear bound to disobey New York State's new draconian gun statutes.

New York citizens asked lots of questions, made lots of statements, and apparently got no real answers from state officials at a meeting in Erie, New York on 1/29/13 about the NY SAFE Act.



When a bunch of regular guys start laughing when a state official says that "if you have an illegal gun or [normal-capacity] magazine then you have to dispose of those things," and when one of those regular guys says:

"When angry people get together they form militias, folks. This country, this western New York area is prime for something like that."

And when the crowd of regular guys cheer and clap in response to that statement, then you know that the NY state legislature has just stuck their foot in a mess of crap. This is a mess bigger than forgetting to exempt police from the new gun statute.

Open Letter To Sturm Ruger & Company

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has informed the public that its member mayors are looking at ways to punish firearms and ammunition manufacturers for opposing additional gun control. I think firearm-industry companies should preempt such discriminatory actions by the MAIG mayors, city councils, and city regulatory agencies.

Here is what I wrote to Ruger CEO Michael Fifer:

February 1, 2013

Sturm Ruger & Co.

Attn: CEO Michael O Fifer

Southport, Connecticut

Re: Proposed Procurement Discrimination By Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Dear Mr. Fifer:

First, let me thank Ruger for its effort to make it easier for gun owners and 2^nd amendment proponents to contact their elected officials about proposed gun statutes. Though I had already been contacting politicians, I appreciate your effort to help preserve our natural right.

I was disappointed in the past by Bill Ruger’s tacit clear support of magazine restrictions. But I have been and am a proud owner of Ruger firearms, and I was glad to see that Ruger has changed its political stance since that time. I owned an SP101 and 10/22, before I moved to NYC a little over a decade ago and sold my guns, because of NYC’s draconian gun laws. Since moving to North Carolina, I acquired a P95. Ruger makes great guns.

It is my opinion that the gun industry should preempt any action the mayors take based on Mayors Against Illegal Guns’s threat to punish gun-industry companies for opposing additional gun control. I am writing under the assumption that the governments of those cities need the gun industry more than the gun industry needs their business.

I think Barrett did it best.  After California’s .50-cal ban, Barrett told agencies in California that Barrett would no longer sell nor service guns owned by those agencies. I don’t know that the best approach is to be confrontational, but in that vein, I have attached a model letter.

Another alternative, which I think the gun industry should seriously consider, is to actively encourage citizens to purchase firearms – even helping with the licensing process – in restrictive “gun free” cities, and even if it means that the de facto firearms are “double-barrel shotguns”.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

CR Cobb

Proud American, NRA Member, and Ruger Owner

cc: open letter

MODEL LETTER TO MAYORS

(DATE)________

Re: Proposed Procurement Changes By Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Dear Mayor______:

Based on the recent statements by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in your name, [company] has decided to end any business relationship we have with your municipality. Since we oppose any additional gun-control statutes, we accept that you intend to proceed with discriminatory procurement practices against [company].

We are suspending all transfer of goods or services to your city, including but not limited to firearms, components, parts, ammunition, ammunition components, test data, and literature – excluding anything that would comprise a firearm- or ammunition-safety recall or safety literature.

If [company] has a contractual relationship with your city, then we will determine whether we are legally bound to maintain that relationship and proceed accordingly.

Due to our commitment to rank-and-file peace officers, we will continue maintaining relationships with individual officers, if those officers have or will acquire their duty weapons and ammunition privately and maintain private ownership.

Sincerely,

[CEO/Owner]

Feinstein: Military-Style Weapons Are For the Police And Military - Not You, the 2nd Ammendent's Intended Bearer of Arms

If someone could sit through this whole video, then I commend you.

Feinstein rails against military-style weapons in civilian hands, but that is what the founding fathers intended. Feinstein plans to gut the 2nd Amendment by pushing the "sporting purpose" definition, while ignoring the THREAT of gun-free zones. There is no evidence that the founding fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment should ONLY protect the sporting use of arms.

I've gotten 10:31 minutes into the news conference, and there is already a lot of fiction, exaggeration, and lies by omission. www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310581-1

The Founders Couldn't Envision ARs ("assault weapons") Fallacy

The fallacy goes something like this: There were no semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines when the founding fathers were alive, and they did not write the 2nd Amendment to allow them. Therefore, civilians should only be guaranteed the right to own flint-lock, muzzleloading rifles.

So the police, military, and federal-agency statute enforcers will also have muzzleloaders? Well, that would be nice, but there was no intent in the 2nd amendment to limit technology to the people, and they were aware of and benefited from a game-changing technology in their time. The American civilian militia members were using privately-owned rifled weapons to provide accurate fire against the British. The rifle did not entirely replace the smoothbore, because the rifle took much more time to reload, but it did allow small numbers of Rebels to effectively harass soldiers on the move and incapacitate commanders in pitched battles.

Another thing, the 2nd amendment addresses arms. It doesn't say sporting arms or self-defense arms. It means weapons of war, including cannons and tanks (which are still legal by statute to own, not just natural law).

If SWAT has fully-auto arms when they're kicking in doors, or the USA military is carrying them around in our neck of the woods, then so should we. Parity to prevent tyranny.

Firearms: Sporting and Self-Defense Purposes

I could claim a myriad of sporting and self-defense purposes for a semi-automatic, combat-like rifle. I could say something like:

I enjoy preparing for the coming economic collapse.

I like playing Rambo on the weekends.

The Mayan calendar was wrong, but I know it's coming.

I enjoy three gun.

I've decided such a weapon is my best form of self defense.

But I don't need any of those justifications for owning and possessing my property. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. The natural right is not for some arms; it is for all arms.

The founders also wanted to make sure of one additional thing: that the common person would be an integral part of the defense of ones state, of ones military, as a citizen, as a private individual, with ones privately owned arms. A citizen needs an effective weapon that brings parity* with common military arms.


Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show Shoots Self In Foot
I'm glad to see that the major sponsors and vendor after vendor are abandoning the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, because they fail to see that shunning the black rifle or "tactical" weapons abandons the 2nd Amendment for a watered-down, "legitimate"-sporting-purpose privilege.

In the promoter's defense, Reed Exhibitions's markets the show as a "unique celebration of authentic hunting and fishing traditions." But the "modern sporting rifle" - I really hate that term, by the way - the modern sporting rifle has made major inroads into hunting and self-defense uses. Almost every maker of ARs makes a varmint version. Manufacturers of ARs and ammunition have been working for several years to develop systems that are effective for larger game. Some are not as scary looking, because they ironically have fright-disrupting camouflage. For example, there is the Remington R-25 in military-developed 7.62x51mm NATO.

http://remington.com/en/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-r-25-rifle.aspx

And not to put too fine a point on the legitimacy of using military-style arms for sporting stuff - because we don't need to care - but the deadly-for-humans Springfield 1903 in military-developed .30 '06 bagged plenty of game, whether it was "sporterized" or not.

And not to belabor the point, but hunters putting ARs in the field "normalizes" the use of ARs. And once again, we don't need to care, but "normalizing" is one part public relations and one part "a right not exercised is lost" foil.

Michael Bane, putting it pretty well:

WE ARE UNITED!
I've read today about how hunters and shooters have "different needs," and how the NRA membership is "separated" from the NRA executive. Let me use a simple, easily understood word here:
BULL! 

*A couple firearms Acts put us at a disadvantage, illegitimately.

The Shared Right To Nullify

Nullification - it's not just for states anymore. Actually, it never was JUST for states.

Proposed nullification by a state:

1 AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law
2 which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit
3 the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on
4 firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming;
5 providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.

- State of Wyoming, HOUSE BILL NO. HB0104, Firearm Protection Act

Nullification by a local government:

"My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold." 

- Sheriff Denny Peyman, Jackson County, Kentucky

Nullification by an individual:

"I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and [Diane Feinstein's] misinformation campaign against the American public."

- Cpl Joshua Boston, USMC (Ret)

"Elementary" Philosophers - Private Arms

Suggested by Stephen P. Halbrook PhD in "That Every Man Be Armed:"

Pro Private Arms:
Aristotle:
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (quoted on Quotes on the Rights to Bear Arms by Eric S. Raymond) Cicero:
"I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."(quoted in "The Sword & The Tome" by David Kopel) Algernon Sidney:
"Nay, all laws must fall, human societies that subsist by them must be dissolved, and all innocent persons be exposed to the violence of most wicked, if men might not justly defend themselves against injustice by their own natural right, when the ways prescribed by public authority cannot be taken." (quoted in "The Scottish and English Religious Roots of the American Right to Arms" by David Kopel) Also:
John Locke
Machiavelli

Anti Private Arms:
Plato
Caesar
Robert Filmer
Also:
Jean Bodin
Thomas Hobbes