TIME TO MOVE ON
NRA Still Getting it Right, Except on Tester
Lately, it seems like all gun news is good news. Perhaps it's time to let common sense be the primary gun law of the land.By Bill Schneider, 10-08-10
 |
|
 | |
| Senator Jon Tester. Campaign photo courtesy of jontester.com. | |
|
Here’s something that isn’t news to anybody. The number of guns Americans own has skyrocketed, but how is this significant?
An incredible--and later proven unfounded--paranoia swept the country starting back in 2008 when it started to look like a perceived anti-gunner, Barack Obama, might become Commander-in-Chief. The rest of the economy tanked, but thanks to Obama, the gun industry flourished and had its best three-year run ever. Firearms manufacturers worked three shifts per day and still couldn’t make enough guns, especially handguns, to meet demand. Not only has the number of handguns owned by private citizens at least doubled, to more than 100 million handguns, about one handgun for every two adults, but sales of long guns and shotguns has also soared. Americans now own at least 250 million guns, more than one per adult, including at least 20 million firearms gun control advocates might call “assault weapons.” The number of privately owned firearms continues to go up by at least 4 million per year, and interestingly, many new handgun buyers are women.
You might have heard about the gun craze being centered in rural, conservative southern and western states. Wrong. It’s everywhere. Let us not forget that 81 percent of our population lives in urban environments.
Watching all this happen--in utter disbelief and shock, I’m sure--gun control advocates have frequently predicted “terrible consequences.” But what really happened?
The FBI’s recently released crime statistics give us that answer. Now that more private citizens own more guns than ever, violent crime has sunk to a 35-year low, including a 6 percent drop just in the twelve months between 2008 and 2009 when Americans were buying every gun they could get their hands on, even at seriously inflated prices, plus many tons of ammo, if they could find any on the shelves. Murder decreased by 8 percent; robbery by 9 percent; and 4-5 percent decreases in other violent crimes.
Remember the Obama paranoia? Ha. That was a laugher. Not only has the new president not pushed for any more gun control legislation, he has signed several pro-gun laws, including the most pro-gun bill in a long time, legislation allowing open carry and concealed carry of loaded guns in national parks.
Now, before my gun nutty friends rush to the comment section, I am not saying Barack Obama has philosophically morphed into a pro-gun guy. I am saying the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the rest of the gun lobby has put up such an impenetrable political shield that neither the White House or Congress will even consider trying to breach it.
So, do we need any more proof that more guns do not lead to more crime? Even predictions of chaos in the national parks fell flat. As far as I know, even though loaded guns, concealed or open carry, have been allowed since February, there hasn’t been one shooting or poaching incident, at least in the northern Rockies. If I missed one or two, well, I missed one or two. It still makes my point, as I’ve predicted earlier (click here), the national park gun issue is a yawner.
Perhaps it’s time to finally stop worrying about guns and start worrying more about something that matters. The gun lobby needs to stay on the job keeping the defense of the Second Amendment impenetrable, but people giving money to anti-gun groups, well, if you really want to help the country, forget guns and donate to nonprofits trying to get real health care reform (that insurance companies don’t like), Wall Street reform (that big banks don’t like), bringing our troops home from the unwinnable Middle East conflicts (aka the Three Trillion Dollar Wars), or giving corporations real incentives to hire people (instead letting them prioritize keeping the stock price high). Even if the Second Amendment was repealed and government suddenly had the power to register and control guns, it would be impossible.
Tester, the NRA Sure Missed This One.
You may have heard the NRA referred to as the National Republican Army because the country’s most powerful lobby rarely endorses Democrats over Republicans. That was certainly true back during Montana’s epic race in 2006 between three-term Republican Senator Conrad Burns and upstart Democrat Jon Tester with the newcomer narrowly edging out the powerful incumbent by only 2,847 votes. Even though Tester had a perfect record of supporting Second Amendment rights, the NRA endorsed Burns.
I used that endorsement as evidence (click here) of the NRA not really caring about wildlife conservation or the preservation of our hunting heritage. Otherwise, given the choice between two candidates, both with A ratings, the gun rights powerhouse would’ve endorsed Tester because he had a sterling conservation record compared to Conrad Burns, one of the “Dirty Dozen.”
That’s one endorsement they must still talk about back in the NRA boardrooms. Tester turned out to be the congressional spearhead of the gun lobby, aggressively supporting every pro-gun bill, initiating his own pro-gun legislation, and fighting any new anti-gun regulation and administrative rules, and not just for Montana, but nationally. He has probably done as much, if not more, for gun owners in the past four years as any Republican.
Most recently, Senator Tester has made headlines by taking the lead in pushing the State Department to allow the sale of thousands of WWII-vintage rifles, but that’s only one of many moves the junior Senator from Montana has made on behalf of gun owners. He also supported allowing guns on Amtrak; fought United Nations efforts to restrict gun ownership; pushed for a national cross-state standard for concealed carry permit holders; helped repeal firearm registration and other anti-gun regulation in Washington, D.C.; warned Attorney General Eric Holder not to push for more gun control laws or regulations; signed congressional letters and amice briefs supporting recent Supreme Court pro-gun rulings and the national park gun rule; battled to keep the Department of Defense from destroying used brass handloaders use; and probably a lot more I’ve forgotten.
The point is, Jon Tester has done more for gun owners than Conrad Burns ever would have. He has gone out of his way to help gun owners, not just going with the flow and making a convenient vote here and there to keep his NRA rating up.
I’m sure the NRA will endorse Tester when he runs for re-election in 2012, but will the big cheeses at the NRA have the backbone to fess up and admit they screwed up back in 2006?
Speaking of NRA Ratings.
Incidentally, you might have heard that there’s an election coming up on November 2, so here are the NRA ratings for some key gubernatorial and congressional races in this region (click here to see the rest):
COLORADO: Governor--Dan Maes (R) ?; John Hickenlooper (D) F; Senate--Ken Buck (R) A, Michael Bennet (D) C+; House of Representatives--Mike Fallon (R) AQ, Diana DeGrett (D) F; Stephen Bailey (R) A, Jared Polis (D) F; Scott Tipton (R) A, John Salazar (D) A; Cory Gardner(R) A, Betsy Markey (D) A; Doug Lamborn (R) A, Kevin Bradley (D) ?; Mike Coffman (R) A, John lerlage (D ?; Ryan Frazier (R) A; Ed Perlnutter (D) F.
IDAHO: Governor--Butch Otter (R) A+, Keith Allrred (D) B+; Senate--Mike Crapo (R) A+, Tom Sullivan (D) AQ; House of Representative--Raul Labrador (R) A; Walt Minnick (D) B+; Mike Simpson (R) A, Mike Crawford (D) ?.
MONTANA: House of Representatives--Dennis Rehberg (R) A+, Dennis McDonald (D) ?.
WYOMING: Governor--Matthew Mead (R) A; Leslie Petersen (D) B+; House of Representatives--Cynthia Lummis (R) A, David Wendt (D) F.
Surprise, surprise. Old habits die hard. The NRA always lists the Republican first and endorsed the Republican in most of these races--all but two Democrats, Salazar and Markley in Colorado.
Footnote: The “?” rating, according to the NRA means the candidate refused to answer its questionnaire, “often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners.” The “AQ” rating means the candidate made the right responses to the survey, but has no significant voting record on gun rights.
To read NewWest.Net’s extensive coverage of the NRA and gun rights issues, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
PS: Much more telling than the endorsements is the direct donations and independent expenditures. Visit Opensecrets.org and check the NRA's direct donations: its about 30 to 1 in favor of R's. They have even given nearly twice as much to crazy Sharon Angle as they have to Reid!
Jim Crow certainly had an impact on NRA.
There needs to be a hunting/gun rights organization for independents and Democrats.
Just because I shoot, hunt, and have guns to protect my family doesn't mean I want to support the big corporations, Wall Street, trample on reproductive rights, privatize Medicare, love oil companies, or force people into some kind of right wing Christianity. This is my view of the Republicans, more or less
The Washington Pravda Post just had an article about the NRA endorsing 14 friendly Dems in 20 House races because the incumbents were in fact good on guns.
I sometimes worry about that policy, but on the other hand, if these friendly legislators get enough seniority, or outlive morons like Delllums, Conyers, Rangel et al, then the Democratic leadership would not allow crummy bills to pass and the party would no longer be, as a whole, against firearms rights.
On the other hand, the situation in the Senate is different.
Both Assault Weapons Banner (1994) and Builder (2010) Max Baucus and Jon Tester failed on their Supreme Court votes for Sotomayor and Kagan.
It's possible that guns in parks legislation could be found unconstitutional for some strange liberal reason, and both these Democrats seem to find the risk of having all their pro-gun legislative efforts blown out of the water less than the threat of party punishment. So that kind of underscores the bottom line.
It's not difficult to understand. As a party, the Democrats are much more likely to try to further restrict gun ownership and/or use. That's just the way it is. Nancy Pelosi is about as anti-gun as a politician can get. (Obama probably is as well, but he's much smarter and more pragmatic than Pelosi.)
That's very interesting that Tester hasn't had a hunting license for years, yet he poses as a hunter. (I'm not a hunter, but I'm an NRA Life Member and own guns. But I don't pose as a hunter, either.) Reminiscent of John Kerry's duck-hunter photo-op from a few years back; Kerry probably hasn't fired a gun since he left Vietnam.
===quote===
A lot of the last-minute attack ads here in Montana have been the usual stuff: Republican Sen. Conrad Burns takes money from Big Oil; Democrat Jon Tester is a pussycat on terrorism and doesn't care about kids seeing Internet porn. But one ad just cracked me up when I heard it, driving to the polls this morning. Some hunter calls the Tester HQ to invite him to join the guys in shooting a little white-tail, only to have the Tester receptionist admit that hasn't had a hunting license in years.
Cue dire music.
So during an interview with Tester this afternoon I mention this ad, hoping to inject some levity into our chat, but he won't crack a smile. His eyes go steely, and he delivers what sounds like a practiced defense: He uses guns to shoot gophers and vermin, and he doesn't hunt big game only because he has a butchering business and he doesn't need the meat.
"So your defense is you shoot gophers?"
===end quote===
As for the NRA supporting Democrats I find it a bit odd that Bill failed to mention that the NRA is supporting 2 Dems for the US senate and 61 for the House. See: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/gun-rights-surprise-nra-supports-many-democrats
While working on this column, I asked Tester's office for a photo i.e. something hunting or shooting, but no response. I had to search long and hard through a lot of campaign photos and finally found something, and you can see what I found above.
I agree, no hunter orange, obviously staged for a photo op, etc. I suspect it will disappear off his campaign website after this, as it should.
But I guess I don't think this is the point I'm trying to make. Senator Tester is now going out of his way to support gun rights and get that coveted NRA endorsement next time around.And Derek, yes, I really think he will get the endorsement if he is running against anybody except Denny Rehberg who will probably get it over Jon Tester regardless of what he has done. They might also take a pass on that race because the NRA needs both of them.
And I gave up smoking about 40 years ago. I just write like I still do it.
Bill
BTW, Bill fails to mention that Tester voted for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Ct. The NRA opposed those nominations I believe.
Forevermore Brian was never seen without a horse, hat, gun, better yet all 3. I know John, he doesn't hunt, so what, he's still my best chance and I don't even farm. Like I told him the last time I saw him, I'm the other democrat in Chouteau County and he has my vote for what its worth.
===quote===
The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.
The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.
===end quote===
Given the stand the NRA took on Reid, why should anyone expect the NRA to endorse Tester let alone argue support is owed?
NRA may shoot down Republican dreams to win back House
By Muriel Kane
Thursday, October 7th, 2010 -- 11:08 a
"According to the Washington Post, the NRA "has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority."
1994 the NRA even send me a bumper-sticker that said something to the effect of: "The NRA needs Pat Williams in Congress". Williams NRA grade was always an "A-".
When you say Sportsman for Bush was a viable conservation minded political force. It might have been. But you have to know that it was if you believed in destroying habitat and endorsing gun bills without regard to people's integrity.
I work in an inner-city school and the number of guns available to emotionally immmature, unstable teenagers is off the charts. My students have been shot, maimed and killed by errant bullets from guns. Some of the victims were in my classes, some of the perpetrators were in my classes. In an informal survey (by me) taken at an impromptu time and without pressure, told me that almost everyone in a class of 20 owned, or had access to a gun, handgun or shotgun and that there was not one hunting license in the group. So, when urban politicians try to make a difference in these kids lives by removing handguns, they are slapped silly by the mighty NRA.
Sometimes we all just have to think. Unfortunately, that is beyond the scope and ken of many Americans.
What I cannot understand is how the NRA gets away with the impression that they're about protecting the rights of hunters to own guns. If this was just about hunters' rights then most people would have no problem with gun ownership. The problem is that there are real people getting shot and killed around this country (and Mexico thanks to our weak gun laws) because of weak gun laws and there is no one protecting their rights (e.g., to be alive). The NRA has taken a gun rights over all and everything else be damned attitude. And innocent people are losing their lives because of it. The NRA and their rabid supporters could give a damn about this country, just as long as they have their guns.
Any honest reading of the 2nd Amendment (meaning not by a right wing Supreme Court) would show that unrestricted gun ownership had to do with having a militia. But that was in the day before we had a standing army and a need to protect our country from the very pissed off British.
Meanwhile, in Republican states such as Idaho, the need to hunt wolves is there and the state is dumbfounded as to what to do.
Anytime there is a tough law or a tough situation, Reds and Blues shy from the thing as if it were an anathema because the media might hurt their office, their pay, their pension, their three mos. off, their constituents, their self righteous need to be wanted. etc.
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.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Let us not lose sight of Thomas Jefferson's vision!
I would love to say that i am going to buy another shotgun, because i want a bird gun, but I hesitate for fear that i contribute to the gun buying frenzy that was created by obama's appointment, that is a direct result of the nra's far reaching influence on the minds of americans.
PS: Jon is a good Senator. He supports many good ideas, the latest of which is improved research on prostate cancer, not a gun issue as I see it.
I love my guns like a fine woodworking tool, but seeing kids shot and killed, maimed and in the hospital and seeing public figures, politicians, rock stars, and even Presidents shot down in the street is getting to be a continuous theme.
It would be nice to own a gun...and not a multi ammo, long clip glock that has no justified reason for being sold to a mentally unstable person, without someone screaming first amendment rights when they are refused something like that. what the...?
we have to defend someone who wants a pistol that shoots 30 rounds? in the vernacular of my students, "boy, please."
Daryl Hunter write that Jefferson said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
So my question to anyone who actually believes this is: Where have you been? During the Bush years we saw our cilivl liberties eroded and there wasn't a peep out of you. During the Clinton years we began to give our economy over to the Chinese and all you could talk about was Whitewater. During the Reagan years we illegally funded the Contras with money we got from selling weapons to the Iranians and again there was silence. And throughout the past 30 years we've seen the middle and lower classes decimated by economic policies that have favored the ultra-wealthy and there hasn't been a peep.
So when are you going to protect yourselves " from the tyranny of the government"? Or are you just a bunch of blowhards chasing fantasy boogeymen? My guess is the latter. If you cared half as much about the way our economy is stacked against everyone but the top 10% as you did about your guns maybe our economy would be fairer.