As far as preserving civil liberties in America, I much preferred GOA over the NRA. While the NRA traditionally has been a great organization in preserving the heritage of marksmanship in America, somewhere in the late 90s or early 2000s the wheels came off. I don't think the CEO of such an organization should be making $800k/year.
GOA and SAF have gotten much more of my money and time for the last few years. I still think there is a large gap to fill if the NRA were to go away. Mostly around outreach, training, and insurance. The other guys are getting there, but the NRA is big for a reason.
Yes, many people forget that the NRA is more than politics. It helps range startup and operations, runs a training/safety/certification curriculum, facilitates sports/competition events, standards, and materials. These are dimensions that GOA and SAF have nothing to do with.
The foundational role it has in gun culture probably makes it a juicier target than their lobbying, considering they are consistently outspent by the gun control lobby in state ballot measures each year.
I can envision an NRA where paying the CEO $800k/year is warranted. But this NRA isn't it. This NRA has tied its fortunes to the Trumpist GOP and promoting tired culture war narratives, seriously harming their political influence and their ability to advance gun policy favored by gun owners.
Once again on hackernews the bastion of online discourse and rational debate, merely mentioning Trump gets you downvoted without any counterargument regardless of argument. If you support him at least make a case
Wouldn’t this be the logical result of the demonisation of guns by the left? I understand they can’t pretend to be bipartisan when one of the parties want to strip them of their rights.
No, it's pretty clearly counterproductive. Over the past 10 years, the NRA has successfully reduced the share of gun-friendly Democratic Party members from 25% to nearly 0%. (https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/nra-grades-2020-election/) Gun-friendly people on the left like myself are basically unable to talk about the issue nowadays; forget concealed carry or large-capacity magazines, in a lot of circles I'm not comfortable discussing even absolute basic things like "you might want a gun for home protection if you live in a high crime area".
Making your cause a parochial concern of a single political party is almost always going to be good for that party and bad for your cause.
> the NRA has successfully reduced the share of gun-friendly Democratic Party members from 25% to nearly 0%
While your trend is correct, I think you're mixing up cause and effect as evidenced by your later statement:
> in a lot of circles I'm not comfortable discussing even absolute basic things like "you might want a gun for home protection if you live in a high crime area"
That more closely describes those circles' perceptions and positions than anything else. A positive rating from the NRA for a Democrat seems like a bigger risk for the Democrat than the NRA and probably correlates with them being primary'd.
I'm not familiar with any cases of a Democratic candidate getting primaried for being too gun-friendly. Obviously it's hard to prove the direction of causation here, but it's my strong subjective sense that it's just become politically toxic to talk about guns positively when the biggest gun rights organization is leaning so hard into culture war nonsense.
So you're saying that the reason there are no pro-gun democrats anymore is not because democrats are very anti-gun, it's because a pro-gun democrat would be associated with the NRA which is "leaning so hard into culture war nonsense"? So basically its republican's fault that there are no pro-gun democrats?
Is it also republican's fault that there seem to be no democrats opposed to putting transgender women into women's sports?
Is it also republican's fault that repeating the n-word in the context of trying to have a discussion with a student about its meaning will get you fired?
Or maybe the better explanation for all this is that democrats have moved substantially to the left?
It's not the fault of Republicans. They're a big political party with positions on a lot of issues. It's the NRA's fault for allowing all these random controversies you're describing to get tied into the gun rights debate.
For a more concrete example, concealed carry has been a large and unambiguous gun rights success story, with shall-issue going from pretty rare in the 80s to near-universal today. What I'd expect an effective gun rights organization to produce is a roadmap for how to convince the holdouts. Illinois passed their shall-issue law with 76% in favor, and Washington has had it for decades; what lessons does this teach us about how to get left-leaning people on board? If a group of California residents wants to convince their sheriff to issue more permits or their assemblyperson to support statewide shall-issue, what should they say? I'd really like to see answers to these questions (please do send me links if you have any!), but as far as I can tell the NRA is wholly uninterested in thinking about them.
> in a lot of circles I'm not comfortable discussing even absolute basic things like "you might want a gun for home protection if you live in a high crime area"
Why not? What will be the consequences for you to state such an "absolute basic thing"?
It would be seen as a strong, disruptive political statement. Some people in my generation have legitimately never heard a pro-gun message other than the weird trolling the NRA prefers on their social media accounts, so when I say "you can take steps to feel safe when there's a burglar in your neighborhood" they hear this guy with his flamethrower: https://fb.watch/3wkI4gq4WM/
It's not really "the left", as most actual leftists I know also own guns. The problem is that the NRA basically took the side of school shooters, so now being a gun owner in liberal-left circles puts you on the side of the people who support school shootings.
Well, the party platform of the DNC is solidly anti-gun. The DNC is not the left, but I’m not sure the left is the the left either. ;)
It would suffice to say though that if you assume a democrat politician supports gun control either by personal conviction or the nature of caucusing, you would be right 95+% of the time. It is as much of a shame that a democrat majority is de facto hostile to gun rights as it is that the NRA hitched its wagon to unrelated culture issues.
A major reason why that shift happened was because if there was a pro-gun Democrat and a pro-gun Republican facing off against each other in a tight race, the NRA would back the pro-gun Republican and claim that the Democrat was going to take your guns away. The net result is that it is always a losing position for a Democrat to be pro-gun.
So over the past 20 years the pro-gun Democrats have almost entirely died off. The NRA is probably the single most significant driver of this shift.
There used to be pro-gun Democrats the NRA would give “A” ratings to, that’s true. But your reasoning about the demise of pro-gun Democrat politicians doesn’t make much sense. First, all else being equal, of course the interest of gun rights would side with the politician whose party is less hostile to gun rights. Again, all else being equal. Not sure how far you want to go back but as long as I’ve been alive the major federal gun control agendas have always been initiated by one party in particular. It may be fine to give an “A” rating to Democrat Dan’s record in support of gun rights, but if his election turns control of a legislature to a party openly hostile to the 2nd Amendment, Democrat Dan’s election on the balance isn’t going to be good, is it? To be honest, the NRA rarely goes beyond issuing their report card on a candidate’s voting record and public statements. I don’t recall seeing them “endorse” a politician where their opposition has a strong pro-gun record, though ai wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen if the election was high-profile enough. I’ve just never seen it happen.
As to why there aren’t outspoken pro-gun democrats, I hardly think you can blame the NRA for that. The NRA just doesn’t matter all that much, bogey man reputation aside. Realistically, how much of a chance does a Dem candidate have in a primary, all else being equal, if they are an outspoken advocate of gun rights? It impacts their funding, their volunteer support. The reality is that the DNC’s official platform is anti-gun, and a politician who doesn’t support a party’s platform (on either side of the aisle) is increasingly rare these days. It has more to do with the lack of opportunity for nuanced political positions.
Because it wasn't like this until the NRA ramped up their identification with the right. Again, as recently as 2010 there was a large minority of openly pro-gun people on the left.
To back that up, I know a great many left-leaning gun owners in LA that would never join the NRA as a matter of principle (due to its extreme positions), including members of law enforcement, retired military personnel, and regular joes who just like guns and things that go boom.
It’s a shame really. They don’t represent the gun owner as much as the manufacturers today. They were once a reputable civil rights org and now are more of a lobby.
I hope a new civil rights organization begins to lead and is able not be as fundamentalist as the NRA has become and lead the conversation towards a few common sense reforms.
It’s an important civil right and one we should cherish. It deserves a group committed to defending the bill of rights while also working to limit access to criminals.
Yes, "gun rights" has unfortunately become as extremist as politics.
Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc.
In fact the push from gun rights advocates is to move in the opposite direction: to allow reciprocal concealed carry in every state, reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc.
Poor Dick Metcalf, editor of Guns and Ammo — was shown the door when an editorial of his after Newtown suggested that maybe gun laws were too lax.
> He has stated that "way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement" and that "all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be". In terms of specific policies, he supports the requirement of adults getting a concealed carry license to take gun safety and handling classes.
Pro-2A folks push back against further restrictions because the restrictions are already numerous and do not achieve their stated aim.
Limiting magazine sizes is really annoying for people who comply with the law - it has no affect on those breaking it. Extending and manufacturing many common magazines is trivial.
Red flag laws are used before a crime is committed to limit a right. There is no defense to them since you can't defend a non-crime and it is impossible to reclaim your property. They are ripe for abuse by anyone upset at you.
There is already a safe storage requirement AND a mandate that locks be issued with a firearm. What is not required is that someone spend $400 or more for a 200lb box that may not be practical to install in an apartment - a requirement which would most heavily impact poor and minority firearm owners.
I have debated many folks who support gun control - they believe people do not have a right to bear arms, often do not understand firearms or the current firearm laws, and are afraid of firearms.
One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements.
If you think voter ID is a naked attempt at jim crow, you have no right demanding licensing requirements for firearms.
> One only needs to look at California to see that even the most insane gun control has no affect except to limit a constitutional right to those who can afford lawyers and insane requirements.
Except those laws are there on the books next to states with laws that are basically non-existent for gun control. so it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun.
regardless of your stance on guns that's not a good argument.
> it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun.
Completely false. It’s illegal for an out of state dealer to sell you a gun (or for any dealer to sell you a gun without a background check), and it’s illegal for you to bring a gun back into California unless you lived outside the state, or it was a gift from a parent or child.
If you are willing to buy guns illegally, you can do so more easily within California than by going out of state to do so.
With some exceptions not relevant here (e.g. people holding Federal Firearms Licenses), it is unlawful to buy a handgun in a state where one is not a resident. No gun store will sell or transfer a handgun to a non-resident. And if the state in question allows face to face private transactions, federal law requires the seller determine if the buyer is a resident of the state.
The last part isn't accurate. There is no law that requires this from non-licensees.
As a practical matter, I won't sell to someone I can't verify is a legal resident of my state and has a CCW permit, that way I know they're not a prohibited person -- but there's no law that requires me to do so.
Your correction is incorrect for at least some states. Texas requires a good faith belief (but not evidence per se) that the transferee is a legal resident of Texas (and they recommend but don't require asking for some kind of ID).
It sounds like you said what I said... Except that the discussion was specifically about federal law, there are various states that have additional laws.
>it's trivial to go there and get a non-complying gun.
Is it? I haven't tried buying a gun in another state because that's illegal, but I'm assuming it would take some effort.
And honestly, what's the point? For the most part, the things that California bans aren't guns themselves. The bans are focused on how you put the pieces together, as well as what plastic doodads you attach to the gun. It would take about 3 minutes and a screwdriver to turn my two California-legal rifles into two felonies. No need to drive to Arizona and find a gun seller who is willing to break the law by selling to someone from out of state.
>Gun owners are not allowed to even entertain tougher gun laws whether they be red flag laws, requiring you own a safe, restrictions on magazine size, etc.
Why would people who's seen their rights restricted in piecemeal fashion over the last century be willing to compromise? Seems perfectly logical for them to draw a line in the sand and not give an inch.
I think because a plurality, or nearly, favors stricter gun laws. I believe it’s very likely this plurality will grow and the risk gun owners face is they won’t be the ones leading the discussion, or even have a seat at the table.
This is an opportunity to lead and propose effective solutions that don’t infringe. Otherwise the plurality could grow and just do it on their terms. Or get large enough to revoke 2a (which wound be awful imo) and use military force to confiscate firearms and lock offenders in prison.
> reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc.
That's wrong. IIRC, the NFA only requires that machine guns and silencers be registered and taxed. See this Forgotten Weapons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY. It's for a fully automatic M-16 with a device that makes it sound like an AK-47 that's regulated as a silencer. It was up for auction, but the winner would have to pay double the tax because it's a "two stamp" gun.
Well, I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. restricts ownership to people who can pay the $200 tax and fill out some forms), but I wouldn't describe that as a meaningful "restrict[ion on] ownership," which I think would be things like bans or hard-to-get licensing requirements.
With the Hughes amendment closing the machinegun registry, it effectively restricts machinegun ownership to those who can afford to pay $5,000 for a low quality item and $20,000 or more for something for something decent.
The NFA is an outdated, obsolete and unconstitutional.
You need a $200 tax stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a short barrel rifle, but not for a .556 AR or AK "Pistol", even though they are almost identical.
You can't put a vertical forward grip on your AR "Pistol" because then it would become an illegal AOW (any other weapon). But if you put a bipod or some other substitute on it, then it's still a handgun.
You need a $200 stamp with a 9+ month waiting period to buy a suppressor, even though in other countries with supposedly stricter gun laws, suppressors are over the counter items.
You can't modify your gun to shoot full-auto, but you can put a binary trigger on it, which fires 1 shot when you pull the trigger, and another when you release it.
There’s plenty of room to criticize the NRA, but this doesn’t seem on point. The industry lobby is the NSSF. The NRA does far more than politics that is of practical benefit to range operators (insurance, startup and ops guidance), individual gun owners (training, safety, local organization), and sports (event facilitation, sponsorship, material support, rule-making). Many people outside the gun world don’t see that at all, but it’s what makes the destruction of the NRA all the more important to the gun control lobby.
I agree the NRA needs to “be better”, but let’s not forget that much of the gun community are enthusiasts, in that they are fans of the manufacturers the same way a comic book fan supports Marvel and DC. They want more product, they enjoy ads, they enjoy events. They are hardly victims of the manufacturers any more than a motorcycle enthusiast is a victim of Ducati.
Gun manufacturers are represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a separate lobbying organization that, while mostly ignored due to the media's fascination with painting the NRA as the root of the world's evils, is in fact well funded and a presence on the hill.
Once paranoia-based gun sales became a pervasive and profitable, it was my impression that manufacturers and their funding took over the NRA. Although causality may be reversed there.
I would also be curious to see if the left's accusations of foreign funding / interference had any truth.
The NRA receives relatively little funding from gun manufacturers, and most of what it does receive from gun manufacturers is in the form of advertisments in the NRA's official publications, etc. The vast majority of the NRA's funding is from individual members.
The gun industry has its own well-funded lobby, the NSSF. They don't really need the NRA.
Unless the NRA is straight-up lying on their IRS paperwork, they get a fairly small amount of money from manufacturers. The majority comes from individual donations and membership dues
