|
Jesse's Hunting > Hunting Articles > Articles > Talking to an NRA Outcast about Guns, Government, and Politics
Talking to an NRA Outcast about Guns, Government, and Politics
Holly Heyser - JHO ProStaff
- Sacramento, CA
July 17, 2008
The National Rifle Association is a leviathan in American politics, known as the force that fights for the people’s right to own and use firearms.
 But in Richochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist” former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman paints a dismal picture of the organization, portraying it as a group stricken by internal battles, obsessed with control and more interested in hyping political battles to stimulate fundraising than with actually winning the battles.
As someone who has covered politics in three states as a newspaper reporter and editor, I thought Feldman’s book feels authentic. Of course, the NRA has referred to it as a work of fiction, and I’m in no position to judge whether all of his claims about the organization are accurate. But Feldman’s portrayal of how lobbying works and how the NRA is regarded in politics ring absolutely true.
If you accept Feldman’s premise that winning sometimes takes a back seat to fundraising at the NRA, it’s easy to come away from the book feeling powerless, wondering whether the organization can be counted on to fight gun owners’ political battles. So I interviewed Feldman recently to talk about the NRA, politics and gun rights, and I came away from the conversation with some intriguing ideas.
How can gun owners protect their rights?
Hands down, Feldman says one of the most important things gun owners can do is talk to their local elected officials, no matter what political party they’re from. “People look at local elections and say, ‘Because they’re Democrats, they’re against me,’ ” he said.
But he’s got two good reasons to start the conversation with the locals. First, local elected officials often become state and national elected officials, so they need to hear from gun-owning constituents from the start. “It’s much easier to get ‘em when they’re young and they’re looking for support,” he said.
The second reason is more surprising. “There are 10 million Americans that self-identify themselves as liberal and own guns,” he said. “That is three to four times the size of the NRA. That’s liberal, not left-leaning moderate.”
That means gun ownership and gun rights aren’t – or shouldn’t be – the exclusive domain of gun owners’ most reliable ally, the Republican Party. “It’s in my interest as a gun owner if the Democrats and Republicans both are vying for my support,” Feldman said.
Fifteen years ago, he feared the Republicans were taking ownership of the gun issue. “Once they say we own you, they can treat us the way the Democratic Party has treated blacks: ‘We own you,’ ” he said. “I want to be able to go to either party and have both be supportive. It keeps the other party honest.”
He doesn’t worry about that much now. “When (Hillary) Clinton and (Barack) Obama are claiming allegiance to the 2nd Amendment, that shows tremendous movement has been made,” he said.
What’s at stake for gun rights in this year’s presidential election?
"Not as much as you might think," Feldman said.
There’s no doubt about it, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain has a substantial history on the pro-gun side. “If I were voting on this issue alone, I would support McCain.”
But while gun owners worry about Obama’s record on guns and his understanding of hunters, Feldman said he has some hope for him on the issue because of a vote he took in Congress two years ago.
There was a bill to provide relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter proposed an amendment stating that any local government that disarms people in times of crisis will lose all of its disaster relief funding. This came in the wake of reports that some law enforcement around New Orleans had been disarming citizens who had committed no wrongdoing.
“Hillary Clinton erred on the side of government. Barack Obama voted with the pro-gun people on that amendment,” Feldman said. “I’m just guessing the sheriffs weren’t disarming wealthy white people. On that base level, he gets it. (Link to Second Amendment Foundation press release about the vote on the Vitter Amendment: http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=197)
Ideologically, there’s still no doubt McCain is a stronger advocate of gun rights – the positions Obama has taken against gun rights in the past have been well documented.
But in practical terms, Feldman believes the outcome of this election may not have a substantial effect on gun rights. Why? The only major gun issue he expects to come before Congress during the next administration is background checks on firearms purchasers at gun shows, and both candidates support background checks.
How about that U.S. Supreme Court decision in June on the Heller case?
The court’s 5-4 decision overturning Washington D.C.’s handgun ban “is bigger than people realize,” he said. “This may well have been the high-water mark for gun rights, constitutionally. This decision will probably stand for every one of your readers in their entire lifetime. I doubt this decision will ever be overturned – for the next 150 years, this will be there.”
Yes, there will still be battles, he said. “But the curtain has closed on this 40-year Act 1 that began with the Gun Control Act of 1968.”
Feldman did expected a stronger vote on the D.C. case – 6-3 or even 7-2 – but the fact that the case was decided by one vote doesn’t concern him. “It’s kind of like winning the World Series by one run. The record book doesn’t have a little asterisk.”
So what are the next battles to be fought?
For someone who has written so scathingly about some of the more ridiculous battles over gun rights, Feldman is surprisingly optimistic. “Ultimately,” he said, “what I hope will happen is that we will get smarter in this country on this issue.”
He said there’s broad agreement that four classes of individuals should not have guns: violent predators, terrorists, unsupervised juveniles and mental incompetents. What both sides of the debate need to do is evaluate every proposal in light of how it affects that goal. “If we say, ‘Wait a minute, is this an intelligent, rational law that actually might do something to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those four individuals?’ If the answer is ‘yes,’ then maybe it’s worth trying. But if it’s against guns with bayonet lug nuts, then we’ll cut down on drive-by bayonetings, from zero to zero.”
That’s the kind of willingness to compromise that put Feldman at odds with the NRA, leading to his ultimate ouster. In his book, he admits to mixed success: Compromise was an effective tactic for him on the issue of getting industry to provide child safety locks with handguns voluntarily, avoiding potentially more onerous restrictions from Congress. But the tactic backfired when he attempted to work with cities to prevent lawsuits against gun manufacturers – he compromised, and cities sued anyway.
Despite Feldman’s disagreement with the NRA on tactics, he still agrees with the organization’s bedrock contention that we need to enforce the laws that are on the books, because we’re not doing that very well now.
“When people are arrested, almost the first thing they plea bargain away is the gun felony,” he said. What law enforcement needs to do is start prosecuting far more aggressively when people who aren’t allowed to purchase guns (italics)attempt(end italics) to acquire them – even if they’re not successful. “Why don’t we go after them then, instead of waiting for them to finally get one? Why don’t we go after them then and convict them of that?”
For people who, like you, are disenchanted with the NRA, what other options to they have? What organizations can they support?
Feldman actually has never relinquished his membership in the NRA, and despite his concerns about the organization, he doesn’t discourage people from joining. “If it wasn’t for the NRA, I think we would’ve lost our gun rights long ago and far away,” he said.
But he does ignore the NRA’s requests for contributions because he believes those contributions primarily benefit the company that does the fundraising. “Why spend $2 million to raise $3 million?” he said. “Most groups don’t send direct-mail fundraising letters; they do it online, because it saves millions of dollars. Why doesn’t the NRA do that? Because they want to help the fundraisers. They’re in bed with their fundraisers.”
It’s difficult for an outsider to decide whether that statement is true. But what the NRA spends on fundraising is a matter of public record. The organization’s most recent available federal tax filing indicates it spent $22.7 million on fundraising in 2006 and received $45.9 million in total contributions, grants and gifts. That means 49 percent of all funds raised went to fundraising expenses. (Link to full tax filing (requires free website registration on www.guidestar.org): http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/530/116/2006-530116130-03b81f14-9O.pdf)
For those who don’t want to associate with the NRA, Feldman said other organizations worth considering are the Second Amendment Foundation (link to SAF: http://www.saf.org/), the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and American Hunters & Shooters Association (link to AHSA: http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php). “They’re doing something that hasn’t been recognized that’s helpful – they’re working with the Democrats, and ultimately that will prove to be very helpful,” he said.
Local sportsmen’s organizations are also a good idea. “I’d like to see more,” he said. “And I’m fascinated by the figure of the 10 million liberals owning guns. I’d like to see liberal gun owners start talking about things. I think it would send a hell of a statement to the politicians: Don’t mess with us – we’re everywhere.”
|
