Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site osu-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!osu-eddie!karl From: karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <30@osu-eddie.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 20:47:05 EST Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.30 Posted: Fri Jan 4 20:47:05 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 04:39:46 EST References: <245@gargoyle.UUCP> <259@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <> <268@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: You really don't want to know Lines: 261 Fair warning: this article is rather long. Before adding this introductory paragraph, EMACS me informed that it was 12K long. Those without a strong disposition on the subject may wish to 'n' right away. ---------- >>This is incorrect. What the US SC did was to decline to hear the case, >>partly at the request of the NRA, in order that it might be heard by the >>Illinois SC first. This is drastically different from having the US SC >>"uphold" the decision; they actually decided to ignore it officially for the >>time being. > >No, YOU are incorrect. On October 3, 1984, the US Supreme Court >let stand a Court of Appeal ruling >which stated, ``...possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the >right to keep and bear arms.'' ---------- OK, I'll bite. In order to properly consider your claim, I wish to know a full, detailed reference which I can use to hunt it down myself. I will admit openly to being suspicious about this claim, because if in fact the US SC had upheld anything with respect to the Morton Grove case, it would have received a phenomenal amount of news time on newspapers, TV, and radio, and I don't recall seeing any at all. So, please: supply us with a complete reference. If you wish, just post the whole thing, if it's not too terribly long; but whatever you do, please give it a contextual reference point. ---------- > The idea that the NRA represents "Government by the People" is >laughable. ---------- We'll see. The primary problem I see with your posting on the subject of the NRA is that your figures are abysmally out-of-date, and you have no knowledge (and I mean that literally, NO knowledge) of the makeup of the NRA. Each point in turn... ---------- >First, the NRA has less than 2 million members. ---------- False. I refer you to the following the following issue of *American Rifleman*, which is one of the publications of the NRA. In particular, it contains each month a column titled, "Here We Stand," by NRA Executive VP Harlon Carter, and a large section called the Official Journal. November 1984 issue, page 7, Carter's HWS column: "There are now three million of us. NRA members, loyal and decent citizens. Bigger than most churches in America." That is indeed what he means: a full 3 million people in the US belong to the NRA. To quote further from later in the same column: "In 1978 NRA had less than a million members. Six years later, with three million dues-paying members, NRA has gained an average of over 25,000 *net* new members per month. Over 25,000 *net* new members per month for six years. And this year is the same as the others. The people are coming to the NRA and they are remaining. They are renewing their membership at a higher rate than ever before in history." [italics his.] As I will show later, HCI hasn't got "membership" in any normal sense of the word. Hence, they can't even discuss the concept of "renewing" the way the NRA can. ---------- > Second, in >order to vote on policy in the NRA, you must be a life member. ---------- False a second time. In the December 1984 issue of *American Rifleman*, page 51 (Official Journal section), in an article having to do with members' rights and responsibilities (which I will be detailing later for other reasons): "Under the NRA's bylaws, life members AND ANNUAL MEMBERS FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS [caps mine] are permitted to vote..." The reasoning, as I understand it, and with which I am in complete agreement, is that NRA doesn't want people becoming members for one year just so they can vote in the next elections. This keeps people from trying to "stuff the ballot box." So they require 5 years' membership before voting privileges are given. A perfectly good idea. In 1984, of the 3 million total members, 739,978 were eligible to vote. Same article, same page. I presume that the rest weren't eligible because they just hadn't been around long enough, since most of the remaining 2.3 million were gained in very recent years, i.e., less than 5 years' membership. ---------- >There >are fewer than 100,000 life members. ---------- False a third time. Actually, it's closer to 400,000. Considering that we gain 25,000 new people each month, that's a reasonable if not completely overwhelming average. The problem is that it costs (I think; my figures may be out of date here) $300 for a Life Membership; it's the equivalent of a 20-year annual membership. That's a few more bucks than most people are willing to shell out at one time for such a thing. ---------- >Third, you must be present at the >yearly conventions to vote--this means that NRA policy is decided by the >1000 or so people who actually attend yearly conventions. ---------- False a fourth time. Voting members get a ballot when they are needed for elections; voting members mail the ballots in. No big deal. (I'm not a voting member yet; I've only been an annual member for 3 years now.) ---------- >Government >by the People? More like Government by the Elite Gun Nuts. ---------- False a fifth time. Even if you're not a voting member, there are many, many things you can do. Specifically, I cite the December 1984 issue of *American Rifleman*, the same article from which I quoted before on the subject of who can vote: "--NRA non-voting members receive at least one association publication monthly. "--NRA non-voting members pay predetermined annual dues upon receiving a bill from the NRA. "--NRA non-voting members enjoy the privilege of competing in matches, receiving advice and assistance concerning firearms, range constrution, club management and competitions, and BEING HEARD AT ALL OFFICIAL MEETINGS OF THE MEMBERS, ATTENDING ALL MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND CIRCULATING AND SUBMITTING PETITIONS FOR NOMINATING DIRECTORS. "--NRA non-voting members MAY FORM COMMITTEES TO CONSIDER, DEBATE, AND RECOMMEND POLICIES, STRATEGIES, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. "--A non-voting member MUST BE GIVEN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND ALLOWED A FORMAL HEARING BEFORE HIS MEMBERSHIP MAY BE TERMINATED." [caps all mine.] If you don't think that gives significant influence and power to those who don't actually vote in the NRA, you misunderstand the power of a petition written to the right people with a suitable number of signatures on it. ---------- > By the way, Handgun Control, Inc. has about a million members. ---------- False a sixth time. Same article in Dec 1984 *American Rifleman* as before (page 51): "Prior to [a ruling against HCI by the Federal Elections Commission], HCI had loosely defined 'members' of the organization as anyone who made any type of contribution within the preceeding 24 months. There was no official membership apparatus or procedures specified in the organization's bylaws--a direct violation of federal law. [it doesn't take much to verify this -- just look at theirbylaws.] "...HCI had amassed more than $122,000 from more than 600 contributors in 1982. Under federal law, corporate political action committees may solicit funds only from employees, their families and stockholders, while legally recognized membership organizations [such as the NRA] may solicit from their rank-and-file. HCI employed approximately 12 people at the time..." A similar complaint was submitted against the NRA, by HCI of course. The FEC dropped it on the floor with the following comment: "In this matter we believe that the NRA organization provides all of its members with sufficient rights, obligations, and privileges [see preceding list]...[We] find no reason to believe that the Nation Rifle Association violated the United States code." Anyone inclined to contest the accuracy of these items is free to check facts for themselves. You will find that the last complaint was filed by HCI on 27 Aug and dropped by the FEC on 23 Oct. ---------- >I submit that this organization deserves to be considered a viable force. ---------- I submit that 600 people contributing to an organization over the course of a year doesn't constitute anything at all of substance. I submit that 12 people constitutes even less. Now, they certainly have *supporters* and *sympathizers* in the vicinity of the 1 million mark. Fine. But if HCI has a million armchair quarterbacks, NRA still has 3 times that many active, annual members (as opposed to HCI's "contributors" -- not a regular "member" in any sense recognized by the appropriate law-making bodies which it is trying to influence). ---------- >So much for your "two orders of magnitude". ---------- Actually, it's closer to 4 orders of magnitude. 600 divides into 3 million about 5000 times. ---------- > The NRA USED to be a responsible sporting organization. ---------- We still are. In the words of President Reagan at an address to the 1983 NRA annual convention: "No group does more to promote gun safety and respect for the laws of this land than the NRA." [October 1984 *American Rifleman*, page 7, Carter's HWS column.] ---------- >Recently, >however, they have dedicated themselves to the opposition of ALL legislation >regulating gun owners, including reasonable legislation like the ban >on cop-killer bullets, which was favored by almost every major law >enforcement organization in the country. ---------- Uh-huh. Like the Fraternal Order of Police, which issued a statement including the accusation that HCI must bear most of the blame for the increased awareness among criminals of the existence of "cop-killer bullets"; but it seems that, even up to the present day, no police officer has ever been hit, much less killed, by a "cop-killer bullet." Oh, about that term: "cop-killer bullet" is a term coined by [can you guess?] HCI. It's got great emotional impact; I give them a hand for good marketing technique. The NRA opposed the legislation banning it for a variety of reasons. Specifically, from Howard Pollock, NRA President, in "The President's Column" of the Dec 1984 *American Rifleman*: "'Why in the world would the NRA opposed the passage of federal legislation that outlawed the so-called 'cop killer' bullet?' The simple reason is that the legislation...contained such a broad definition of the metal-piercing ammunition sought to be controlled that it would have outlawed most conventional sports ammunition available to hunters and other sportsmen...Armor-piercing ammunition has been in existence for use in rifles for at least 70 years. [An NBC 'News Magazine' show] neglected to mention that not a single armor-clad police officer has ever had a bullet-resistant vest penetrated by armor-piercing ammunition. "Predictably, after the televised show...the sensational exploitation of the issue continued, despite the fact that law enforcement officials [such as the Fraternal Order of Police] across the nation voiced anger because the media was educating criminals on a subject that previously had never been a problem. [now let's get technical on exactly what was wanted in the legislation...] "The [legislation] was designed to ban the manufacture, importation or sale of all bullets capable of penetrating 18 layers of Kevlar (the synthetic fiber from which most police bullet-resistant vests are made) when fired from a handgun with a barrel length of 5" or less. "Hunting bullets for rifle or pistol, suitable for ordinary deer hunting and like-size animals, will generally penetrate a Kevlar vest..." That's why the NRA opposed it. Because it's a monumentally stupid definition of what constitutes "armor-piercing" ammunition. Ammunition suitable for hunting can be fired from certain .25 pistols, for example. There is no way to distinguish sufficiently between what is banned and what is not. This is a major objection to attempts at "gun control": the steps being attempted to control guns (a) treat a symptom, not a cause [especially in view of the fact that no police officer has ever been so injured] and (b) could potentially be used as a stepping stone to larger bans. It's similar to the attempts to ban "Saturday Night Specials." When you can create a definition of a SNS which doesn't include the .22 Smith&Wesson revolver hidden in a certain dark corner of one of my closets (I keep it there for safety reasons), then I'll listen to the suggestion. But not before. Disclaimer: I do not represent the NRA in any official capacity. My relationship with them is as a loyal, enthusiastic member. I am not even a voting member yet, having been a member less than the required 5 years. Errors in these statements and quotations are my own and the NRA is not responsible for them. -- From the badly beaten keyboards of him who speaks +-best address in textured Technicolor *TyPe* f-O-n-T-s... | | Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +---> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl