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NRA  is  that  your  figures are abysmally  out-of-date,  and  you  have  no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 their  bylaws.]

"...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