The NRA's REAL target: Your wallet

The NRA's Main Target? Its Members' Checkbooks.

By Richard Feldman

Sunday, December 16, 2007; B03

The bulletin came over the radio as I was driving home on Dec. 5:

"Nine dead, five wounded in shooting massacre at an Omaha mall."

It was tragic news. But even as I lamented the lives lost, I was

hearing the questions I knew would immediately arise as the two sides

in the endless debate on guns in America squared off once again. "Why

don't we ban all military-style rifles?", one side would ask, while

the other would demand, "Why did the mall prevent law-abiding citizens

from carrying guns for self-protection?"

I've been down this road more times than I care to count. But the

truth is that much of the public debate over gun rights and gun

control is disingenuous. Gun owners of every stripe -- liberal,

moderate, conservative -- and non-owners alike can and do agree that

violent criminals, juveniles, terrorists and mental incompetents have

no right to firearms. Federal and state laws, despite poor enforcement

by the courts, underscore that. Further, there's no significant debate

-- nor should there be -- over private ownership of guns for lawful

purposes such as target shooting, hunting, self-protection and

collecting.

What we do have, though, is an organization whose senior leadership is

dedicated to keeping the gun debate alive and burning in the American

consciousness, for its own self-serving and self-preserving reasons.

That organization is the National Rifle Association.

Unfortunately for American gun owners, the nation and the NRA itself,

this major lobbying group has become intoxicated with money and

privilege. The leadership has lost sight of its mission. Safeguarding

the rights of gun owners has become secondary to keeping the

fundraising machinery well greased and the group's senior staff

handsomely compensated.

I know, because I once worked for it.

In 1984, I landed my dream job as Northeast regional representative of

the NRA. I was a young lawyer, keen on politics and the Second

Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This post promised to indulge

both passions, and for a time it did. But soon enough, I was watching

with growing dismay as the NRA morphed from a reasonable, responsible

voice of sportsmen and firearms owners into a giant money machine that

provides more benefits to its insiders than to its 3 million-plus

members.

During my tenure at the NRA, the theme was "We're not in the business

of fundraising; we fundraise to stay in business." The "business" of

the NRA then was defending the Second Amendment rights of a

considerable number of Americans (if pollsters are correct that guns

are kept in almost one of every two American homes). But today, the

association's primary business is fundraising. And nothing keeps the

fundraising machine whirring more effectively than convincing the

faithful that they're a pro-gun David facing down an invincible anti-

gun Goliath.

In the NRA's lexicon, "compromise" is a dirty word, code for gun

owners' surrendering their rights while getting nothing in return from

gun-control advocates. Compromise is all give and no get. That

definition echoes and re-echoes in the NRA's fundraising letters,

which whip the membership into the check-writing frenzy that built the

association into the impressive grass-roots political juggernaut it is

today.

It stands to reason that cooperation among parties is the way to find

solutions to deep-seated societal problems. Given its size, resources

and influence, the NRA could and should be a force in solving firearms-

related problems. But it is not leading such efforts even when Second

Amendment protections are being denied.

Take the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before

the Supreme Court. It was the libertarian Cato Institute, not the NRA,

that took up the plight of D.C. residents who seek firearms for

personal protection. Before the case reached the high court, the NRA

did its best to derail it. Why? Because the District gun ban is one of

the reddest flags the organization could wave to inflame its

membership. If the NRA were to "solve" the D.C. gun-ban problem, it

would lose some powerful talking points for getting the check-writing

machinery rolling. Now that the case looks like a winner, the

association has climbed aboard the bandwagon and will be asking for

"emergency" donations to defray its legal costs.

The NRA needs dragons to slay. It's a heady feeling, striding off to

battle the bad guys, whether they're Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.),

Rosie O'Donnell or the anti-gun groups that clamored for the hide of

Bernhard Goetz, the geeky New York subway rider who used a pistol to

fend off what he believed to be a threat to his life in 1984. I used

to love it myself. I never dreamed that one day I'd be one of the

dragons.

In 1997, after I'd left the NRA, I was running a legislative trade

association for the firearms industry (Colt, Glock, Remington et al.).

That's when I did the unforgivable, at least in the NRA's eyes: I

found a workable solution to the problematic issue of child-safety

locks on guns.

I shortstopped proposed gun-lock legislation predicted to be another

slam dunk for the anti-gun movement by offering an option that made

everyone happy. Well, almost everyone. In the White House Rose Garden

-- standing before the NRA's bete noire, President Bill Clinton -- I

announced that the firearms industry was instituting a voluntary

program to include a gun lock with every handgun sold. As the

television news cameras rolled, Clinton announced that he was

satisfied and that no mandatory gun-lock law was needed. But NRA

commanders were up in arms. They denounced me as a traitor to the

sacred cause of the Second Amendment. Compromise was not good for

fundraising, the NRA's lifeblood.

H arlon B. Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned

about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today's dollars) as executive

vice president and was driven to meetings in the company Chevrolet.

Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits upon the executive vice president

throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005. The parking lot at the

association's twin-glass-towered headquarters off Interstate 66 in

Virginia is filled with shiny new BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes.

What's unseemly about the stratospheric six-figure salaries flowing

into NRA leadership wallets is that the cash comes from hundreds of

thousands of members who are hard pressed to write $35 annual

membership renewal checks or send an extra $10 or $20 to the NRA

Political Victory Fund to protect their guns.

Then there's the question of the millions paid to outside lobbyists

(including an ex-employee and personal friend of LaPierre's). And the

millions more doled out to LaPierre's friends at the Mercury Group ad

agency. Who knows how much cash, thanks to the NRA, has found its way

to the company that arranges the association's travel tours, allows

members to buy a home through NRA real estate brokers, finance it via

an NRA mortgage, save with NRA banking services, take out NRA

insurance, get laser eye surgery and shoes resoled by an NRA-

affiliated vendor, then pay for everything with an NRA credit card.

The association claims it was only coincidence, but LaPierre's wife

happened to be the vice president for marketing for the firm that set

up that bonanza of member-discount services.

The media and anti-gun politicians make a mistake by engaging with the

NRA, penning inflammatory headlines, threatening to crush the

organization and salt the earth beneath its headquarters. They are

just reminding the NRA faithful that they're surrounded by enemies who

threaten to batter down their doors and snatch their firearms. And all

it results in is the constant "ka-ching" of cash rolling into NRA

coffers.

If the threat to honest citizens' right to own firearms ever dipped

below the radar, so too would the association's political might.

That's why the NRA leadership will never tolerate the give-and-take

that makes up real problem-solving. It would be bad for business.

ricochet@usa.net

Richard Feldman is a public affairs lawyer and the author of

"Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328.html

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:

> The NRA's Main Target? Its Members' Checkbooks.

>

> By Richard Feldman

> Sunday, December 16, 2007; B03

>

>

>

> The bulletin came over the radio as I was driving home on Dec. 5:

> "Nine dead, five wounded in shooting massacre at an Omaha mall."

>

> It was tragic news. But even as I lamented the lives lost, I was

> hearing the questions I knew would immediately arise as the two sides

> in the endless debate on guns in America squared off once again. "Why

> don't we ban all military-style rifles?", one side would ask, while

> the other would demand, "Why did the mall prevent law-abiding citizens

> from carrying guns for self-protection?"

>

> I've been down this road more times than I care to count. But the

> truth is that much of the public debate over gun rights and gun

> control is disingenuous. Gun owners of every stripe -- liberal,

> moderate, conservative -- and non-owners alike can and do agree that

> violent criminals, juveniles, terrorists and mental incompetents have

> no right to firearms. Federal and state laws, despite poor enforcement

> by the courts, underscore that. Further, there's no significant debate

> -- nor should there be -- over private ownership of guns for lawful

> purposes such as target shooting, hunting, self-protection and

> collecting.

>

> What we do have, though, is an organization whose senior leadership is

> dedicated to keeping the gun debate alive and burning in the American

> consciousness, for its own self-serving and self-preserving reasons.

> That organization is the National Rifle Association.

>

> Unfortunately for American gun owners, the nation and the NRA itself,

> this major lobbying group has become intoxicated with money and

> privilege. The leadership has lost sight of its mission. Safeguarding

> the rights of gun owners has become secondary to keeping the

> fundraising machinery well greased and the group's senior staff

> handsomely compensated.

>

> I know, because I once worked for it.

>

> In 1984, I landed my dream job as Northeast regional representative of

> the NRA. I was a young lawyer, keen on politics and the Second

> Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This post promised to indulge

> both passions, and for a time it did. But soon enough, I was watching

> with growing dismay as the NRA morphed from a reasonable, responsible

> voice of sportsmen and firearms owners into a giant money machine that

> provides more benefits to its insiders than to its 3 million-plus

> members.

>

> During my tenure at the NRA, the theme was "We're not in the business

> of fundraising; we fundraise to stay in business." The "business" of

> the NRA then was defending the Second Amendment rights of a

> considerable number of Americans (if pollsters are correct that guns

> are kept in almost one of every two American homes). But today, the

> association's primary business is fundraising. And nothing keeps the

> fundraising machine whirring more effectively than convincing the

> faithful that they're a pro-gun David facing down an invincible anti-

> gun Goliath.

>

> In the NRA's lexicon, "compromise" is a dirty word, code for gun

> owners' surrendering their rights while getting nothing in return from

> gun-control advocates. Compromise is all give and no get. That

> definition echoes and re-echoes in the NRA's fundraising letters,

> which whip the membership into the check-writing frenzy that built the

> association into the impressive grass-roots political juggernaut it is

> today.

Unfortunately, this idea of "compromise" is exactly as the NRA portrays

it - all take by the anti-gunners, and no give, despite what the author

of this piece implies.

For example, back in the 1960's it was possible to order a gun through

the mail. Then laws were passed which forced one to buy a gun only

through a federally licensed dealer. Then the laws were changed so that

one could only buy a gun in one's home state. Then the law was passed

so that one could only buy a gun with the approval of the federal

government.

It is the nature of compromise that each party gain something from the

deal. So exactly what did gun owners gain from all the laws?

> It stands to reason that cooperation among parties is the way to find

> solutions to deep-seated societal problems. Given its size, resources

> and influence, the NRA could and should be a force in solving firearms-

> related problems. But it is not leading such efforts even when Second

> Amendment protections are being denied.

The NRA is not there to solve society's problems. It is there solely as

a pro-gun organization.

> Take the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before

> the Supreme Court. It was the libertarian Cato Institute, not the NRA,

> that took up the plight of D.C. residents who seek firearms for

> personal protection. Before the case reached the high court, the NRA

> did its best to derail it. Why? Because the District gun ban is one of

> the reddest flags the organization could wave to inflame its

> membership. If the NRA were to "solve" the D.C. gun-ban problem, it

> would lose some powerful talking points for getting the check-writing

> machinery rolling. Now that the case looks like a winner, the

> association has climbed aboard the bandwagon and will be asking for

> "emergency" donations to defray its legal costs.

Probably true.

>

> The NRA needs dragons to slay. It's a heady feeling, striding off to

> battle the bad guys, whether they're Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.),

> Rosie O'Donnell or the anti-gun groups that clamored for the hide of

> Bernhard Goetz, the geeky New York subway rider who used a pistol to

> fend off what he believed to be a threat to his life in 1984. I used

> to love it myself. I never dreamed that one day I'd be one of the

> dragons.

>

> In 1997, after I'd left the NRA, I was running a legislative trade

> association for the firearms industry (Colt, Glock, Remington et al.).

> That's when I did the unforgivable, at least in the NRA's eyes: I

> found a workable solution to the problematic issue of child-safety

> locks on guns.

>

> I shortstopped proposed gun-lock legislation predicted to be another

> slam dunk for the anti-gun movement by offering an option that made

> everyone happy. Well, almost everyone. In the White House Rose Garden

> -- standing before the NRA's bete noire, President Bill Clinton -- I

> announced that the firearms industry was instituting a voluntary

> program to include a gun lock with every handgun sold. As the

> television news cameras rolled, Clinton announced that he was

> satisfied and that no mandatory gun-lock law was needed. But NRA

> commanders were up in arms. They denounced me as a traitor to the

> sacred cause of the Second Amendment. Compromise was not good for

> fundraising, the NRA's lifeblood.

>

> H arlon B. Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned

> about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today's dollars) as executive

> vice president and was driven to meetings in the company Chevrolet.

> Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits upon the executive vice president

> throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005. The parking lot at the

> association's twin-glass-towered headquarters off Interstate 66 in

> Virginia is filled with shiny new BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes.

>

> What's unseemly about the stratospheric six-figure salaries flowing

> into NRA leadership wallets is that the cash comes from hundreds of

> thousands of members who are hard pressed to write $35 annual

> membership renewal checks or send an extra $10 or $20 to the NRA

> Political Victory Fund to protect their guns.

>

> Then there's the question of the millions paid to outside lobbyists

> (including an ex-employee and personal friend of LaPierre's). And the

> millions more doled out to LaPierre's friends at the Mercury Group ad

> agency. Who knows how much cash, thanks to the NRA, has found its way

> to the company that arranges the association's travel tours, allows

> members to buy a home through NRA real estate brokers, finance it via

> an NRA mortgage, save with NRA banking services, take out NRA

> insurance, get laser eye surgery and shoes resoled by an NRA-

> affiliated vendor, then pay for everything with an NRA credit card.

> The association claims it was only coincidence, but LaPierre's wife

> happened to be the vice president for marketing for the firm that set

> up that bonanza of member-discount services.

Does Feldman have a problem with discounts for NRA members? I don't

like the size of those salaries paid to the NRA staff but that's a

separate issue - and he, as a lawyer should know not to mix issues.

>

> The media and anti-gun politicians make a mistake by engaging with the

> NRA, penning inflammatory headlines, threatening to crush the

> organization and salt the earth beneath its headquarters. They are

> just reminding the NRA faithful that they're surrounded by enemies who

> threaten to batter down their doors and snatch their firearms. And all

> it results in is the constant "ka-ching" of cash rolling into NRA

> coffers.

And a doubling in size of the membership.

>

> If the threat to honest citizens' right to own firearms ever dipped

> below the radar, so too would the association's political might.

> That's why the NRA leadership will never tolerate the give-and-take

> that makes up real problem-solving. It would be bad for business.

The fedgov - and every politician in the country - uses the concept of

fear to get votes. It is no surprise that the NRA uses the same

propaganda tools.

Yet the NRA is justified in using the fear propaganda. The fedgov

continues in its attempts to take guns away from "We the People..." by

allowing the ATF to literally set its own rules and deny licenses to

legal organizations, or to strip the licenses away from existing

businesses without benefit of law.

As to the organization of the NRA, it is a clear example of Pournelle's

Iron Law of Bureaucracies: "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to

the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those

dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have

less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

--

Cheers,

Bama Brian

Libertarian