The Growing Movement Of Gun Owners Against The NRA

The NRA was once a respectable organization.  Founded just after the Civil War, it existed to advocate for hunter training, marksmanship, conservation of nature, and gun safety.  It was a sportsman's organization which existed almost solely on membership dues and did not dip much into politics.  But all of that changed in 1977, when extremist members of the organization hijacked the sportsman's organization and converted it into a political lobby group intent on fighting any and all gun regulation.  As the Washington Post put it:

The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.

And because their focus shifted away from the needs of their members, and more toward ideological and legislative goals, the NRA leadership has forgotten their own followers.  Oh, they still talk the good talk of safety and hunting, but the truth is far from it.  Their only concern is money.  As I blogged before, follow the money!  And they've created a "circus of fear" to raise the ideological paranoia of their membership.

Time and again in my work with the community, in forums and public events, I talk with gun owners, hunters, and veterans who disagree with the NRA's stances.  Even some NRA members have expressed to me that they simply disagree with the organization and are actually closer to me in their beliefs on gun regulation.  Sometimes all it takes to make this conversation work is to get around the NRA talking points and to ask them about specific regulations.

Background checks are a good example of this.  At every turn, the NRA has fought each and every attempt to create and then strengthen the background check system, pouring millions of dollars into the pockets of politicians to buy their votes.  And even though a background check takes on average less than five minutes, and there are far more licensed dealers to go to for the check than there are Starbucks stores (see an interactive map, HERE), they nonetheless argue that that minor inconvenience somehow infringes on the right to bear arms and is a prelude to an all-out total gun confiscation (expanding background checks, by the way, used to be something the NRA approved of, and now heavily oppose, just to illustrate how extreme they have become).  And yet, polls repeatedly show that around 72% of NRA members support universal background checks for all gun sales (or 85% of all gun owners).  So who does the NRA really represent?  Again, follow the money.  They represent the arms dealers who line the pockets of the NRA leadership.  The same split goes for many other proposed regulation.  Despite the NRA line against such changes, the majority of gun owners also support a ban on semi-auto assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines, support child access protection laws, mandatory training for gun owners, prohibitions for gun ownership by domestic violence offenders, and many other laws.

With this in mind, it is little wonder that more and more gun owners are renouncing the NRA.

An early and well-publicized example of this was the senior George Bush, a lifelong gun owner and hunter.  In 1995, he sent in a "letter of resignation" from his lifetime NRA membership after the NRA's Wayne LaPierre called the government "jackbooted thugs" shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing.

And remember, back in 2013, when longtime Guns & Ammo writer and TV host Dick Metcalf dared to write that regulation should be considered and that it didn't infringe on the Second Amendment?  He was immediately fired, but not because gun owners disagreed with him.

In recent years, particularly after the Sandy Hook shooting and the NRA's extremist solution to arm all schools, gun owners have woken up to the fact that this isn't their father's NRA anymore.  

That was the event which turned one gun owner's opinion around.  She's a hunter and grew up in a gun family.

Ultimately, the people that are advocating for looser gun laws or less restriction end up making responsible owners look like idiots. Personally, I don't want to be associated with them, and I don't want to be lumped together. Some of us understand that keeping our children safe is the priority. We have too much gun violence in this country to ignore it anymore.

She was so fed up with the NRA and the pro-gun activist movement that she left the NRA and even joined Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence in America.

One avid hunter recently turned his back on the NRA, tired of their ceaseless fearmongering:

The biggest problem in this entire issue is the NRA. People who buy guns and are interested in hunting or target shooting are not the problem. The problem is an organization that convinces them to join based on fears of the government, fears of other races, fears of invasion, fears of the police; FEARS. That’s their agenda. 

Once you’ve paid your dues to join this despicable organization, they are free to use that money however they see fit. And overwhelmingly the way that they see fit to spend it is through propaganda, advertising, and lobbying.

Another hunter, from Oregon, explained why the NRA doesn't talk for him:

I don’t belong to the NRA. The kind of hunting that I do faces its greatest threats from habitat loss, not gun control. During an election, I’m more likely to consult the League of Conservation Voters’ candidate ratings than the NRA’s. .... 

None of these restrictions prevent me or other hunters from enjoying the tradition. On the contrary, the rules keep us safe and protect the wildlife populations that must thrive if we are to continue to responsibly cull them.

After the Charleston massacre, another gun owner and hunter came out against the NRA after hearing a robo-call insinuating that President Obama was plotting to turn over the USA to the United Nations:

[The NRA] has successfully positioned itself as the singular representation of gun owners. For decades they’ve worked to defend and expand access to firearms in spite of polls showing that most Americans, including gun owners, favor laws that would limit access in various reasonable ways (even three-quarters of NRA households favor background checks prior to private gun sales). But when a U.S. congresswoman was shot in the face, the NRA made certain that no law was passed that would have made her safer. There’s no doubt that the NRA does have some grass-roots support, but it’s smaller than we think. The NRA does not represent all gun owners, and it certainly doesn’t represent me.

One Nevada legislator and lifelong hunter has turned his back on the NRA, as well, fed up with their inflexibility and tired of seeing so many people killed by gunfire in his years as an emergency responder, along with his own personal family history of gun suicide and domestic violence:  

“That, coupled with seeing Congress’ inaction [on gun control] made me say, ‘I can’t do this anymore,'” Oceguera told ThinkProgress. “I still own guns for self-protection in my home, and I’m going to teach my kids gun safety and have already started doing that. But I now think there are some people — who are criminals, who have mental illness, who are on the watch list — who shouldn’t have guns. It’s as simple as that. And I think that if law-abiding NRA members and gun owners like myself don’t stand up and say, ‘Geez, enough is enough. Let’s do something,’ then nothing is going to happen.”

A large group of gun owners recently took a trip to Washington to convince legislators to finally take action to enact universal background checks.

There's even a lifelong gun owner, trainer, and gun store owner who has turned his back to the NRA and the pro-gun extremists out there.  Michael Weisser, or "Mike the Gun Guy," has written books on the subject, and regularly writes on his blog site.

And gun owners have even joined together to form organizations to represent their interest in both gun ownership and reasonable gun regulation.

For instance, here in Oregon, some of the gun owning families who lost loved ones at the Clackamas Town Center shooting formed the organization Gun Owners For Responsible Ownership.  That organization then joined the Oregon Alliance For Gun Safety and helped to pass Senate Bill 941 for universal background checks in Oregon.   GOFRO's mission statement:  

We envision an America where all are safe from gun violence, and where responsible gun owners take the lead to promote safe gun ownership and sensible laws and regulations.

And they aren't alone.  Here are some other like-minded organizations and Facebook groups of gun owners:

American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership
Citizens for Smart Gun Ownership
Gun Owners Against The NRA
Gun Owners For Commonsense Laws
Gun Owners For Reform
Veterans for Responsible Gun Ownership

It is moderate gun owners who will make the biggest difference.  Don't let the NRA and other extremist pro-gun organizations speak for you!  Call them out for their extremism, and renounce your membership.  Help enact the sensible gun regulations that you support, and let's make a new trajectory for our communities away from gun violence.

ADDENDUM (1/19/16):  The recent executive actions by President Obama to strengthen the background check system are also very popular with gun owners, at 63% approval, despite the NRA opposition to them.  From the article:

Also, though it is from 2012, here is a very good opinion piece written by an NRA member who was outraged by the NRA stance after Sandy Hook and demanded to immediately cancel his membership.

ADDENDUM (4/29/18): A great article about gun owners wanting increased gun regulation.  

“I honestly believe that God-fearing, gun-owning Americans should be leading the debate on gun laws,” Dr. Haring said in an interview on Monday, after learning of another shooting, which killed four people at a Waffle House a few miles from his house. “It just makes sense to me that if I own weapons, I should be the first one to be advocating for safety with those weapons.”

.

NRA opposes changing away from lead shot which is killing wildlife

This is a re-post from my guest-blog post at Mikeb302000 blog, HERE.

California Condor.  Wingspan ~10 feet

The NRA automatically opposes any legislation of any sort that has anything to do with regulating guns and ammo.  So it's no surprise that they oppose this one.


California condors have been endangered for many decades, due to shooting and chemical toxicity.  Now they face a new toxicity threat: lead.  Like vultures, condors eat already-dead animals. Some of those animals have been killed by shooters, with the lead shot still inside their bodies.


Studies have now found that condors are dying at an alarming rate from lead toxicity.


HERE is a good article on it.  From the article:

The impact of lead poisoning on the condor population has long been debated, but a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides some clarity. It shows that many condors are suffering the effects of lead poisoning, suggesting the population will continue to struggle as long as lead ammunition remains in use. 

Researchers compiled the results of over 1,100 blood samples taken from 150 California condors between 1997 and 2010. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children with blood lead levels above 450 ng/ml undergo treatment, and this is roughly the level at which the condors are taken in for treatment as well. About 20 percent of the birds sampled each year exceeded this level, and 48 percent of individuals living in the wild exceeded it at some point during the 14-year period. Blood lead levels as high as 6,100 ng/ml were seen. 

Because blood samples only provide a snapshot of lead levels, the group also analyzed feathers from 18 condors. The concentration of lead in each segment of the feather depends on the concentration in the body at the time that segment formed. That means that each feather records a few months of exposure history. From comparisons of the most recent segment to blood levels, they were able to estimate blood lead levels over the duration of the feather. 

The feathers showed that after ingesting lead, the birds’ blood concentrations exceeded 450 ng/ml for about a month. Unsurprisingly, blood samples often miss the peak lead concentrations, which were 1.4x to 14.4x higher. About 34 percent of the average feather history was higher than the level at which the condors are treated.

The Center for Biological Diversity just sent out a notice, urging their supporters to contact their legislators to put pressure on the gun industry to move away from lead shot.

Of course, the tons of lead shot into our environment each year don't just affect condors.  They affect all wildlife... and us. I grew up in Arkansas, where duck hunting is very popular.  Duck hunters routinely hunted in rice patties. Rice is a major crop in Arkansas, and they exported a large amount of their rice to Asian markets (believe it or not).  Unfortunately, the level of lead in the rice, from all that duck hunting, exceeded safe limits for those Asian countries, who then banned purchase of the rice.  Of course, us Americans were still eating it.  (I don't know how long the ban lasted or if it is still in effect).

HERE is a report put out by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, reviewing the danger of lead poisoning to California condors and giving information on non-lead bullet sources.  As the report details:

Biologists have documented over 300 instances of lead exposure in condors since testing began in 1999, with 45 to 95 percent of the condor population testing positive for lead exposure each year. ... 

Although there may be other sources of lead, a scientific study funded by the Arizona Game and Fish Department has identified lead from spent ammunition as the major source of lead in condors. Background lead from the environment does not appear to be a factor. An additional study has determined that condor lead exposure rates are highest during the fall hunting season in northern Arizona. This study also concluded that during this same time, condors spend forage heavily on the Kaibab Plateau. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is committed to reducing the amount of lead available to condors by encouraging sportsmen to take lead reduction actions when hunting in condor range. 

Condors incidentally ingest lead bullet fragments and shot remaining in game carcasses and gut piles. Fragments from lead bullets or lead shot have been found within the digestive tracts of condors 22 times in Arizona. Lead bullets fragment into hundreds of pieces before they exit a game such as a deer or coyote. Since condors are group feeders, and only one or two lead fragments or pellets can cause lead toxicity, one animal carcass or gut pile containing lead fragments or lead shot has the potential to poison several condors.

The report lists sources for non-lead ammo, and makes recommendations about minimizing effects, such as removing carcasses from access to condors.

Of course, I'm sure the NRA will label this as "junk science" and urge legislators to ignore completely.  What's a few dead condors (out of only around 200 left in the wild) compared to gun industry profits and tradition?

Preventable Hunting Accidents In Oregon

Here in western Oregon we are more than halfway through the hunting season, and the inevitable list of shooting accidents keep rolling in.

Now, I don't have a big beef with hunting.  My dad was a hunter.  A young friend of mine has shot two deer this year.  If someone wants to go out in the woods and get their macho on from shooting animals to death for food, more power to them.  It's a good survival skill, albeit one that isn't needed anymore in America.  I'll get my food from the store, thank you.  Year after year, more and more people agree with me, as hunting is on the decline in America.

One hopes that hunters are safe, obey the four rules, and identify their prey before shooting.  Sadly, wherever there are guns there are gun deaths.  Throw in testosterone-filled, trigger-happy men in an environment where ID of prey is more difficult, and you've got a recipe for tragedy.

Sadly, some hunters don't pay enough attention before they shoot.  Recently, an active Marine was shot dead while hiking.  The shooter mistook him for a bear.  The hunter bears 100% of the responsibility for pulling the trigger, and since the hiker wasn't lumbering on all fours, it's pretty hard to mistake a man for a bear.  Yet here we are.  This doesn't stop pro-gun extremists from blaming the hiker, though (see comments on THIS article) because of his dark clothing.  Interestingly, the shooter isn't facing charges.  Shucks, just another senseless accident, apparently.

Tragedy can be mediated with commonsense regulation.  Requirements for training in order to get a hunting license, for instance.  Or the requirement for hunters to wear an orange vest.

Last year the Oregon legislature considered mandating the wearing of orange vests by hunters, as many states do, to reduce the chances of accidental shootings.  Sadly, Oregon hunting organizations and pro-gun extremist groups fought the change.  Never mind obvious safety concerns; their problem was with government telling them what to do.  For example:

While the president of the Clatsop County chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association refuses to wear hunter orange, he is recommending that young hunters do.

"I wear blue," said Wendell Locke. "But I do recommend that the kids wear hunter orange so as they grow up they will be accustomed to it and will wear it the rest of their lives."

Locke, also the vice president of the Oregon Hunters Association, agrees that the bright orange colors are a good step in reducing shooting accidents among hunters, but he opposes the government regulating safety of the activity.

"You can't do anything anymore without the government telling you to do something," Locke said. "I just don't want to get involved with the government."

So, basically, even though he knows wearing orange makes sense to save his life and the lives of children, he's not going to wear it because "I just don't want to get involved with the government."  Not much of an example to the youngsters, is he?  Well, intelligence isn't a requirement for hunting, I guess.

The bill was passed, but the compromise was that only minors, aged 17 or younger, had to wear orange vests or hats.  Free orange hats were even being passed out to them.  Adults are free to get themselves killed.

Too bad adults weren't mandated.  It might have kept one tragedy from happening.  A father was trying to scare deer toward his son while they were hunting.  The son, mistaking the father as a deer, shot his father through the chest, injuring him.  Luckily he didn't die.  The father wasn't wearing orange.  His vest was brown.

This year, the Oregon legislature made it legal for hunters on ATVs and motorcycles to ride with a loaded, unlocked firearm while driving -- the only pro-gun measure to be passed this year in Oregon.  Never mind the obvious danger of accidental discharge.  The pro-gun extremists who pushed the bill scoffed at the idea that hunters could have accidents this way.  Yet, today, just such an accident was reported.  A son and father were elk hunting and had gotten their ATV stuck on a service road.  As he got off his vehicle, the son's rifle discharged, shooting his father in the leg.  Luckily no one was killed -- this time.  How many more accidents are needed to reverse this dangerous legislation?  How many need to die?  It's not an issue with Second Amendment freedoms, it's about common sense and safety.

But common sense isn't needed for hunting.  Consider the following case from Merlin, Oregon:  A man sees a deer in his yard, so he gets his rifle and shoots at it.  That's about as redneck as it gets, in my book.  Never mind that he's in a residential area.  He shot four times and killed the deer.  Unfortunately, only 100 yards away, an 11 year-old was shot in the leg by one of the bullets while waiting for his school bus.  Oops.  Shucks, just another accident.  Oh well.  What can you do?  Right?  At least the boy wasn't critically injured.  So far the shooter hasn't been charged. 

From 1990 - 2009, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife received reports of 170 hunting related firearms incidents of which 32 resulted in fatalities. Over the past 20 years, Oregon has averaged 8.5 incidents per year and 1.6 fatalities per year. From 1990-1994 there were an average of 13.4 incidents and three fatalities per year. From 2005-2009 there was an average of 4 incidents and 0.4 fatalities per year.  Looks like we'll be around the same percentages this year.

While you can't make hunters have common sense, you can at least reduce the chances of a mistake with mandated safety rules.  It's in the hunters' best interest to support these rules, to improve their image and protect their lives and the lives of those around them.

I'm an outdoorsman, but I'm not going hiking anytime soon.  Deer season ends November 30, and bear season ends December 31.  I'll wait until the bullets stop flying.


UPDATE (11/14/11):  Yet another accidental hunting shooting in Oregon reported today.  Elk hunter shoots his friend, thinking him an elk.  Of course, the friend wasn't wearing orange, and wasn't required to do so:  http://www.kval.com/news/local/133813628.html

UPDATE (11/17/11):  The bear hunter is found guilty and charged with criminally negligent homicide for shooting the hiker:  http://www.kval.com/news/local/133927573.html


ADDENDUM (12/7/11):  A pro-gun group tries to convince people that hunting is really, really, really safe, safer than bowling, golf, or cheerleading -- but laughably ignores information about hunting-related deaths, basically counting a hunting death and a sprained ankle in a sport as comparable "injuries":  http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112060033