To me, that's part of the backstory for the September 23 NRA-ILA article: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=7106.lkd wrote:I think their article isn't very inflammatory, actually. Certainly nowhere near the "Watch Us Outperform Chicken Little" organization called Gun Owners of America.
Let's fill-in some of the remainder of that paragraph:terryg wrote:Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit.
The emphasis is mine. I'm not going to name names, but there are multiple "pro-gun" organizations that have sprung up in the past decade that, as the NRA implies above, have their own, singular agendas. And those agendas care little about what may be best for gun owners in the big picture: if a proposed legislation does not directly support one of these organization's narrowly-focused objectives, it will argue against the legislation with rhetoric that is stronger than anything the NRA-ILA employs.NRA-ILA wrote:Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in any legislature, have an agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners.
Some of these organizations are, in fact, stealth entities created by anti-gun money and proponents. The majority, however, simply don't care about any firearms-related issues but their own. If proposed legislation doesn't affect their objectives, they leave it alone and could care less. If a piece of legislation would seem to reduce their influence--and thereby slow their revenue stream--they come out vehemently against it, and against all those who support it.
It really is a baby and bathwater issue, but they don't see it that way. They seem--my opinion only--to have little concept of incremental, additive change. It's all or nothing: if legislation doesn't speak directly to their singular objective, then it's bad legislation and should be thrown out. However, change--in any political, business, or social sense--seldom works that way.
I personally have no issues with the NRA writing, given that context, "...a handful of 'pro-gun' activists..." or "...self-proclaimed 'gun rights' supporters..."
If H.R. 822 had been about national hunting license reciprocity, I don't think you would have heard a single peep out of the "splinter" gun rights organizations. But as it is, you have confusing rhetoric roiling all over the Web about this bill. It has these splinter organizations shouting for more monetary contributions (naturally) to fight this "terrible", "misguided," "Trojan Horse" bill, and for voters to contact their Representatives to stop H.R. 822. Some of the claims being made about the bill are truly incredible. NRA-ILA's myth-and-fact section of that September 23 article barely scratches the surface. Others include things like, "Only FBI agents will be able to pass muster and get a carry permit"; "All shall-issue state permits will revert to may-issue"; "It creates the national gun registry that the left has wanted for decades"; "Extensive, federally-created gun-free zones will be added and people who now carry will have few places remaining where they can carry and be legal."
In short, a number of these splinter organizations have chimed in trying to defeat this bill as one that means, falsely, far more federal control and far fewer individual liberties. The NRA didn't initiate a battle with these organizations. They are responding--IMHO as they need to--to a variety of attacks that are trying to derail H.R. 822 because, as an incremental step forward in national gun rights, the bill would ultimately reduce the funding and influence (ergo, the life expectancy) of the attacking organizations.