NRA Director's Response

[Guest David Waldrip]

All:

Another NRA bashing email from the Executive Director of the TFA this morning prompts me to provide you with the other side of the story.

The issue is several weeks old, at this point, and had blown over. It was rekindled by an alert from the JPFO dated 9-5, which was passed on, as mentioned.

The NRA's response and position can be found here and is reproduced as follows:

Statement of Joaquin Jackson

Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons", and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

For more information on NRA's legislative efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, please visit www.NRAILA.org and www.Clintongunban.com.

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,†I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

<O:P></O:P>

####

<O:P></O:P>

Read About It:

Posted: 8/15/2007 3:22:01 PM

[TGO David]

I understand the distinction between semi-automatic rifles and fully-automatic rifles, but I do not understand why the NRA's Director ever felt that the current BATFE provision to allow a private citizen to own a Class III weapon is too lenient and that further restrictions should be imposed. He clearly states that private citizens have no business owning a Class III weapon.

That seems like a concession being made toward the anti's and we all know that if you give them an inch, they will eventually take a mile. Appeasement has never worked and has never been a sound tactic.

Thoughts?

[Tim Nunan]

Mr. Jackson is not the NRA Director... he is a member of the Board of Directors, one of 76. He can not and does not unilaterally make policy for the NRA.

[molonlabetn]

I honestly don't care too much how anyone tries to label any type of firearm... there shouldn't be restrictions of ownership by certain 'classes' of citizens upon others. The government should answer to the people, and that cannot be if the people are powerless, or tightly regulated.

[Smith]

I agree with everyone else on this one as far as restrictions and the RTBA. The problem is we tend to be reasonable about Class III stuff, where the other side is never reasonable. It's like trying to reason with a spoiled brat kid. No middle ground is acceptable and they will fight, scream, and make life miserable till YOU give in to a 100% of their demands.

You can learn so much about government and liberals from kids.

[saintsfanbrian]

So, Nate, what would be reasonable about Class III weapons?

Personally, as long as I can pass the requirements, why can't I have one? And why shouldn't manufacturers be allowed to create/sell them to the general public even if they are brand new? Can you imagine what the cost of an M-16 would be if Colt/Bushmaster/et al. were allowed to manufacture them for the civilian sector? I can assure you it wouldn't be the several thousand dollars that it is now.

[Guest Len]

One thing being lost in the disucssion here is that people here in TN CAN own class-III devices. You have to get approval and pay the tax stamp, but it is perfectly legal. (Hero Gear has an excellent explanation of this on their website here.)

[Smith]

So, Nate, what would be reasonable about Class III weapons?

Personally, as long as I can pass the requirements, why can't I have one? And why shouldn't manufacturers be allowed to create/sell them to the general public even if they are brand new? Can you imagine what the cost of an M-16 would be if Colt/Bushmaster/et al. were allowed to manufacture them for the civilian sector? I can assure you it wouldn't be the several thousand dollars that it is now.

That is reasonable to me. A gun is a gun regardless of it's mechanics IMO. Besides how can we defend ourselves against a government that we can't a least match gun for gun?

Kinda like the Indians can only have bows, while the US Calvary use Gatling's.

My point was the NRA guy was trying to be reasonable. It is reasonable , IMO, to limit auto's more tightly than others. The current system, however, goes way to far.

[Guest JCE]

Nice backpedaling Mr Jackson

[Tim Nunan]

All:

Another NRA bashing email from the Executive Director of the TFA this morning prompts me to provide you with the other side of the story.

<snip>

Posted: 8/15/2007 3:22:01 PM

I didn't get anything from John Harris on this subject and I'm on every list the TFA has. There was a forward from JPFO on this issue sent by Pat McGarrity who calls himself the Shelby county chapter director.

This post on indicts John Harris and the TFA as bashing the NRA and from what I've read so far John hasn't address this at all. If I'm in error then please send me the email from John Harris addressing this subject.

While many in the TFA like many on these forums may be NRA members I doubt they all agree with every statement/action made by the NRA.

This is at least the second time I've read something from Mr. Waldrip that disparages the TFA for not marching in lock step with the NRA. While it is the 800 lb gorilla in the room to believe all 4 million NRA members are in total agreement with every position of the NRA is unrealistic.

[Guest macho999]

Nice backpedaling Mr Jackson

That's all it is. I don't believe at all that he meant the "true" definition of assault weapon. He reminds me of Bill Clinton debating what the word "is" means.

[The Rabbi]

One thing being lost in the disucssion here is that people here in TN CAN own class-III devices. You have to get approval and pay the tax stamp, but it is perfectly legal. (Hero Gear has an excellent explanation of this on their website here.)

We can own Class 3, but only after passing a rigorous 60-90 day background check and paying a $200 fee. And since the gov't has closed the registry of new machine guns, the price has risen to the point that only the rich can afford one.

So while they aren't de juris illegal, de facto they are for most people.

In much the same way that Black people could always vote, but counties made registration so difficult and expensive most of them were disenfranchised.

[Guest tjbert47]

My point was the NRA guy was trying to be reasonable. It is reasonable , IMO, to limit auto's more tightly than others. The current system, however, goes way to far.

No more control than keeping them out of the hands of criminals is reasonable and be careful how you do that.

Tom in TN

[Guest SomeGuy]

Tim,

Regarding David, my guess is he is another one of those 'the NRA is THE only gun org to listen to' types. Rather pathetic, considering the NRA has been selling us out left and right recently. For those who may not know David Waldrip is an NRA EVC. My only question is, is this poster the real David? I would expect an EVC to have a stronger love of our 2A.

Regarding the fool Jackson, well, he is one of many reasons why every time my renewal to the NRA comes up I consider not sending it in. If the McCarthy bill that the NRA resurrected passes, I will never contribute another penny to the NRA (with the possible exception of dues) unless they get it repealed. As far as I am concerned, what the NRA did to us is equivalent to what Sen. Sasser did to Tennesseans in 94.

[Guest jackdog]

laws have never stopped criminals from getting weapons and never will. Laws concerning the second amendment, Are to stop legal citizens from being armed. It's that simple gang. As far as the NRA goes, hey there in for the money.

[Guest David Waldrip]

Tim:

Look at the properties of the original message you received on the subject. It was distributed via mail.tennesseefirearms.com. Unless I am mistaken, John is the only person sending TFALAC alerts via the TFA email server.

I do not disparage the TFA as an organization, at all.

[Tim Nunan]

Tim:

Look at the properties of the original message you received on the subject. It was distributed via mail.tennesseefirearms.com. Unless I am mistaken, John is the only person sending TFALAC alerts via the TFA email server.

I do not disparage the TFA as an organization, at all.

This where the email come from: Mailing-List: list tennfirearmsassoc@yahoogroups.com

That is the mailing list provided by Yahoo for the TFA members' email. While the TFALAC alerts are generated by John Harris any TFA member who has joined the Yahoo list may send to that list which is different than the alerts.

You specifically accused Mr. Harris and the TFA of NRA bashing. While there were comments from TFA members stating their displeasure with Mr. Jackson John Harris has not publically addressed this issue as far as I know.

Stating that the TFA director is bashing the NRA when he didn't is, at best, making disparaging remarks.

[Guest David Waldrip]

Tim:

You're looking at the wrong email.

Look at the email I sent you in private, when you contacted me in private. My sent folder shows I sent it to you at 1:09 CDT.

Scroll down to the next header and tell me whether or not it then shows "From: TFALAC" and "To: TFA Email Alerts".

Give this your best shot, or we'll have to call on Someguy for somehelp.

[DaveTN]

I hate to see anyone claim they are anti-gun control and then try to somehow imply that gun laws might take firearms away from hunters.

<O:p</O:p

I am not a hunter. I think there is something wrong with people that kill for sport. However I do not see any problem with killing a criminal that is trying to kill you.

<O:p</O:p

Assault rifles were not designed for hunting, and I have more of a right to own one for the protection of my life and my family than some dumbazz traipsing through the woods that thinks killing Bambi at 100 yards with a scoped rifle is some great accomplishment.

<O:p</O:p

[The Rabbi]

Uh, oh.

It's "The Ninjas vs. The Elmers" all over again.:lol:

[towerclimber37]

If thats the case then...."I'm with you fellers"...

In all seriousness, its my opinion that we need more criminal control rather than wildlife management...seems to me the wildlife was managing itself long before we ever showed up.

other than that, how about the TFA and NRA stop with the arguing with each other and start with the helping us safeguard our rights..

Forgive and let it go..and HELP EACH OTHER!

[Marswolf]

We keep getting into trouble about this public talk about "assault rifles". English is a growing language. When we talk in public about assault rifles, not one person in fifty thinks only of the FA rifles. I get to play with M16s and other true assault rifles, but I use the term all the time to refer to SA AR-15s and AK like rifles. And I don't apologize for doing so. The definition now includes such rifles.

Gun folks need to understand that when they talk about assault rifles to the general public, they are talking about the "mean looking" SA stuff that is on the general market. If you talk about banning assault rifles, you are talking about banning the rifles that look like true assault rifles.

I somethines get into trouble with my friends for defending the NRA because I think it is a group with some political savvy and common sense that is missing in some of the other pro-gun groups. But Jackson's statement is wrong on several fronts. If an NRA director can't keep his mouth shut on issues that will hurt gun owners, he shouldn't be an NRA director.

And while on that subject, how in hell did the NRA board get bloated to 76 members? Actually, I understand how. It's a way to include more people of influence. I've been on such boards. I've always resigned when they didn't do anything but rubber stamp some paid person's ideas and policies. The NRA board should be 6 people who actually work rather than 76. But that's another topic.

It would be helpful if one of you guys would post the letter that may or may not have come from Harris. At least post a synopsis of what was said. Otherwise those of us not on the mailing list are just having to guess whether it was a reasoned response or not. I don't like fumbling around in the dark. Even I use a light when clearing a house. A little more light here would be appreciated.

[DaveTN]

We keep getting into trouble about this public talk about "assault rifles".

Terms don’t mean much anymore, hence my comment about “huntingâ€.

Barack Obama wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons. I think he counting on the fact that many won’t know what that will mean.

They don’t just want your EBR’s. They want your 1911’s, M&P’s, Remington 1100’s, and all Tupperware guns. After they get those they will get your 870’s and your 686’s.

I collect military and law enforcement weapons. Every rifle I have is a semi-auto with the exception of my 03 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City><ST1:pSpringfield</st1:City>; and I bet he will try to add some “designed for military use†language that would let him get that also.

<O:p</O:p