NY Times on National Parks Carry Rule

This Friday the Grey Lady had a surprisingly even-handed look at the proposed rule change for concealed carry within US National Parks. The article lead with a link to the NRA and quotes from Chris Cox, their chief lobbyist. They also noted that the other large federal landlords are currently governed by state, not federal, law - a widely overlooked fact when this subject is debated.

Beyond this, I have a few small complaints. First, the article was preceded by a close up photo of a Bison and the description: Supporters of a plan to allow concealed weapons in parks say it would make people feel safe. But critics see danger to animals like bison in Yellowstone. I know the Bison is an iconic image of the Parks system, but I feel like this is meant to trigger the heartstrings and fears of opponents. The rule change is being proposed not to endanger animals, but to defer to state power and the rights of law-abiding citizens. Perhaps an image of two young women backpacking far from the protection of crowds and law enforcement rangers would have accurately framed the debate. Even if in the future a concealed carry permit-holder were to fire on an animal within a park, that unfortunate event would dwarf the number of animals that poachers, who ignore the current ban, take with all too much frequency.

Finally, the article ends with a pair of quotes from a supporter and an opponent of the ban. The opponent, Chris Bergquist, states:

It’s a bad idea. It’s more tempting to use it if you have it, on wildlife. They’ll think they’re far enough away no one will hear it and they can get away with it.

This sort of talk is very reminiscent of the "blood in the streets" and "Wild West shootout" lines that were throw about in every state when concealed carry was initiated. Again, fear and emotion trump logic. To believe this you must work under the false assumptions that 1) every concealed carry holder will become lawless once they possess a firearm outside the home, and 2) poachers and other criminals magically follow current bans.

Overall, kudos to a paper that is not know to be friendly to gun rights issues for showing both sides of the story. Let's hope that the logical side prevails.

A Dose of Reality for Toronto

The Canadian website the National Post had a heartening article yesterday challenging Toronto Mayor David Miller's absurd and ever-expanding anti-gun positions. The editors waste no time getting to the point in a cutting fashion:

He either completely misunderstands the causes of crime in his city --or, worse, he is cynically redirecting public anger from criminals to law-abiding gun collectors and target shooters. Whichever the case, Torontonians ought to be outraged.

The editors of the Post have a clear and sober view of the true causes of crime and the poor efficacy of gun control that is refreshing from a Canadian publication, even a conservative one. They go on to illustrate the failure of municipal gun bans:

Municipal gun control is useless. In cities where handguns are banned or severely restricted --Chicago, Washington, London, Tokyo and others -- gun crimes remain common. As they do in Toronto, criminals in these cities merely go underground, or to a neighbouring jurisdiction, and buy an illegal weapon.

Don't confuse that as a call for broader gun control initiatives. The post goes on to illustrate the faults and failures of nationwide bans as well:

Since then (the UK handgun ban), though, New Scotland Yard and the Home Office estimate that the inventory of illegal handguns in Britain has expanded by three million. Gun crime has nearly doubled. And many cities now have more gun crime than comparable U. S. cities.

The editors end with a level headed call for more intense policing of high crime areas, as seen in NYC. Increases in law enforcement and strict prosecution for gun crimes has been a rallying cry from the US gun-rights crowd for quite some time, but as the Post says, legal gun-owners have become "convenient whipping boys, knowing that in our urbanized culture most voters cannot understand the allure of shooting sports."

NRA Endorses Montana's Democratic Gov. Schweitzer

File this one under the rebuttals section of old "the NRA is a Republican party front group" argument. The NRA is endorsing the re-election bid of Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA had this to say in a telephone press conference:

He's just done a great job defending the Second Amendment, hunting, fishing (and) access on the part of the public to public lands. He also had legislation that secured $10 million for public access. He ended the moratorium on the buffalo hunt after 16 years.

Schwietzer is a lifetime member of the NRA and has an "A" rating from the organization. His opponent, Roy Brown, is also an "A" rated lifetime member, but the NRA has a policy of supporting incumbents in circumstances such as these. Shouldn't this serve as a pretty solid evidence that the NRA is a gun-rights organization and not a right-wing organization?

AHSA in Kentucky: A Followup

On May 21st I wrote a post commenting on Tom Eblen's Kentucky.com's article which praised the American Hunters & Shooters Association for its willingness to compromise on gun rights and denouncing the NRA as shill of the Republican party. Since that time, Elbin has been peppered with e-mail from angry NRA members and gun rights supporters. They said, much as I did, that the AHSA was the real front organization - formed in recent years by supporters of gun control.

Elbin responded to these e-mails with a followup article, and I give him credit for recognizing that there was so much opposition to his article and for showing the other side of the argument. That being said, I did not see anything in his response that quelled the concerns that I personally had with his previous post. There is no mention of Gov. Richardson, Rep. Boren, Sen. Webb, or any of the other numerous Democrats who are rated highly and endorsed by the NRA. He does not address how the Democratic establishment's attempts at every type of gun control, registration, restriction, and confiscation alienated NRA members over the years and made them more sympathetic to the right. Although he recognizes that many gun-rights advocates claim the AHSA is a front group, he does not offer up any of the solid evidence that can easily be found with a cursory search of the internet.

Elbin continues to preach compromise on gun-rights issues, but offers no comparison to compromising on other rights - such as speech, religion, or search and seizure. He even goes as far to state that the NRA's staunch support of the 2nd amendment is the reason that some jurisdictions have become such blatant gun grabbers:

The no-compromise crowd has kept law enforcement agencies from having some tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. And that has led to some over-reaching, such as when police in New Orleans illegally seized hundreds of guns after Hurricane Katrina.

This is total lunacy. As I stated in my previous post, the NRA has made great inroads in the past few decades of expanding gun-rights for the law abiding and protecting against overreaching cities and states that have had their eyes on gun confiscation long before Katrina. Contrary to Elbin's supposition, without the intervention of NRA lobbyists in Washington and the NRA legal defense fund in the courtroom, gun confiscation in places like New Orleans would have happened years earlier. The idea that somehow capitulating to every gun control proposal dreamt up by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center (VPC) would somehow protect our gun rights and not embolden opponents is absurd.

To further illustrate this point, let's look at the afermath of Katrina. It was the NRA who fought to restore the rights and property of those citizens who had been stripped of their legally owned firearms. Not a peep was heard from Brady or the VPC to return these gun and sue the city. It was also the NRA that fought for a Federal law to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned arms in the event of a Federal disaster. Over 13 states have since followed suit.

Elbin is just another figure in long line of journalists and politicians preaching "common sense" solutions to gun control. The problem is that every compromise of our freedoms that they suggest will have no measurable effect on gun violence. Many of those who are asking for small pieces of our freedom have openly advocated total confiscation. Add that to the lessons learned from places like the UK and Austraila, where gun control progressed to registration and eventual confiscation and it is easy to see why 2nd amendment advocates are so passionate. According to Elbin, if we stand up for our Constitutional rights it is our own fault when opponents attempt full scale gun grabs such as in New Orleans. But history tells us if we do not stand up there will be nothing left to fight for. I will continue to take my chances standing tall.

Privileges vs Rights: A Primer

Today the Miami Herald printed a response letter from a reader who is clamoring for more gun control. Susan Walsh from Coral Springs, FL echos some familiar defenses for strict gun control:

Is your freedom to drive impinged upon by the state's licensing or automakers' safety codes? Do you want to be operated on by someone unlicensed to practice medicine because his ''freedom'' was violated at being regulated?

While this may seem like a logical argument, driving is only a privilege, not a right. Let's take a quick look to Wikipedia for the differences between the two:

A privilege...is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government...either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

That last line, "an inherent, irrevocable entitlement" is a pretty good illustration of the difference. The 2nd amendment should be compared to other rights when it comes to its restrictions, not to privileges. When the government attempts to stifle free speech, or skirt the law to tap into our phones and email data, the people react angrily. More importantly, whenever we have given the government the benefit of the doubt and surrendered a portion of our rights for the sake of security, the government has abused that authority. Let us also remember that the Bill of Rights does not technically grant the right to keep and bear arms, it recognizes and prohibits infringement of a right that existed even before the formation of our government.

Walsh goes on to diminish the self-defense purposes of private firearms ownership:

Please do spare me the rhetoric about predators and criminals. How fearful do we all have to be before the NRA is happy?

I would like to counter that argument with a question: How fearful do we need to be to give up our natural and civil rights? It smacks of hypocrisy to scare us into chipping away at the 2nd amendment while saying that the NRA will only be happy once we are afraid. Walsh also disregards statistics about defensive gun use in the United States. Estimates for this use in the United States ranges from 68,000 instances a year on the low end, to as high as 2.5 million, which is far from rhetoric.

I am sure that Walsh believes that strict gun control would be in the best interest of the country, but these sort of attacks cannot continue to go unanswered, even if they take place in the letters page of a newspaper. In reality, our country's best interests are served whenever we err on the side of freedoms and not feelings.

The Milwaukee Gun Show Shuffle

Lisa Kaiser of ExpressMilwaukee.com posted an article today focusing on the demographics of illegal gun use in the city. Unfortunately, her analysis is based on a number of assumptions and the focus of her ire meanders from gun shows to legal gun purchases. Throughout the piece she fails to offer any review of the criminal justice system in the city, county, or state - especially in regards to repeat offenders.

Kiaser tells us that 40% of guns recovered by the Milwaukee Police Department were found on underage offenders and felons. A shocking statistic surely, but would it somehow be better if these criminals with guns were first time offenders? If they were all senior citizens?

Her first conjecture as to where these criminals could have obtained their guns is at gun shows:

...since felons and juveniles aren’t able to legally purchase guns from a licensed dealer, they are doing so illegally on the secondary gun market—at a gun show

Kaiser suggests that if only background checks were required on all private transactions - like the small minority of those made at a gun show, we could stymie this problem. Of course, she does not address how this could destroy all legal transactions between friends and family with a cumbersome bureaucracy and licensing process. She also fails to point out that the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, found that only 2% of criminal guns come from gun show purchases.

Kaiser then moves to blame the legally run gun stores. She points out that 25% of the guns recovered originated from Badger Outdoors, a gun dealer in Western Milwaukee. While this may indeed be true, she does not point out the actual number - just the percentile. She also does not point out how many other gun dealers are in the immediate area, nor what their percentiles are (A cursory Google maps search reveals about 4 total dealers in the immediate area when removing supply stores and gunsmiths). This makes it difficult to obtain any frame of reference as to the severity of the problem. It serves only to demonize a local business for a problem that has deep socioeconomic and culture roots.

This brings us back to a few points that the NRA and gun rights supporters have been stressing for decades. If there is evidence that a gun dealer is committing a crime, prosecute. If criminals are caught with guns, punish them to the fullest extent of the law. If criminal associates are making 'straw purchases', prosecute them as well. But do not attempt to restrict the rights law abiding citizens and businesses for the crimes of others. Gun owners must remain vigilant at attempts like this to scare us into giving up our rights for feel-good legislation that will do little to stop the illegal use of firearms.

Entire article here.

Falling for the AHSA Ruse in Kentucky

Columnist Tom Eblin of Kentucky.com took the time yesterday to fall in line with the latest, and perhaps most deceitful, attempt at restrictive gun control. Step one is the standard implication that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is simply an arm of the Republican party, and cares more about advancing the overall conservative platform than protecting gun rights:

Last weekend's National Rifle Association convention in Louisville could easily have been mistaken for a Republican campaign rally. Former Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee also spoke...(and) rounding out the NRA's "American Values Leadership Forum" were Republican icons Karl Rove and Oliver North, who are now Fox News Channel commentators.

Wouldn't the simpler answer be that because the Republican party has been more adoptive of the gun rights platform for the last 40 years there would be more of them speaking to an audience of gun rights advocates? Elbin leaves out the fact that Bill Richardson, rated A by the NRA, gave a keynote speech at the NRA's "Celebration of American Values" event in September. He also left out the fact the Democratic Rep. Dan Boren was elected to the NRA board of directors during the convention this week.

The second step of this deceitful play is to advocate an NRA alternative that is more friendly to the Democratic party. In this instance Elbin touts the virtues of the American Hunters & Shooters Association (AHSA). The reality is that the AHSA is the real front group. Their directors have worked with and made contributions to a number of groups that want unlimited restrictions on gun use and ownership, such as Handgun Control, Inc. They support making compromises on just about every gun rights issue including assault weapons bans and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufactures. They give lip service but take no action to protect the rights of gun owners. Most recently, the AHSA has endorsed Barack Obama based simply on his empty promises to protect the 2nd amendment and the lone pro-gun vote in his political career. I suppose that supporting the most anti-gun candidate in the race is just another compromise they are willing to make in the name of gun rights. The claim that the NRA is the front group for a political party is a perverse bit of irony in light of this evidence.

Bob Rick of the AHSA goes on to say:

The best way to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms is to reduce gun violence and crime. And the best way to do that is to search for compromises that protect both constitutional rights and the public safety.

I have to disagree. All of the parties that he wants to make compromises with have had or currently have the ultimate goal of disarming the American populace. The NRA has taken the lead over the past 40 years in the fight for gun rights. The results have been the passing of concealed carry laws in over 40 states, the sunset of weapons bans that were passed by fear and not fact, the preservation of countless acres of hunting space, successful lawsuits against illegal gun laws such as in San Francisco and Philadelphia, continued legal defense of citizens targeted for exercising their 2nd amendment rights, the softening of gun control on the Democratic party platform, and a sea change in the way politicians talk about individual gun rights (see my previous posts). Kentucky.com can preach the talking points of the AHSA, but when you put the facts and figures next to each other the NRA is clearly the strongest group protecting the rights of American citizens.

Entire story from Kentucky.com here.

Obama's Actions on Guns Louder than Words in Billings

Today the Billings Gazette tackled the issue of the Democratic white working class voter. While talking about wooing the vote of Reagan Democrats, author Tom Lutey tries to assure us that our gun rights would be safe under an Obama administration.

Democrats in Western states should be assured that Obama has no intention of diminishing Second Amendment rights. Gun rights didn't get much of a mention in Obama's speech Monday at West High, but the candidate did say he'll defend the U.S. Constitution, which preserves the right to bear arms. Obama taught constitutional law for a decade.

Lutey needs to look a little further. Obama did not focus on gun rights because doing so is dangerous territory. When questions get specific on guns, his answers get fuzzy. He has supported just about every issue anathema to gun owners from handgun bans to suing gun manufacturers - and now tries to avoid them for political expedience. Isn't this the type of Washington career-politician tactic that he is trying to change? His silence on this issue is his only defense, and serves as no assurance.

As for Obama being a Constitutional lawyer and professor, this serves as no guarantee that he will defend the 2nd amendment as a true individual right to keep and bear arms. When asked at the Philadelphia Democratic debate whether the D.C. handgun and functional firearm ban is Constitutional, Obama stated that he had not "listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence " (Full transcript of the debate here). So, despite his deep knowledge of the Constitution both at the bar and in the classroom, he could not state that the strictest gun ban in the nation (which is strikingly similar to the ban in Chicaco) was contrary to an individual's right.

Obama went on to state that he felt any city could completely restrict that right:

But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

I wonder if Sen. Obama believes that states and local juristictions have the same ability to restrict first amendment rights? Fourth amendment? What about their ability to restrict newly found rights such as abortion?

The take-away from these statements is that while an Obama administration might not be openly hostile towards gun rights, it would allow those rights to be chipped away from all angles. Legislators at the Congressional, state, and local level would have carte blance to bring frivolous law suits against gun dealers and manufacturers, create new limits to the amounts and type of firearms you can purchase, and create a patchwork of minute laws that would make criminals out of citizens making good faith efforts while carrying or transporting their arms.

While the Billings Gazette may give Obama a pass on these issues and, like him, try to avoid delving too deep into his history, I will listen to his record and not his rhetoric.

An Exercise in Irony in Chicago

Next to Washington D.C., Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. All guns must be registered every year, and unless you are grandfathered in before 1982, handguns are forbidden. These laws, we are told, are to protect Chicagoans from gun crime. Needless to say, it has been less than effective.

So what happens when a city Alderman, who helped pass the yearly registration law, forgets to re-register his grandfathered handgun that the average citizen is too irresponsible to own? If you are Ald. Richard Mell, you introduce a new law that allows for a one month amnesty for registration. Mind you, a law that makes attempts to prevent honest citizens from being labeled criminals is a good step in a city with Draconian laws. But if this had happened to anyone besides an Alderman, the city might not be so considerate. In the past, they have been far from considerate.

Mell said he first realized he was in violation of the re-registration requirement about a year ago. When he tried to re-register his guns belatedly, the Chicago Police Department's Gun Registration Section refused to bend the rules. Mell appealed that ruling to the city's Department of Administrative Hearings but decided to re-write the law instead."When we looked at the law, we saw the possibility of winning [the appeal] wasn't gonna happen," he said.

Good for the Chicago PD for holding this guy's feet to the fire on his own law. Full story here.

NPR on Women and Guns

NPR's show Tell Me More aired and posted a 15 minute interview today with Laura Browder, author of the book Her Best Shot. The interview, Guns: Not Just for Men, contains a retrospective of how women and guns are portrayed in the media throughout American history. Kudos to NPR and Browder for an even handed look at this topic, which was mostly devoid of bias and loaded questions.

The interview touches on a variety of topics, including:

• How women were shown as equals in hunting and shooting advertisements from the 1880s through the 1950s
• The shifts in the 60s and 70s that moved women to an accessory "bimbo" role in a male-dominated culture and the fear-based advertising that targeted women in the 80s and 90s
• The racists roots of many gun control laws in the U.S., and how these laws have now gained wide support from black politicians (see D.C. and Philadelphia)
  
• The NRA's support of the Black Panthers in regard to their 2nd Amendment rights when the marched on Sacramento

Entire audio interview here
Browder's book Her Best Shot can be purchased via Amazon

Huckabee's Faux Pas

A quick note on the "joke" that Mike Huckabee made at the NRA convention this week. When a loud noise was heard offstage during his address he commented:

"That was Barack Obama. "He just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he ... he dove for the floor."

Indeed a tasteless comment, and the bad press it garnered does nothing to help shed the negative stereotype that many associate with the NRA and its members. To the credit of the audience, few if any laughs or applause can be heard after the comment - it seemed to be recognized as off color immediately. Especially when compared to the exuberant reaction to Huckabee's previous comment during the video, which related to keeping the government small and out of the people's business.

Video of the indecent can be seen on the LA Times blog. Also, note that Huckabee has since repeatedly apologized without caveat.

Rep. Dan Boren (D-Paden) Named to NRA Board of Directors

Though John McCain's address to the NRA garnered a lot of press this week, along with accusations of the NRA being a pawn of the Republican Party, there was another story coming out of Louisville that was mostly overlooked.

U.S. Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma was named as the latest member of the NRA Board of Directors. I am sure that if the story received more coverage liberal bloggers would also insinuate that he is merely a token figure, but that is far from the truth. Boren, elected to the House in 2004 and re-elected in 2006, is one of a growing number of Blue Dog Democrats. When the Democrats regained control of Congress it was seen as a sea change - a protest vote against George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. While this may be true, the Republicans that were ousted were mostly replaced by Blue Dogs. These centrist and conservative Democrats may indeed disagree with our current situation in the Middle East, but they are far from lock-step with the the far left in their party.

Boren, along with other prominent Blue Dogs such as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Virginia), are, and always have been staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. This is where the real sea change happened. While almost all Republican congressmen can be trusted to support our gun rights, it is no longer true that the vast majority of democrats will oppose them. The democratic party platform has even eased its gun control position in an attempt to make inroads in the West and avoid another loss like the 2000 Presidential race. Watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama affirm the individual right to bear arms and avoid questions on their previous anti-gun positions, even if it is lip service, is further evidence of this change.

National Parks Carry Hysteria

There has been plenty of press about the Department of the Interior (DOI) proposing to allow concealed carry within National Parks. The new rule would have the carry laws within parks align with the laws in which the park exists (i.e., Mt. Rainier National Park would have the same carry laws as Washington State, Joshua Tree would have the same carry laws as California).

The DOI's public comment period is still open, and I encourage everyone to let their voice be heard here.

Many websites have also been taking reader's comments on this issues and the results range from strong support to strong opposition. What I have noticed is that most of the outcry against the law regurgitates baseless arguments that anti-gunners have been using for years. Let's look at some facts to address the most common concerns with the law:

• Allowing concealed carry will now allow the display or discharge of firearms within the park - which most people argue would disturb the tranquility of the park and endanger visitors
  
• For the nth time, permit holders are more law abiding than non-permit holders
• Poachers are not likely to submit to the fingerprinting and background checks needed to obtain concealed carry permits

Park law enforcement should not have much trouble identifying and apprehending poachers, even with concealed carry allowed. I apologize for anecdotal evidence here, but a park ranger with whom I am friendly informed me that most poachers they arrest carry .22lr target pistols. These pistols are accurate at distance and have a small report, which makes them less likely to be heard when fired. This small round slowly bleeds the animal, which they track until it is dead. Concealed carry holders do sometimes carry .22lr, but most often because these arms are easy to conceal. These guns have a short barrel and are not accurate at distance. The majority of carry holders that I have spoken with prefer a larger caliber round that has better stopping power, such as the 9mm or the venerable .45acp.

Simply put, the artificial boundaries currently imposed on National Parks are doing nothing to keep them safe. Poachers and drug smugglers continue to bring weapons into the park for nefarious purposes. Erring on the side of personal rights will also do nothing to make the parks less safe.

Thoughts on Georgia's "Guns in Bars and Buses" Bill

Georgia's Governor Sonny Perdue signed a much-needed bill into law this week that expands the rights of concealed carry permit holders within the state. These law abiding citizens will now be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights on public transportation, in state and local parks, and in restaurants that serve alcohol (provided the permit-holder is not imbibing).

These arbitrary boundaries that existed before the law did nothing to reduce crime - even if they provided anti-gunners with the illusion of safety. Union bus drivers in metropolitan Georgia areas said they will now ask for bulletproof safety shields. What a silly and empty attempt way for the union to attack the Governor. This argument overlooks a few important facts:

• Criminals with no respect for life or law have been carrying on your busses for decades
• Concealed-carry holders are more law abiding than non-holders
  

This is just another version of the "blood in the streets" and "wild west shootout" scare tactic that is thrown out whenever gun rights are expanded. As always happen, the naysayers will be proven wrong.

The Atlanta Constitution Journal reports that the Georgia Restaurant Association, which opposed the legislation, states that waiters and waitresses shouldn't be required to demand a patron's gun permit before serving a drink. I agree with them on this one, but it is no reason to oppose the law. It is not the server's responsibility to check for a permit, nor is it any of their business if someone is carrying. It is the responsibility of the armed citizen to follow the law. If they commit a crime with their gun, or while carrying their gun, their license and freedom are jeopardized.

(Closing note: I live in Washington State, where is has always been legal to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, on public transit, and in parks. We have few to nil incidents of legal permit holders creating trouble in restaurants or on the buses and trains, and these situations would not be any safer by denying access to an armed citizen.)

McCain and the NRA - a logical view

Some news and commentary sites are criticizing the National Rifle Association (NRA) for its public acceptance of John McCain yesterday. Insinuations, such as those by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, that this is evidence that the NRA is a pawn of the GOP is a stretch at best and an outright lie at worst.

Others, such as Paul Helmke of the Huffington Post, offer up McCain's C+ NRA rating as an illustration of hypocrisy. Let's take a look at some of McCain's ratings from other gun groups to get a better picture:

• Gun Owners of America, 2006 : 100%
• Brady Campaign, 2003 (anti-gun): only 14%
• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1999-2000 (anti-gun): 0%
• and for good measure...NRA, 1993-1994: 100%

Now compare that to Obama, who has recieved an "F" from the NRA from 1999 thru 2004, and Hillary Clinton who has an "F" from the NRA, a 100% from the Brady Campaign, and 0% from Gun Owners of America between 2001-2006.

With these numbers the picture becomes clearer and logic prevails. Yes, the NRA and McCain do not see eye to eye on every issue. Yes their internal magazine has sniped at him in the past when their positions did not align. Much like, say, abortion rights activists, gun owners and the NRA distrust any attempt to chip away at their civil rights and clamor loudly at those who do the chipping. Despite previous squabbles, the choice to rally behind McCain is a smart one for the NRA, and not exactly hypocritical. McCain promises to align his positions closer to that of the NRA's and the NRA delivers votes to the candidate most likely to support those positions and appoint judges sympathetic to them. More importantly, the alliance attempts to prevent a future "President Obama", who would surely be the most anti-gun executive who ever held the position.