NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

[Neal J. Lang]

E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang

Hi, Pete,
I was forwarded your e-mail on the above subject by Pete Mancus.  As I was 
not an original recipient, I hope you don't consider my response 
impertinent.
I read with interest (and sadness) your July 27th letter satirically 
belittling the National Rifle Association for celebrating arguably the 
"most important" political coup on behalf of the "individual right to keep 
and bear arms" in the last 8 years.
I hope you don't find my corrective reply to be a flame, as I do not intend 
it to be taken as such.   I respect you and your efforts on behalf of "the 
cause" too much.
This current epistle, while I believe errant, evidences the "passions" and 
"wit" that make all your correspondence a "joy" for those "true believers" 
who clearly see the "truth and the light".  However, the underlying concept 
that the NRA is "counter-productive" (and thereby, by implication, 
undeserving of our support) is wrong.  I'll tell you why.
First, your position (along with others) seems to suggest that the battle 
to restore our "unalienable rights" can be won without compromise.  This 
position suggests that our Federal government and its Constitution were 
founded on "principles" that could never be compromised.
Obviously, Dave, history tells a different story.   After all, our 
founders, after engaging in a desperate struggle with the most powerful 
empire on earth over "principles" eloquently expressed in the "Declaration 
of Independence" instituted a government by ratifying a Constitution that 
codifies a "compromise" allowing slavery.  A Nation born on the idea that 
"all men our created equal" allowed a government based on the 
"constitutional principle" that certain "man" count only a as "3/5th 
persons" and "untaxed" Native Americans don't count at all.
Compared to the founders' "constitutional compromise" on "slavery", the 
NRA's giving ground on "Brady" in order to demand an "Insta-Check" and a 
"ban" on the government retaining records of purchasers is really quite 
minor.  Interestingly, by including these provisions in "Brady", we have 
today a situation whereby America's chief lawman, General Ashcroft, can 
insist that records illegally retained by the FBI for 180 (or more) days, 
must be destroyed with 24 hours under the "rule of law".  I see this as a 
"glass half-full", Dave, not "half-empty".  If the NRA did not have a place 
at the table to get demand this compromise, we would today be "truly" 
experiencing "totally unacceptable delays" in firearms purchases, along 
with a "permanent registry" of firearms buyers.  To think that "Brady" 
would not have passed, despite NRA opposition, without these important 
compromises is quite delusional, IMMHO.
The assault on Attorney General Ashcroft by "Constitutional zealots" is 
also quite delusional as well, IMMHO.  To say that one believes in the 
"infallibility" of the U.S. Constitution and therefore I condemn  the 
Nation's highest law enforcement officer for saying that he will serve his 
constitutional role by enforcing the law, is really quite illogical.  If 
you understand the Constitution, you will see that it did nothing more the 
"institute a government".  The form of government instituted was a 
"republic", a where everyone, "the People" as well as the "magistrates" 
must obey the law.
Our constitution established three distinct branches, each with different 
authority and responsibility.
Article. I. Section. 1. - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be 
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate 
and House of Representatives."
Article. II. Section. 3. - "(H)e (the President) shall take Care that the 
Laws be faithfully executed..."
Article III. Section. 1. - "The judicial Power of the United States shall 
be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress 
may from time to time ordain and establish."
Article III. Section. 2. - "(T)he supreme Court shall have appellate Jur  
isdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such 
Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The Executive branch, of which General Ashcroft is a member, must 
"faithfully execute" the laws that are passed by the Legislative Branch and 
adjudicated by Judicial branch. When one of President Clinton's "White 
House Counsels" gleefully exclaimed, "Stroke of the pen, force of law, 
NEAT!" - we, the believers of Constitutional law, were justifiably 
horrified.  Why than are we so quick to object to the Attorney General when 
he states the obvious.  He MUST uphold the law.  He cannot on his own usurp 
the authority of either the Congress or the Courts.  In this he is living 
his oath of office and serving as an example of the kind of "true Original 
Intent" that has not been seen in Washington in at least 12 years, if not 
longer.
The fact that he bravely committed his Department to the "true" meaning of 
the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" should be the cause of great 
celebrations throughout our country by those of us who believe that "the 
People" in fact means individuals.  Instead we "parse" his words and 
de-ride him for keeping his oath of office by "faithfully executing" the 
Federal code he inherited.  Shooting organizations should be today renaming 
"Practical Shooting Matches" after this courageous American and hero of the 
2nd Amendment.
Dave, the undermining of our rights begins when governmental officials 
forget we have a government of laws.  Our founders thought that Congress, 
not the Attorney General should make the laws of our country.  General 
Ashcroft agrees.  Historically, the Courts determine the Constitutionality 
our laws, not the Attorney General.  General Ashcroft agrees. I think you 
should celebrate this victory, not commiserate when a public official 
recognizes it.
I am glade you still retain your "life membership" in the NRA.  However, as 
a member, I am not sure you can see how this GREAT organization fits in the 
scheme of the defense of our "unalienable rights" in the reality of 21st 
America.
Personally, I believe neither the NRA, the Constitution, POTUS, the 
Attorney General, Congress, nor the Supreme Court have any bearing on the 
actual existence of any my "unalienable rights".  I sleep peacefully every 
night in the knowledge that while my government may have the "power" to 
kill me, it does not have the "authority" to "separate me from these 
rights".  In fact, I, myself, cannot even "give away" these "unalienable 
rights" if I wanted to - else they would not be "unalienable".
The struggle to insure these rights "politically" in the "good old" U.S. of 
A. must be fought on at least three fronts.  These fronts are:
1. The Judicial - overturning existing "bad laws" in the Courts.   This 
requires the nomination of good judges that understand the meaning of 
republic and the simple plan English of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Legislative - passing new laws that correct existing "bad laws" and 
promote expansion of our 2nd Amendment rights to the States and local 
governments. This would be similar to the Civil Rights legislation of the 
1960.  This requires electing good Representatives that understand the 
Constitutional limits imposed on Congress.
3. The Promotional - to insure the appropriate "public relations" climate 
to insure items 1. and 2.  This involves also election the "right" public 
officials to nominate the "right" kind of Justices and to pass the "right" 
kind of legislation.
I submit, Dave, that the NRA is carrying the battle on these three most 
effectively.  After all, being rated the "Most Influential" lobby in 
Washington indicates to me that the NRA is nothing if it is not effective.
To fault the NRA in the absence of a more effective means of defending our 
rights is quite easy.  If you analyze the "political" battlefield were 
meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment as it stands today is being 
determined, you will find that:
1. Congress, as a whole, does not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or 
the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter.  For this reason the NRA 
legislative strategy since 1968 has been a "rear guard" action.  Through 
"political compromise" they attempted (and for the most part succeeded) to 
blunt the more onerous Federal and State laws invading our 2nd Amendment 
rights.
2. The Courts, in general, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, do 
not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the 
NRA, for that matter.  Through lifetime, "good Behaviour" tenure, most 
judges are "immune" to "politics".  However, before their confirmations, 
the NRA can and does have some influence in the selection, nomination and 
confirmation of these Judges.  Additionally, in very well prepared and 
persuasive "Amicus Briefs", the NRA helps promote an "unalienable, 
individual" 2nd Amendment Right in the courts.   In fact, a fair reading of 
their Amicus Curiae in Emerson would indicate that NRA position on 
Lautenberg parallels mine (and maybe yours?) - (it can be read at: 
http://www.saf.org/NRAbrief.htm ) - despite how you have painted it in your 
letter.
3. The public at large ("the People" of the Constitution) generally does 
not see the 2nd Amendment the same as you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or 
the NRA, for that matter.  This is our "PR gap".  I think the NRA has been 
most effective on this front in the "battle", as well.  While accepting 
their inevitable defeat in Congressional on the "Assault Weapons Ban", in 
1994 the NRA came back with a "vengeance" that helped account for one of 
the most historic political "turnarounds" in U.S. history, giving control 
of Congress to the more "2nd Amendment friendly" Republicans.  This caused 
our "true" enemies to institute those IRS audits about which you write in 
revenge for NRA part in their worse 20th Century political loss.
Do I wish we lived in a utopia where all gun owners truly understood their 
rights and voted?  You bet.  But the sad truth is, Dave, many gun owners 
haven't a clue, and many of those that do, don't bother to vote.  This is 
the "real world" in which the NRA is attempting to "hold the line".  Do 
they make mistakes?  Of course they do.  But on balance, IMMHO, without NRA 
we would be today looking at British-like total bans on all firearms.  If 
you are fair, I think you will agree.
While we need to help this organization to "stay on the mark", we also must 
recognize their tremendous contribution.  As such we must be careful not to 
destroy this truly effective and necessary organization, as we attempt to 
promote the "true" meaning of "unalienable rights".  I fear, my friend, 
that sometimes passionate words, even amongst friends and "true believers", 
can also be damaging and counter-productive.
One reason, Dave, I enjoy so much your "in your face" correspondence 
directed at the real "forces of evil" is the passion you display in 
"fighting the good fight".  I love the way you verbally "hold them by their 
nose while you kick their ass".  However, that said, I also think when 
addressing the "choir", some check on passion in the direction of 
presenting the "all the facts" might be the "order of the day".   While 
"tearing down" is sometimes necessary in order to "build-up", care must be 
used when instructing on "enemy recognition".
A fair reading of this latest epistle of yours has the NRA as the "enemy". 
 IMMHO, Dave, they are not.   If enough of NRA members that truly respect 
you take you at your word, serious damage will be done to the NRA and also 
to our "right to keep and bear arms".   If that happens, the opportunity to 
re-take our "rights" on the three fronts of the Legislative; the Judiciary 
and the Public Opinion will be lost leaving only one "Civil War" as the 
only available option.  I don't think I need to remind you, my friend, that 
the last "Civil War", killed more Americans that all the conflicts we were 
involved in - combined.
Remember, Dave, when it comes to "2nd Amendment rights", we will, in fact, 
"all hang separately, if we can't hang together".
Keep the Faith,

Neal
Neal J. Lang (Signed)
E-mail: movwater at bellsouth.net