3159 Dead
2012-09-02 16:15:01 UTC
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/436-2nd-amendment-rights/13252-
how-the-gun-industry-made-a-fortune-through-fear
How the Gun Industry Made a Fortune Through Fear
By Jarrett Murphy, Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
02 September 12
A freckled boy with tousled hair looks into the camera and says, "I am
NRA Country." A black guy with dreadlocks echoes him, as do two pretty
young women suppressing giggles, saying in unison, "We are NRA Country."
Then there's country music star Justin Moore, leaning against a farm
fence in worn jeans and a cowboy hat, strumming a guitar as scenes of
Americana flash by. "You don't have to look far-all you gotta do is look
around," he sings. "This is NRA Country."
In Moore's video, NRA Country looks like a wonderful place. The girls are
pretty, the skies are blue, and people seem to spend a lot of time
outdoors. But appearances aside, all is not well in NRA Country:
according to the National Rifle Association, it faces existential peril
in the form of Barack Obama's possible second term.
Well before the Aurora theater shooting and the Sikh temple massacre
returned guns to the political radar, the NRA adopted the poker-table
slogan "All In!" for the 2012 election season. The NRA's long-serving
executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, has dubbed the looming vote
"the most dangerous election in our lifetime." In mailings this summer,
the NRA's Political Victory Fund proclaimed that donations "could mean
the difference between the survival or destruction of our Second
Amendment freedoms."
The NRA's beef with Obama could be bad news for the president. The gun
group, which grades candidates on their fidelity to the cause on a scale
from A+ to F, claims an instrumental role in defeating John Kerry in
2004, Al Gore in 2000 and the Democrats' Congressional majority in 1994.
("The NRA is the reason Republicans control the House," Bill Clinton
famously said after that election.) While some analysts believe its
political power is overstated, the NRA is chiefly feared because it
speaks to those voters who will cast their ballot based on the gun issue
alone-a unity of purpose that gun control supporters lack.
Central to this fearsome image of the NRA is the notion that it is more
than just an organization with a lot of money (it spent $244 million in
2010) and 4 million members (a minority of America's estimated 70 million-
plus gun owners)-that it is, in fact, the vanguard of America's
mainstream working-class culture. It isn't just that President Obama and
Nancy Pelosi disagree with the NRA on gun policy. It's that their
attitude on guns puts them out of step and out of touch with what real
blue-collar Americans care about. As a recent headline in the NRA's
magazine asked: "Our America or Obama's?"
But like the view through the scope of a high-powered rifle, that
cultural lens magnifies one aspect of America's gun politics to the
exclusion of all else. Among other things, it obscures the fact that Obama
has done little to nothing on gun policy. It glosses over the plain truth
that the gun control battles of the 1990s are over and that the NRA has
largely won. And most important, it ignores the fact that the gun issue
is very much about money-money that the NRA banks with each new member,
that the gunmakers earn with each new gun.
There is no divorcing the politics of guns from their profits. America's
gun lobby and gun industry both benefit from creating a fearful vision of
life in the United States-a picture of criminals constantly menacing our
families and a government hellbent on taking our guns-that is very
effective at selling weapons. In fact, in large part because of the way
anxieties about his gun policies have been manipulated, the Obama era has
been a golden age for firearms manufacturers, and the run-up to Election
2012 could be for Glock and Remington what the Christmas shopping season
is for Macy's and Sears: a time to cash in before the narrative changes.
* * *
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation-a trade association
for the country's gun and ammunition manufacturers, importers,
wholesalers and retailers as well as its shooting ranges-the American
firearms industry employed more than 98,000 people last year and
generated an overall economic impact of $31.8 billion. The industry's
employment rate is up 31 percent since 2008. Firearms, says NSSF senior
vice president Larry Keane, have been "a shining light in an otherwise
dark and bleak economic picture."
The boom in the firearms industry also shows up in manufacturing
statistics maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives. From 2007 to 2011, the number of firearms manufactured in the
United States grew by 63 percent, led by pistols, which posted a 104
percent jump.
That freshly minted arsenal translates into profits for gunmakers. Only a
handful of firearms companies are publicly owned, but those that are have
had good news for investors. Winchester, which makes ammunition, reported
a backlog in January worth $137 million-and while 2011 wasn't as
lucrative as 2009 or ‘10, the company said it was still "the third most
profitable year in at least the last two decades." Remington sold more
than 1 million guns and 2 billion rounds of ammunition in 2011. Sturm,
Ruger was so overwhelmed by new business earlier this year-its gross
profit jumped by 66 percent between January and June-that it imposed a
brief hiatus on new orders.
Many factors-fear of crime during the economic downturn, better promotion
of hunting by state wildlife agencies, more women taking up shooting,
veterans returning home with a deeper attachment to guns-have likely
fueled the boom in gun sales. But Obama's influence is given singular
credit. As Remington's then-CEO, Ted Torbeck, put it in a May 2009
conference call with investors, "demand…has risen amidst concerns that
the new administration will further restrict the use or purchase of
firearms and ammunition and levy additional taxes on these products."
* * *
Like all companies, gunmakers face threats to their profits and survival,
such as uncertain access to necessary commodities (including steel and
wood) and a dependence on key retail suppliers like Walmart. But the
biggest challenge to the industry is, ironically, the durability of its
product. Longtime gun industry lobbyist Richard Feldman says he used to
chide gunmakers: "You make a product for $300, and somebody could buy
this revolver and, by the time they are 80, they'll have fired $10,000
worth of ammunition through it."
In short, guns aren't like shoes that wear out every couple of years or
cars that might last a decade. A gun that's taken care of should last a
lifetime. Such a durable product can be a problem for the industry that
makes it. That's why it's crucial not only to attract new customers, but
to get gun owners to buy multiple guns. And that's where the twin fears
of crime and confiscation-hyped by America's massive gun marketing
complex-come in.
The US murder rate is 44 percent lower than it was in 1995, but you
wouldn't know it reading the gun press. Most gun publications-like Guns &
Ammo, Shooting Times and Rifle Firepower-are glorified catalogs in which
the line between editorial and advertising is virtually nonexistent. Many
are selling more than guns; they're also pitching fear. Take the cover of
July's Handguns magazine, which bellowed "RAGING BULL: Why stopping an
attacker is harder than you think," or June's Combat Handguns, which
offered features like "HOME INVASION AFTERMATH: When Survival Isn't
Enough." The summer issue of Personal & Home Defense provided readers
with "panic room essentials," tips on selecting "your three-gun battery"
and an exhortation to "Survive Violent Attacks-Don't Be a Victim."
Gunmakers play a role as advertisers and promoters of alarmist content.
Hornady, a major ammunition manufacturer, sponsors a raft of TV shows,
including Personal Defense, whose current-season promos claim-with no
clear statistical basis-that the United States sees 71,000 home invasions
a year. Gunmakers like to stir fear on their websites, too: Mossberg
makes a none-too-subtle allusion to post-Katrina violence when it says
that, "whether it's survival in the backcountry, or hurricane season on
the coast, one can never be too prepared for the unexpected."
Tom Diaz, a researcher at the Violence Policy Center, calls it "fear
marketing." And it's clearly effective: Remington boasts that its "brand
awareness" is second only to Nike's.
But while gun-themed TV shows and magazines pump up the threat of crime,
the undeniable decrease in violence nationwide naturally limits its
marketing potential. Fortunately, the fear of gun regulation and
confiscation is every bit as powerful and much more malleable. It can
always be lurking right around the corner. Just ask the NRA.
* * *
The NRA has been sounding the alarm over Barack Obama since at least
2008, when it called the then-presidential candidate a "serious threat to
Second Amendment liberties" and later launched a website called
GunBanObama.com. After the president was elected, the NRA's Institute for
Legislative Action warned, "American gun owners will soon be the targets
of an attack dog named Rahm Emanuel." Barely two months into the Obama
administration, the NRA put out an alert called "The Coming Storm," which
described a "wish list of gun-prohibition measures" that the gun control
lobby had presented to the White House. Gun sales-which fell 23 percent
the first year that George W. Bush was president-soared 23 percent in
2009.
Yet the "coming storm" blew past without incident, as Obama took up none
of the wish list measures. Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2009 that
the administration wanted a new ban on "assault weapons," but the bid was
quickly dropped. Instead, Obama signed a bill that year permitting guns
to be carried in national parks. "Obama has done everything in his power
to stay away from the gun issue," Feldman says.
Obama's inaction on guns earned him an F in 2009 from the pro-gun control
Brady Center. Yet on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, the NRA
warned that unless people voted for a pro-gun Senate, Obama would be in
the position to pick a Supreme Court that "puts democracy in peril."
In 2011, after Representative Gabby Giffords was shot in the head and six
others killed by Jared Lee Loughner, who was wielding a Glock handgun
with an extended magazine, Obama gave a nice speech but offered no
policy. When the Trayvon Martin shooting in February pointed up the
problems with "Stand Your Ground" laws, Obama delivered a moving
statement but no substance.
Yet the NRA's rhetoric reached a fever pitch this spring and summer, with
the association warning in a fundraising letter that a second term for
Obama would give him "free rein to declare all-out war on our gun rights
and rip the Second Amendment right out of our Bill of Rights."
The "Fast and Furious" controversy gave the gun lobby what at least
looked like live ammo rather than blanks. The now infamous operation was
tragically mishandled and made worse by the administration, which
proffered false statistical claims in its own defense. But much of the
manufactured outrage on the right clearly sought to vindicate its
depiction of Obama as a gun-grabber. After the probe into the scandal,
the White House imposed a modest regulation requiring gun stores in the
four Southern border states to report to the ATF whenever anyone
purchases more than one rifle with a detachable magazine within five
days. NRA allies introduced legislation to keep the rule from being
implemented, and the NSSF and NRA sued unsuccessfully to block it. The
intertwined fears of crime and gun confiscation were on display months
later in the wake of the theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado. The Denver
Post reported a spike in gun sales as people prepared either for their
own encounter with a redheaded lunatic or a government crackdown on guns.
The latter doesn't seem very likely. During the Aurora shooting, at least
four men died after throwing themselves into the line of fire to protect
others, but the Obama White House has betrayed no such instinct. In
speeches and statements, the administration called for stronger
background checks but stressed over and over that it intends to "protect
the Second Amendment rights of the American people."
* * *
Gun manufacturers and the gun lobby haven't always seen eye to eye. When
Smith & Wesson struck a deal with the Clinton administration in 2000,
agreeing to a long list of changes to its products and business practices-
including limiting the size of magazines for its semi-automatic weapons
and avoiding dealers who sold a disproportionate number of guns later
used in crimes-the gun lobby howled. It led a boycott of Smith & Wesson
that nearly killed the company; in a span of just two years, the number
of guns manufactured by Smith & Wesson fell by 44 percent. "They just
beat the crap out of Smith & Wesson for a while, then let them back in,"
says Diaz. Colt Firearms and Sturm, Ruger have been similarly punished
for crimes against the Second Amendment.
There remain differences of tone and substance between the industry,
represented by the NSSF, and the political gun rights movement, anchored
by the NRA. For example, according to Keane, the NSSF isn't nearly as
concerned as the NRA about a potential United Nations Treaty on Small
Arms, which would regulate international transfers of guns (although
negotiations over the still-vague treaty broke down in July). And after
the mass shooting in Tucson, the NSSF engaged in a White House-sponsored
dialogue among gun control groups and gun rights supporters about ways to
reduce violence; the NRA did not.
These occasionally divergent approaches reflect what have traditionally
been different goals: gunmakers want to sell guns, and the gun lobby
wants to fight (and re-fight) an ideological battle. But Feldman believes
that "the industry feels more beholden to the NRA today than they ever
did," because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005-
the law that essentially blocks federal lawsuits brought by
municipalities wishing to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the
bloodshed their products helped create. The shield legislation saved the
industry, ending what Keane characterizes as "a concerted effort, guided
by the [Clinton] White House, to bankrupt and destroy the firearms
industry through frivolous lawsuits." While at least one such lawsuit-by
the city of Gary, Indiana-is still working its way through the courts,
thirty-four states have, like the feds, barred public interest suits
against gunmakers.
Not surprisingly, the gun industry today is generous in its support of
the NRA and its message. The NRA's annual conference counted the gun
seller Cabelas and scope makers Leupold, Trijicon and Bushnell among its
sponsors. Ammo maker Steve Hornady and gun parts manufacturer Pete
Brownell are on the NRA's board of directors. Taurus buys an NRA
membership for everyone who purchases one of its guns. Rifle and shotgun
maker Harrington & Richardson features a link to NRA legislative updates
on its homepage. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, calls itself
"an NRA company" and donates 10 percent from each sale to the
association. An NRA Golden Ring of Freedom honors people and institutions
donating more than $1 million to the organization, including Cabelas,
Beretta, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger-which puts out a special-edition
pistol with serial numbers that begin with 'NRA."
"We're trying to make history. We'd like to be the first company to ever
build and ship a million guns in one year," Sturm, Ruger president and
CEO Mike Fifer said in a video on the NRA's website earlier in the year.
"We'd also like to help the NRA. It's a big election year coming up, and
we've got to do everything we can to protect our Second Amendment right
to bear arms." So, Fifer said, the company was pledging to give $1 from
every gun sold to the NRA, adding: "If you've been thinking about that
Ruger, please go out and buy it."
It's not surprising that companies support a lobbying group that
encourages the purchase of their products. But the extent of corporate
support for the NRA casts the group's "grassroots" self-image-reflected
in its "grassroots alerts" and "grassroots division"-in a doubtful light.
The NRA's annual meeting, where there's always a "grassroots workshop,"
is typically funded by a Who's Who of gun industry stalwarts like Smith &
Wesson, Sig Sauer, CZ-USA and Sturm, Ruger, who can pick up a "Gold
Sponsorship" for $50,000 or attach their name to something cheaper, like
sponsoring the annual Prayer Breakfast. So while the NRA pulled in more
than $100 million in membership dues in 2010, other donations (including
those from corporate supporters) totaled nearly $59 million-and
advertising in the association's publications and on its websites brought
in another $21 million.
The purity of the organization's ideological goal-a commitment to
individual freedom-is also a little tainted by the sheer amount of
selling the NRA does. Members are bombarded with commercial solicitations
for auto and home insurance, as well as insurance in case they're killed
in a hunting mishap, ArmsCare coverage for the loss or theft of a gun,
and self-defense insurance to cover legal fees if they shoot somebody.
The NRA also officially licenses some firearms accessories, like the
protective SoundGear by LaPierre. Royalties earned the association $11
million in 2010.
The link between the marketing and legislative work is anything but
subtle. In March, NRA members received an e-mail encouraging them to
support a proposed federal law that would force states to recognize
concealed-carry permits issued by other states. When the law passes, the
NRA e-mail exclaimed, "you'll enjoy increased freedom-and that means
you'll need some new NRA equipment!" Like, say, a new holster. Or a
sweatshirt-a hoodie-specially made to conceal a gun.
* * *
As the NRA notched victory after victory over the past decade, the gun-
control movement reoriented-by all but dropping the idea of gun control.
Its focus shifted from seeking gun registration or banning certain guns
to trying to keep specific categories of people-felons, domestic abusers,
the mentally incompetent-from getting weapons. This shift was spearheaded
by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
which, in a series of undercover operations, exposed gun dealers
knowingly selling to straw buyers as well as sketchy sales at gun shows.
Emboldened rather than embarrassed, the gun lobby mocked Bloomberg and
trotted out a brand-new argument: stopping straw buyer sales and closing
gun show loopholes would make little difference, it said, since most guns
used to commit crimes are stolen-in fact, some 500,000 guns are lost or
stolen every year. Yet the NRA and the gun industry have not supported
rules requiring gun owners to report when their weapons go missing-let
alone laws that might limit the sheer volume of guns out there to be lost
or stolen. For example, a bill to limit gun sales to one per customer per
month died in Massachusetts this summer.
That was just one in a series of recent wins for the gun lobby. In some
cases, it fought off or rolled back gun restrictions, as in the eleven
pro-gun measures in the House version of the federal budget, or the
defeat in New York of a bid to require microstamping-placing small
identification marks on every gun's firing pin so that shell casings
found at a crime scene can be matched to a particular gun. Other measures
aimed to expand gun rights anew: Oklahoma became the twenty-fifth state
to allow people to carry guns openly; Virginia overturned its one-gun-a-
month rule; and, as USA Today reported in March, "Legislatures in a dozen
states are considering laws that would eliminate requirements that
residents obtain permits to carry concealed weapons." Still others
embodied the fear of weapons confiscation: North Carolina passed a law
making it clear that guns couldn't be seized during a state of emergency,
and Louisiana legislators OK'd a constitutional amendment protecting the
right to keep and bear arms.
Come November, should the gun-friendly Mitt Romney win and the House
remain under Republican control, both the NRA and the gun industry will
need a new premise for their profitable scare tactics. But as is true for
the increasing number of concealed-carry permit holders packing heat each
time they go out for a gallon of milk, if all you need to feel frightened
is the mere possibility of danger, then danger will be everywhere. After
all, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo might run for president in 2016, and
he has a record as a gun control proponent. He could replace Barack Obama
as Public Enemy No. 1 in NRA Country.
how-the-gun-industry-made-a-fortune-through-fear
How the Gun Industry Made a Fortune Through Fear
By Jarrett Murphy, Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
02 September 12
A freckled boy with tousled hair looks into the camera and says, "I am
NRA Country." A black guy with dreadlocks echoes him, as do two pretty
young women suppressing giggles, saying in unison, "We are NRA Country."
Then there's country music star Justin Moore, leaning against a farm
fence in worn jeans and a cowboy hat, strumming a guitar as scenes of
Americana flash by. "You don't have to look far-all you gotta do is look
around," he sings. "This is NRA Country."
In Moore's video, NRA Country looks like a wonderful place. The girls are
pretty, the skies are blue, and people seem to spend a lot of time
outdoors. But appearances aside, all is not well in NRA Country:
according to the National Rifle Association, it faces existential peril
in the form of Barack Obama's possible second term.
Well before the Aurora theater shooting and the Sikh temple massacre
returned guns to the political radar, the NRA adopted the poker-table
slogan "All In!" for the 2012 election season. The NRA's long-serving
executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, has dubbed the looming vote
"the most dangerous election in our lifetime." In mailings this summer,
the NRA's Political Victory Fund proclaimed that donations "could mean
the difference between the survival or destruction of our Second
Amendment freedoms."
The NRA's beef with Obama could be bad news for the president. The gun
group, which grades candidates on their fidelity to the cause on a scale
from A+ to F, claims an instrumental role in defeating John Kerry in
2004, Al Gore in 2000 and the Democrats' Congressional majority in 1994.
("The NRA is the reason Republicans control the House," Bill Clinton
famously said after that election.) While some analysts believe its
political power is overstated, the NRA is chiefly feared because it
speaks to those voters who will cast their ballot based on the gun issue
alone-a unity of purpose that gun control supporters lack.
Central to this fearsome image of the NRA is the notion that it is more
than just an organization with a lot of money (it spent $244 million in
2010) and 4 million members (a minority of America's estimated 70 million-
plus gun owners)-that it is, in fact, the vanguard of America's
mainstream working-class culture. It isn't just that President Obama and
Nancy Pelosi disagree with the NRA on gun policy. It's that their
attitude on guns puts them out of step and out of touch with what real
blue-collar Americans care about. As a recent headline in the NRA's
magazine asked: "Our America or Obama's?"
But like the view through the scope of a high-powered rifle, that
cultural lens magnifies one aspect of America's gun politics to the
exclusion of all else. Among other things, it obscures the fact that Obama
has done little to nothing on gun policy. It glosses over the plain truth
that the gun control battles of the 1990s are over and that the NRA has
largely won. And most important, it ignores the fact that the gun issue
is very much about money-money that the NRA banks with each new member,
that the gunmakers earn with each new gun.
There is no divorcing the politics of guns from their profits. America's
gun lobby and gun industry both benefit from creating a fearful vision of
life in the United States-a picture of criminals constantly menacing our
families and a government hellbent on taking our guns-that is very
effective at selling weapons. In fact, in large part because of the way
anxieties about his gun policies have been manipulated, the Obama era has
been a golden age for firearms manufacturers, and the run-up to Election
2012 could be for Glock and Remington what the Christmas shopping season
is for Macy's and Sears: a time to cash in before the narrative changes.
* * *
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation-a trade association
for the country's gun and ammunition manufacturers, importers,
wholesalers and retailers as well as its shooting ranges-the American
firearms industry employed more than 98,000 people last year and
generated an overall economic impact of $31.8 billion. The industry's
employment rate is up 31 percent since 2008. Firearms, says NSSF senior
vice president Larry Keane, have been "a shining light in an otherwise
dark and bleak economic picture."
The boom in the firearms industry also shows up in manufacturing
statistics maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives. From 2007 to 2011, the number of firearms manufactured in the
United States grew by 63 percent, led by pistols, which posted a 104
percent jump.
That freshly minted arsenal translates into profits for gunmakers. Only a
handful of firearms companies are publicly owned, but those that are have
had good news for investors. Winchester, which makes ammunition, reported
a backlog in January worth $137 million-and while 2011 wasn't as
lucrative as 2009 or ‘10, the company said it was still "the third most
profitable year in at least the last two decades." Remington sold more
than 1 million guns and 2 billion rounds of ammunition in 2011. Sturm,
Ruger was so overwhelmed by new business earlier this year-its gross
profit jumped by 66 percent between January and June-that it imposed a
brief hiatus on new orders.
Many factors-fear of crime during the economic downturn, better promotion
of hunting by state wildlife agencies, more women taking up shooting,
veterans returning home with a deeper attachment to guns-have likely
fueled the boom in gun sales. But Obama's influence is given singular
credit. As Remington's then-CEO, Ted Torbeck, put it in a May 2009
conference call with investors, "demand…has risen amidst concerns that
the new administration will further restrict the use or purchase of
firearms and ammunition and levy additional taxes on these products."
* * *
Like all companies, gunmakers face threats to their profits and survival,
such as uncertain access to necessary commodities (including steel and
wood) and a dependence on key retail suppliers like Walmart. But the
biggest challenge to the industry is, ironically, the durability of its
product. Longtime gun industry lobbyist Richard Feldman says he used to
chide gunmakers: "You make a product for $300, and somebody could buy
this revolver and, by the time they are 80, they'll have fired $10,000
worth of ammunition through it."
In short, guns aren't like shoes that wear out every couple of years or
cars that might last a decade. A gun that's taken care of should last a
lifetime. Such a durable product can be a problem for the industry that
makes it. That's why it's crucial not only to attract new customers, but
to get gun owners to buy multiple guns. And that's where the twin fears
of crime and confiscation-hyped by America's massive gun marketing
complex-come in.
The US murder rate is 44 percent lower than it was in 1995, but you
wouldn't know it reading the gun press. Most gun publications-like Guns &
Ammo, Shooting Times and Rifle Firepower-are glorified catalogs in which
the line between editorial and advertising is virtually nonexistent. Many
are selling more than guns; they're also pitching fear. Take the cover of
July's Handguns magazine, which bellowed "RAGING BULL: Why stopping an
attacker is harder than you think," or June's Combat Handguns, which
offered features like "HOME INVASION AFTERMATH: When Survival Isn't
Enough." The summer issue of Personal & Home Defense provided readers
with "panic room essentials," tips on selecting "your three-gun battery"
and an exhortation to "Survive Violent Attacks-Don't Be a Victim."
Gunmakers play a role as advertisers and promoters of alarmist content.
Hornady, a major ammunition manufacturer, sponsors a raft of TV shows,
including Personal Defense, whose current-season promos claim-with no
clear statistical basis-that the United States sees 71,000 home invasions
a year. Gunmakers like to stir fear on their websites, too: Mossberg
makes a none-too-subtle allusion to post-Katrina violence when it says
that, "whether it's survival in the backcountry, or hurricane season on
the coast, one can never be too prepared for the unexpected."
Tom Diaz, a researcher at the Violence Policy Center, calls it "fear
marketing." And it's clearly effective: Remington boasts that its "brand
awareness" is second only to Nike's.
But while gun-themed TV shows and magazines pump up the threat of crime,
the undeniable decrease in violence nationwide naturally limits its
marketing potential. Fortunately, the fear of gun regulation and
confiscation is every bit as powerful and much more malleable. It can
always be lurking right around the corner. Just ask the NRA.
* * *
The NRA has been sounding the alarm over Barack Obama since at least
2008, when it called the then-presidential candidate a "serious threat to
Second Amendment liberties" and later launched a website called
GunBanObama.com. After the president was elected, the NRA's Institute for
Legislative Action warned, "American gun owners will soon be the targets
of an attack dog named Rahm Emanuel." Barely two months into the Obama
administration, the NRA put out an alert called "The Coming Storm," which
described a "wish list of gun-prohibition measures" that the gun control
lobby had presented to the White House. Gun sales-which fell 23 percent
the first year that George W. Bush was president-soared 23 percent in
2009.
Yet the "coming storm" blew past without incident, as Obama took up none
of the wish list measures. Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2009 that
the administration wanted a new ban on "assault weapons," but the bid was
quickly dropped. Instead, Obama signed a bill that year permitting guns
to be carried in national parks. "Obama has done everything in his power
to stay away from the gun issue," Feldman says.
Obama's inaction on guns earned him an F in 2009 from the pro-gun control
Brady Center. Yet on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, the NRA
warned that unless people voted for a pro-gun Senate, Obama would be in
the position to pick a Supreme Court that "puts democracy in peril."
In 2011, after Representative Gabby Giffords was shot in the head and six
others killed by Jared Lee Loughner, who was wielding a Glock handgun
with an extended magazine, Obama gave a nice speech but offered no
policy. When the Trayvon Martin shooting in February pointed up the
problems with "Stand Your Ground" laws, Obama delivered a moving
statement but no substance.
Yet the NRA's rhetoric reached a fever pitch this spring and summer, with
the association warning in a fundraising letter that a second term for
Obama would give him "free rein to declare all-out war on our gun rights
and rip the Second Amendment right out of our Bill of Rights."
The "Fast and Furious" controversy gave the gun lobby what at least
looked like live ammo rather than blanks. The now infamous operation was
tragically mishandled and made worse by the administration, which
proffered false statistical claims in its own defense. But much of the
manufactured outrage on the right clearly sought to vindicate its
depiction of Obama as a gun-grabber. After the probe into the scandal,
the White House imposed a modest regulation requiring gun stores in the
four Southern border states to report to the ATF whenever anyone
purchases more than one rifle with a detachable magazine within five
days. NRA allies introduced legislation to keep the rule from being
implemented, and the NSSF and NRA sued unsuccessfully to block it. The
intertwined fears of crime and gun confiscation were on display months
later in the wake of the theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado. The Denver
Post reported a spike in gun sales as people prepared either for their
own encounter with a redheaded lunatic or a government crackdown on guns.
The latter doesn't seem very likely. During the Aurora shooting, at least
four men died after throwing themselves into the line of fire to protect
others, but the Obama White House has betrayed no such instinct. In
speeches and statements, the administration called for stronger
background checks but stressed over and over that it intends to "protect
the Second Amendment rights of the American people."
* * *
Gun manufacturers and the gun lobby haven't always seen eye to eye. When
Smith & Wesson struck a deal with the Clinton administration in 2000,
agreeing to a long list of changes to its products and business practices-
including limiting the size of magazines for its semi-automatic weapons
and avoiding dealers who sold a disproportionate number of guns later
used in crimes-the gun lobby howled. It led a boycott of Smith & Wesson
that nearly killed the company; in a span of just two years, the number
of guns manufactured by Smith & Wesson fell by 44 percent. "They just
beat the crap out of Smith & Wesson for a while, then let them back in,"
says Diaz. Colt Firearms and Sturm, Ruger have been similarly punished
for crimes against the Second Amendment.
There remain differences of tone and substance between the industry,
represented by the NSSF, and the political gun rights movement, anchored
by the NRA. For example, according to Keane, the NSSF isn't nearly as
concerned as the NRA about a potential United Nations Treaty on Small
Arms, which would regulate international transfers of guns (although
negotiations over the still-vague treaty broke down in July). And after
the mass shooting in Tucson, the NSSF engaged in a White House-sponsored
dialogue among gun control groups and gun rights supporters about ways to
reduce violence; the NRA did not.
These occasionally divergent approaches reflect what have traditionally
been different goals: gunmakers want to sell guns, and the gun lobby
wants to fight (and re-fight) an ideological battle. But Feldman believes
that "the industry feels more beholden to the NRA today than they ever
did," because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005-
the law that essentially blocks federal lawsuits brought by
municipalities wishing to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the
bloodshed their products helped create. The shield legislation saved the
industry, ending what Keane characterizes as "a concerted effort, guided
by the [Clinton] White House, to bankrupt and destroy the firearms
industry through frivolous lawsuits." While at least one such lawsuit-by
the city of Gary, Indiana-is still working its way through the courts,
thirty-four states have, like the feds, barred public interest suits
against gunmakers.
Not surprisingly, the gun industry today is generous in its support of
the NRA and its message. The NRA's annual conference counted the gun
seller Cabelas and scope makers Leupold, Trijicon and Bushnell among its
sponsors. Ammo maker Steve Hornady and gun parts manufacturer Pete
Brownell are on the NRA's board of directors. Taurus buys an NRA
membership for everyone who purchases one of its guns. Rifle and shotgun
maker Harrington & Richardson features a link to NRA legislative updates
on its homepage. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, calls itself
"an NRA company" and donates 10 percent from each sale to the
association. An NRA Golden Ring of Freedom honors people and institutions
donating more than $1 million to the organization, including Cabelas,
Beretta, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger-which puts out a special-edition
pistol with serial numbers that begin with 'NRA."
"We're trying to make history. We'd like to be the first company to ever
build and ship a million guns in one year," Sturm, Ruger president and
CEO Mike Fifer said in a video on the NRA's website earlier in the year.
"We'd also like to help the NRA. It's a big election year coming up, and
we've got to do everything we can to protect our Second Amendment right
to bear arms." So, Fifer said, the company was pledging to give $1 from
every gun sold to the NRA, adding: "If you've been thinking about that
Ruger, please go out and buy it."
It's not surprising that companies support a lobbying group that
encourages the purchase of their products. But the extent of corporate
support for the NRA casts the group's "grassroots" self-image-reflected
in its "grassroots alerts" and "grassroots division"-in a doubtful light.
The NRA's annual meeting, where there's always a "grassroots workshop,"
is typically funded by a Who's Who of gun industry stalwarts like Smith &
Wesson, Sig Sauer, CZ-USA and Sturm, Ruger, who can pick up a "Gold
Sponsorship" for $50,000 or attach their name to something cheaper, like
sponsoring the annual Prayer Breakfast. So while the NRA pulled in more
than $100 million in membership dues in 2010, other donations (including
those from corporate supporters) totaled nearly $59 million-and
advertising in the association's publications and on its websites brought
in another $21 million.
The purity of the organization's ideological goal-a commitment to
individual freedom-is also a little tainted by the sheer amount of
selling the NRA does. Members are bombarded with commercial solicitations
for auto and home insurance, as well as insurance in case they're killed
in a hunting mishap, ArmsCare coverage for the loss or theft of a gun,
and self-defense insurance to cover legal fees if they shoot somebody.
The NRA also officially licenses some firearms accessories, like the
protective SoundGear by LaPierre. Royalties earned the association $11
million in 2010.
The link between the marketing and legislative work is anything but
subtle. In March, NRA members received an e-mail encouraging them to
support a proposed federal law that would force states to recognize
concealed-carry permits issued by other states. When the law passes, the
NRA e-mail exclaimed, "you'll enjoy increased freedom-and that means
you'll need some new NRA equipment!" Like, say, a new holster. Or a
sweatshirt-a hoodie-specially made to conceal a gun.
* * *
As the NRA notched victory after victory over the past decade, the gun-
control movement reoriented-by all but dropping the idea of gun control.
Its focus shifted from seeking gun registration or banning certain guns
to trying to keep specific categories of people-felons, domestic abusers,
the mentally incompetent-from getting weapons. This shift was spearheaded
by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
which, in a series of undercover operations, exposed gun dealers
knowingly selling to straw buyers as well as sketchy sales at gun shows.
Emboldened rather than embarrassed, the gun lobby mocked Bloomberg and
trotted out a brand-new argument: stopping straw buyer sales and closing
gun show loopholes would make little difference, it said, since most guns
used to commit crimes are stolen-in fact, some 500,000 guns are lost or
stolen every year. Yet the NRA and the gun industry have not supported
rules requiring gun owners to report when their weapons go missing-let
alone laws that might limit the sheer volume of guns out there to be lost
or stolen. For example, a bill to limit gun sales to one per customer per
month died in Massachusetts this summer.
That was just one in a series of recent wins for the gun lobby. In some
cases, it fought off or rolled back gun restrictions, as in the eleven
pro-gun measures in the House version of the federal budget, or the
defeat in New York of a bid to require microstamping-placing small
identification marks on every gun's firing pin so that shell casings
found at a crime scene can be matched to a particular gun. Other measures
aimed to expand gun rights anew: Oklahoma became the twenty-fifth state
to allow people to carry guns openly; Virginia overturned its one-gun-a-
month rule; and, as USA Today reported in March, "Legislatures in a dozen
states are considering laws that would eliminate requirements that
residents obtain permits to carry concealed weapons." Still others
embodied the fear of weapons confiscation: North Carolina passed a law
making it clear that guns couldn't be seized during a state of emergency,
and Louisiana legislators OK'd a constitutional amendment protecting the
right to keep and bear arms.
Come November, should the gun-friendly Mitt Romney win and the House
remain under Republican control, both the NRA and the gun industry will
need a new premise for their profitable scare tactics. But as is true for
the increasing number of concealed-carry permit holders packing heat each
time they go out for a gallon of milk, if all you need to feel frightened
is the mere possibility of danger, then danger will be everywhere. After
all, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo might run for president in 2016, and
he has a record as a gun control proponent. He could replace Barack Obama
as Public Enemy No. 1 in NRA Country.
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-***@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-***@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Subscribe:
zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-***@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-***@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!