Opposition to "buyback" programs is what invalidates what the NRA has become
It wasn't always what it is now. There was a time when the NRA was more open-minded to gun-control. But the organization has changed over time.
And now look where that has led.
IOW, it now appears that instead of couching the argument in terms of "freedom" or "rights" or "lesser of two evils," the NRA has evolved to the position that a heavily-armed society is something America should have, and any effort to make it less-armed is bad.
This is as if Libertarians arguing for drug-decriminalization were suddenly to start proclaiming that cocaine and heroin are good for you, and the more of those substances we have on the market the better. It would shatter the credibility even of their more-credible arguments.
It wasn't always what it is now. There was a time when the NRA was more open-minded to gun-control. But the organization has changed over time.
The NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act,[20] the first major gun control legislation in the United States. At the time, the NRA supported the act without studying its impact on the second amendment, and also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. The two acts created a system to license gun dealers and imposed taxes on the private ownership of machine guns.[21]
"The Cincinnati Revolution"
Since the 1970s, the NRA has undergone a series of changes, resulting in different groups taking control of the organization and changing its focus away from hunting, conservation and marksmanship to one of Second Amendment advocacy and political mobilization.
The defining moment came at the 1977 annual convention in Cincinnati, known as "The Cincinnati Revolution."[22] Until then, the NRA had focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and had downplayed issues of gun control. At the convention, the leadership had planned an elaborate new headquarters in Colorado, designed to promote sportsmanship and conservation. Within the organization, an opposition was formed of activists whose whose central concern was Second Amendment rights. The activists defeated the incumbents in 1977 and installed Harlon Carter as Executive Director and Neal Knox as head of the ILA.[23][24]
After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues, downplaying the roles of hunters and target shooters, and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.[25] With a goal to weaken the Gun Control Act of 1968, Knox's NRA successfully lobbied congress to pass the McClure-Volker firearms decontrol bill of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.[26] The organization's approached 3 million people by 1984, but internal turmoil continued, as several executive vice presidents were removed.[27]
At the 1991 national convention, Knox's supporters took control of the board, and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the Executive Vice President. The NRA focused its attention on the gun control policies of the Clinton administration.[28] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston's past support of gun control legislation.[29] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but successfully lobbied for the ban's 2004 expiration.[30] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA's image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.[31]
And now look where that has led.
The Tucson Police Department also held a gun buyback Tuesday. Police want to destroy the 206 firearms turned in to them. But the National Rifle Association says that would violate Arizona law.
<snip>
Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.
"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.
Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.
"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.
That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.
IOW, it now appears that instead of couching the argument in terms of "freedom" or "rights" or "lesser of two evils," the NRA has evolved to the position that a heavily-armed society is something America should have, and any effort to make it less-armed is bad.
This is as if Libertarians arguing for drug-decriminalization were suddenly to start proclaiming that cocaine and heroin are good for you, and the more of those substances we have on the market the better. It would shatter the credibility even of their more-credible arguments.