Brian Puckett's article alleging that the NRA management no longer supports the Second Amendment because the NRA supports Project Exile completely misses the point. 

Project Exile has always been aimed at prosecuting violent convicted felons who violate federal firearms laws by possessing guns. Felons gave up their 2nd Amendment rights (and other rights such as the right to vote) when they were convicted of their crimes. The law prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons is aimed at felons, not law abiding gunowning citizens. This law has been in effect since the National Firearms Act of 1934. 

Project Exile is a successful crime reduction alternative to gun control. As the NRA points out, the Clinton Administration's prosecutions of felons who possess firearms has declined at the same time the administration calls for more oppressive gun control laws. 

If you want the facts on Project Exile, read the following:

http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990706-CrimeCriminalJustice-001.html

Also see:

http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/news/19991104-CrimeCriminalJustice-002.shtml

As far as the NRA supporting the 2nd Amendment, they are doing so everywhere, including the courts! See the NRA's brief in the Emerson case at 

http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/20000120-SecondAmendment-001.shtml

Mr. Puckett also misinterprets several statements by NRA management. As Mr. Puckett notes Charlton Heston stated:

“Everyone remembers all the press support for his [Clinton's] 'desperately needed' semi-auto gun ban – that outlawed guns based solely on their appearance. But nobody is reporting that, out of thousands of certain offenders, the Clinton Administration prosecuted four people in 1997 and four in 1998.” 

The point Mr. Heston was making is that it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the administration to call for passage of a law and then not enforce it. Heston's sarcastic reference to the "desparately needed" semi-auto ban demonstrates that he does NOT support that ban. 

Mr. Puckett also quoted statements by Barney Frank, Dick Gephardt, and George Stephanopoulos, all of whom acknowledged the power of the NRA as a grassroots lobby, as evidence that they supported the NRA management! The simple fact is that politicians will sometimes acknowledge the power of their opponents. This is particularly true when that opponent has the power, as the NRA does, to mobilize voters to contact their representatives and let them know of their position on legislation. Many of the bitterest enemies of the NRA have acknowledged this power over the years. Suppose that, if instead of stating the "NRA" is a powerful lobby, these men had stated that "Second Amendment activists" were a powerful lobby. That acknowledgment would not represent their support of the Second Amendment activists, anymore than the acknowledgement they made represents support of the NRA. 

What is really amazing is that Puckett attacks the NRA's support of right to carry laws as attacks on the Second Amendment! In case he hasn't noticed these laws are a vast improvement over their predecessor laws which left issuance of permits strictly at the discretion of the police or other issuing authority. 

Finally, Puckett attacks the following statement by Wayne LaPierre:

"The National Rifle Association believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period. We have always supported holding adults responsible for willfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms."

In his criticism, Puckett ASSUMES that a father giving permission to his teenage son to shoot a revolver on their property is "unsupervised access." That it seems to me, is an example of "supervised access". The son obtained access with the permission, and therefore the supervision, of his father. 

Puckett also suggests that LaPierre's statement means that, 

"if you leave a gun in a safe place, even if it is accessed by accident, even if you aren’t home, and even if no crime or firearm accident occurs - if a child gains access to one of your guns YOU become a felon if a jury decides to convict you, which these days they probably will."

In fact, LaPierre supported "holding adults responsible for willfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms [to children]." It can hardly be said that storing the gun in a safe place and having it accessed by a child by accident when you are gone from the home constitutes "willfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms." For an example of that, I suggest you recall the case in Atlanta where a child in a crack house obtained access to a loaded stolen firearm in a situation where stolen loaded guns were laying all over the place. That IS "willful and reckless" access to firearms. 

In closing, I would note that I am a Patron member of the NRA, a five year member of the RKBA, and a contributor to the Second Amendment Foundation. I would also note that Mr. Puckett has produced some fine pro-gun rights advertisements. I think we ought to put our time and energy and money into uniting and attacking oppressive gun control legislation and not attacking each other. 

Donald Bohlken