First, if I missed some point, then the leaders of all the national, state, and local organizations who signed the statement “We Condemn Project Exile” have also missed the point. Not likely. Second, the NRA management can claim to “aim” Project Exile anywhere they like, but the laws they want enforced apply to ALL AMERICANS, not just convicted felons. That means YOU, if the government finds you in violation of some unconstitutional gun law, such as some piddling “violation” regarding an over-ten round magazine. -- BP

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.

Yes, THIS law is directed at felons. But ALL THE OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL “laws” that the NRA management wants enforced apply to ALL AMERICANS. Get it? -- BP

Project Exile is a successful crime reduction alternative to gun control.

NO! It is a successful crime reduction alternative that USES UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN CONTROL as part of its program. But the program would be just as effective WITHOUT including unconstitutional gun control laws as part of the program. The NRA management knows this. -- BP

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.

That may be true, but it is IRRELEVANT to the NRA management’s response to this situation – which is to DEMAND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS WE TRIED TO KEEP FROM BEING PASSED. -- BP

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

No – if you want the SPIN on Project Exile, read the above. The FACT is that Project Exile demands enforcement of UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN LAWS THAT WE FOUGHT TO KEEP FROM BEING PASSED. -- BP

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

I have never said that everything the NRA management does is “wrong”. But when they support the instant-check system as currently configured and demand enforcement of gun laws applicable to ALL AMERICANS – not just felons – they are not only WRONG, they are actively HARMING ALL GUN OWNERS. -- BP

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 "desperately needed" semi-auto ban demonstrates that he does NOT support that ban.

First, Mr. Heston breezily calls citizens who happen to own unconstitutionally banned semi-autos—which are actually perfectly constitutional militia rifles – “offenders”. But they are NOT offenders, because they have broken no constitutional laws. Why does Heston not make this point, instead of calling these innocent citizens ”offenders”?

Furthermore, what on earth does Mr. Heston believe will be the result of this statement? If I were Clinton (and thank God I am not) upon reading this I would immediately direct the Justice Department to prosecute as many Americans as possible under this law, so as NOT to appear hypocritical. Is this what Mr. Heston wants?

Why formulate a statement like this in the first place? Why not simply say: “The supposedly ‘desperately needed’ ban on perfectly constitutional militia rifles that was part of the Clinton/Gore ‘Crime Bill’ of1994 was just a means of opening the door to banning ALL militia rifles. It never had anything to do with fighting crime, because military-style semi-autos are almost never used in committing crimes. Even if they were used in committing ALL firearms-related crimes, that is still no excuse to trample the rights of millions of others of Americans who own these arms. For example, automobiles are arguably used in committing some phase of perhaps 90 percent of ALL CRIMES, but that is no reason to BAN them for other Americans.”

If one makes the argument that Mr. Heston’s statement was simply a poor choice of words, I would say first that I believe these words and all the other words uttered by Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Heston are NOT off-the-cuff remarks, but are carefully crafted in advance for speeches or for posting on the NRA website – from which they came. And I would say secondly that such hair-raising, damaging (or, to be unrealistically charitable, “ambiguous”) communications coming from men whose JOB is to communicate, and for which Mr. LaPierre receives a reported $20,000 a MONTH, is proof that they should be fired immediately.

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.

Here are the statements in question:

1. “The NRA does the best job of any group in lobbying members….It’s just good, straight democracy.” -- Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, long-time enemy of the Second Amendment.

2. “We’re up against the best lobby in town…My hat is off to them. I admire them. They sure now how to do it.” -- Dick Gephardt (D-MO) House Minority Leader and long-time enemy of the Second Amendment

3. “There’s a lot of talk about extremists here. Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They’re good citizens. You know what? They call their Congressman. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time.” -- George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton campaign aide and Clinton administration spokesman.

Agreed, these quotes do not indicate their SUPPORTof the NRA organization or management. However, the wording of the statements by mortal enemies of the Second Amendment compels the conclusion that these statements are a public relations payment to the NRA management for political deals they made. Can I prove this? Of course not. Judge for yourself. Read the statements again, and ask yourself what on earth would EVER prompt ANY of those individuals to “spontaneously” praise the NRA in this fashion?

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.

The statement I quoted was:

"We believe that a lawful, properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ... with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement that's making America a safer place to live."

There are those who believe that passing concealed carry laws that require courses, tests, and licenses are a means to habituate society to citizens carrying firearms. And there are those who believe that such laws are a means of habituating firearms owners to taking courses, passing tests, and getting licensed in order to own or use ANY GUN, even though the Constitution says we have an uninfringeable RIGHT to own and use any gun. I belong to the second group. Who is right? Well, right now in California and in the U.S. Congress there are bills proposed which will require ALL citizens to be registered and licensed to carry ANY HANDGUN. Proponents of this bill will certainly use the fact that citizens are happy to become licensed to carry a concealed arms in support of their argument that it is JUST AS REASONABLE to require such a license to OWN a handgun. And then a rifle. And then a shotgun. What ever happened to the meaning of the word “right”. Do RIGHTS now require tests and licenses to be exercised in this county? NO! I don’t get licensed to carry a Bible, and I don’t get licensed to carry a gun.

My bottom line: Vermont’s carry law allows any law-abiding citizen to carry any gun he wants, any way he wants, so long as he is carrying if for lawful reasons – such as self-defense. I say that if Vermont’s constitutional law works in Vermont, it will work in every state. THAT is the sort of law to push for in every state.

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.

If your neighbor said he was “supervising” your elementary school age children as they played outside , but in fact he had simply given them permission to go out and play in the neighborhood while he sat in front of his TV and drank beer, would he be telling the truth or not? By the same token, a father sitting in a lawn chair chatting with friends a half a mile away from his daughter plinking cans is NOT “supervising” the daughter. I don’t think any jury would believe he was either. Are you willing to bet your freedom, and perhaps the custody of your child, on this argument? Bottom line: it is up to parents, and not some one-size-fits-all law, to determine whether a minor may use firearms without direct supervision. It worked for me and the rest of the country for hundreds of years, and I believe it will still work.

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."

It is up to prosecutors to decide whether to charge citizens with being “reckless”, not Mr. Bohlken. And from what I’ve seen, many prosecutors will do whatever they can to destroy anyone – good or bad – as long as they think they can get a conviction. They will try to convince a jury that you were being reckless, no matter what YOU or Mr. Bohlken think. The bottom line is that if a child gets his hands on a gun, no matter what sort of “safe place” it was stored in, the prosecutor will say it clearly WAS NOT SAFE ENOUGH. In those circumstances, and under the laws CLEARLY SUPPORTED by the current NRA management (see above), you could be convicted of a FELONY and lose your civil rights – even if the child committed no crime with the gun. Do you doubt it? Ask your favorite attorney.

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.

So? We aren’t talking about some crack house, we’re talking about YOUR HOUSE. Or your COUNTRY HOME. Or your DEER LEASE. The law applies to ALL OF THOSE PLACES.

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.

Thanks, but I only created two of them. Jim Houck is the man behind the others.

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.

I agree. As soon as the NRA’s current management stops supporting the enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws, or better yet, as soon as they are replaced with citizens who believe in the Second Amendment as written, we WILL BE united. At that time, all of the organizations who are rightly condemning “Project Exile” can join with the newly REVITALIZED NRA in FIGHTING these laws instead of SUPPORTING THEM.

-- Brian Puckett