The NRA used to be a grassroots organization lobbying for the right of individuals to own and use guns for lawful reasons, such as hunting or self-defense. For years, the battle was over whether the Second Amendment was limited to militias or covered individuals. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." In fact, the Court clarified that "another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms" is that the "sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' based on the "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Even Scarborough recognizes that "our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want."
A key distinction that the NRA glosses over is that the Second Amendment is about an individual's right, not the right of commercial gun sellers or manufacturers. The Supreme Court made this distinction clear when it identified "presumptively lawful regulatory measures," such as laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of guns:
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The NRA refuses to acknowledge that gun manufacturers and commercial sellers do not have a 2nd Amendment right to enhance corporate profits or to be free from gun control regulations in the name of public safety. This does not mean that all gun measures aimed at manufacturers or sellers cannot also affect the individual's Second Amendment right, such as a law banning all guns. But neither President Obama nor Congress is talking about banning all guns.
When the gun debate gets underway in Congress, we need to evaluate each measure to see if it really would be an infringement of the individual's right to own guns or is the NRA simply using an individual's 2nd Amendment gun right as a pretext to oppose measures that might negatively impact the gun industry's profit margin.
The NRA claims that it is "not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition." Nope, the NRA is just a grassroots organization that represents 4 million members who support a right to own guns.
Affiliated means to "become closely connected or associated." There are indications that the NRA is not only affiliated with the gun manufacturing industry, but has become a protectionist racket for gun manufacturers by working to squash lawmakers of both parties who don't tow the NRA line.
Lee Fang wrote an article asking: "Does the NRA Represent Gun Manufacturers or Gun Owners?"
In reality, the NRA is composed of half a dozen legal entities; some designed to run undisclosed attack ads in political campaigns, others to lobby and collect tens of millions in undisclosed, tax-deductible sums. This power has only been enhanced in the era of Citizens United, with large GOP donors in the last election reportedly funneling money to the NRA simply to use the group as a brand to pummel Democrats with nasty ads. (As The Huffington Post’s Peter Stone reported, even the Koch network now provides an undisclosed amount to the NRA.)
Despite the grassroots façade, there is much evidence to suggest that corporations that profit from unregulated gun use are propping up the NRA’s activities, much like how the tobacco lobby secretly funded “Smokers Rights’” fronts and libertarian anti-tax groups, or how polluters currently finance much of the climate change skepticism movement.
According to NRA tax returns, "from 2004 to 2010, the group’s revenue from fundraising -- including gifts from gun makers who benefit from its political activism --
grew twice as fast as its income from members’ dues." For example,
NRA donors in 2006 included gun manufacturers, such as Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., the company that makes one of the guns used in Newtown.
Last year, the Violence Policy Center issued a report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, showing that "since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products." No affiliation there!
According to the Blood Money Report, NRA Wayne LaPierre promoted corporate partnerships with the NRA in a program promised to be "geared toward your company’s corporate interests," rather than the interests of the grassroots membership. The NRA's corporate partners include Xe, the new name for Blackwater military contractor connected with Iraq War scandals and abuses. The NRA's "corporate partners" also include gun manufacturer donors who contributed $25,000 or more to the NRA, including 22 that manufacture firearms, assault weapons and "high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors." The Beretta manufacturer donated one million dollars for just one campaign to overturn gun control laws.
The gun industry contributes the money used by the NRA to lobby federal and state governments to prohibit gun regulation or provide such weak and diluted measures that they are feckless. The gun industry is the beneficiary with increased growth in sales.
In 2005, the NRA "lobbied" to pass a federal law to limit liability claims against gun makers after cities filed lawsuits to hold companies responsible for health care costs flowing from gun violence. This immunity again primarily for the benefit of the gun industry, not individual gun owners who might face increased prices in guns passed down to them. "Former NRA President Sandy Froman wrote that it 'saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy.'" Mike Fifer, the CEO of Sturm Ruger, was frank: The 2005 law to limit liability claims is "probably the only reason we have a U.S. firearms industry anymore." The NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Affairs, "helped ensure the end of the federal assault weapons ban; U.S. makers’ annual rifle production has increased about 38 percent since, according to ATF data." Add into the mix the state laws to allow permits to carry concealed weapons: "After Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow such licenses in July, Fifer said on an earnings call that he expected a sales boost in the state."
The growing chasm between the NRA and individual members can be seen from polling from almost a year ago showing overwhelming support from the public and gun owners to certain gun control measures opposed by the NRA.
When Wayne La Pierre gave his speech on Newtown, he said the NRA must speak out "for the safety of our nation's children." Since 1979, more children and teens have been killed by gun violence than Americans killed in "any of the 20th century's largest wars."
The NRA's answer when gun control or safety measures are raised is generally one of "more guns." This benefits corporate gun manufacturers and sellers in the name of monetary greed while showing callous indifference to the value of the lives of our children, families and loved ones. The NRA's continued reliance on an individual's 2nd Amendment right as a sham argument when the real opposition to the gun measure is its impacts on monetary gains for the gun industry is just another way of saying that the gun industry trumps individual rights of safety and human life. We know how well a similar argument worked for Mitt Romney with his views that the 47% should be tossed aside in the name of the 1%.
