Robert J. Feigh

St. Cloud

NRA will take the political heat off the gun manufacturers with 'sell more guns'

At the outset, I want to clarify that I have been a hunter for many years, and I own several hunting firearms.

For the past number of years, and particularly in political campaign seasons, there is considerable discussion about Second Amendment rights and any appropriate limits to weapons. I write to offer some clarification of the role of the National Rifle Association in all of this.

First, the tension between gun owners’ rights and the safety of the general public has a long history. As far back as 1881, Deputy Marshal Wyatt Earp, his two brothers and Doc Holliday were on the side of attempting to enforce the law in Tombstone, Arizona, that people could not wear guns in the town. Their efforts resulted in the gun fight at the OK Corral with the Clantons and the McLaurys who defied the law, and would not voluntarily store their guns at the Marshal’s office.

At one time, the National Rifle Association was more of a social club, receiving almost all of its revenues from program fees and membership dues. Now, the NRA receives most of its revenue from gun manufacturers. ("How the Gun Industry Funnels Tens of Millions of Dollars to the NRA," Business Insider, Jan. 16, 2013.)

The NRA has one consistent message in response to any situation: Sell more guns.

The NRA has been very effective in persuading hunters that their right to own hunting firearms is at risk with any gun regulation. In fact, there is not being proposed — and has rarely been proposed — any legislation aimed (pun intended) at hunting firearms. Rather, the focus is on guns that have as their primary, if not exclusive, purpose shooting people.

The gun manufacturers use the NRA to advance their agenda: Sell more guns. The NRA, in turn, uses sportsmen and hunters who have been bombarded with their propaganda to do their political work.

A number of altruistic NRA members donate their time for such worthwhile projects as gun safety courses, which is laudable. Of course, the NRA does not object that such courses hopefully will produce more future gun owners; i.e. sell more guns.

The tobacco industry attempted unsuccessfully to create their own NRA, which they called the National Smokers Alliance, to prevent having any health warnings on their product, or limiting sale of their products in any way. Without a Second Amendment argument, their National Smokers Alliance never gained much traction.

When there is an incident like the Sandy Hook shootings, where elementary school children were gunned down, the NRA will take the political heat off the gun manufacturers, and propose their familiar solution: sell more guns.

A hope would be that good, responsible sportsmen and hunters would tell the NRA that they will no longer carry the NRA’s political water, and thereby tell the gun manufacturers that there are some reasonable limits to the type of weapons that can be manufactured and sold.

“Sell more guns” is not a solution to every social problem.

This the opinion of Robert J. Feigh, a St. Cloud attorney.