NRA started out advocating gun control?

[Guest032516]

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

It is a fascinating read.

Key quote:
----------------------------------------
Today, the NRA is the unquestioned leader in the fight against gun control. Yet the organization didn’t always oppose gun regulation. Founded in 1871 by George Wingate and William Church—the latter a former reporter for a newspaper now known for hostility to gun rights, The New York Times—the group first set out to improve American soldiers’ marksmanship. Wingate and Church had fought for the North in the Civil War and been shocked by the poor shooting skills of city-bred Union soldiers.
In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)
Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales. The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.” According to Frederick, the NRA “sponsored” the Uniform Firearms Act and promoted it nationwide. Highlighting the political strength of the NRA even back then, a 1932 Virginia Law Review article reported that laws requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon were already “in effect in practically every jurisdiction.
-----------------------------------------

Read the whole thing.

[Whirlaway]

Getting ahead of the legislative curve that would become the anti-gun right movement......

Smart move by the NRA.

The early founders not only supported, but were the first to seek reasonable gun legislation.....sounds like today's NRA, who support stiff sentencing for gun crimes, strong enforcement of background checks, and training.

[Yssup Rider]

Yeah, that's what they were doing, Whirlygag!

[JD Barleycorn]

Some problems with the article and the OP. The NRA wanted to standardize laws which is not the same thing as being in favor of gun control. As for the others, the "reasonable" gun laws today exceed what the NRA wanted in the 1920s by a large factor. Until recently it was nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit or a permit to own a weapon which was a defacto gun ban. The SCOTUS said so in the Chicago case when overturning the law. The registration, as this author put it, stayed in the local precinct and did not become part of a federal registration. The two day waiting period has been superceded by the five day, seven day, and ten day waiting period if you can get a permit.

So I don't understand what you were trying to say with that post other than to demostrate how far the gun grabbers have come since 1920 when a man could buy an automatic weapon or sonic supressor legally and with little fanfair.



I must also point out about the OP, 50 years after their founding is not really starting out. Your OP is mistaken.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Some problems with the article and the OP. The NRA wanted to standardize laws which is not the same thing as being in favor of gun control.

The laws that wanted to standardize were the "Uniform Firearms Act". As the article notes, it was a model of "state-level gun-control legislation" and, the "new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions".

That sounds like gun control to me. Not just "standardizing".

There were three elements in Frederick’s model:

1) No one could a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. That's gun control. If not, tell us why not.

2) The law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. That's gun control. if not, tell us why not.

3) Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales. That's gun control. If not, tell us why not.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The registration, as this author put it, stayed in the local precinct and did not become part of a federal registration.

So? It is still gun control if you create the registry at all.

[Doove]

Not to worry. Once we get a Republican President (assuming that's in any of our lifetimes), the Democrats can just shut down the government until the Republicans agree to sweeping gun control legislation.

[Gotyour6]

You assume that Congress and senate would have libtards in the majority you simple fool.

[i'va biggen]

Did you just wake from a coma?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Gotyour6

You assume that Congress and senate would have libtards in the majority you simple fool.

Love your sig line.

[Guest032516]

Bump

[i'va biggen]

Guess they were for it before they were against it..

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The laws that wanted to standardize were the "Uniform Firearms Act". As the article notes, it was a model of "state-level gun-control legislation" and, the "new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions".

That sounds like gun control to me. Not just "standardizing".

There were three elements in Frederick’s model:

1) No one could a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. That's gun control. If not, tell us why not.

2) The law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. That's gun control. if not, tell us why not.

3) Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales. That's gun control. If not, tell us why not.


So? It is still gun control if you create the registry at all.

You're comparing a sunburn with 3rd degree burns.

[i'va biggen]

Just proved JD has no clue about gun control any further comments of his on the subject will be disregarded..

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You're comparing a sunburn with 3rd degree burns.

Why can't you just admit "Yes, it is gun control?".

You are now splitting hairs over the degree of gun control. Are we supposed to let your opinion determine whether or not something is gun control based on your subjective judgments about the degree of control?

Do you have IBHankering Disease and therefore change the subject or add bogus arguments rather than concede a point?

Frankly I don't see any difference between the old proposals and current proposals except than now we can keep better track of things with computer registries.

[i'va biggen]

bump