Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

White House Gun Summits

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

The Gun Shots Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

The Gun Shots
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 18, 2011
White House Gun Summits - 10

President Barack Obama's op-ed column in the March 13 Arizona Daily Star invited all sides of the gun-control debate to a series of meetings in Washington.
               
Two problems: The President invited the NRA to the summits -- which declined to attend -- but neglected to extend invitations to other influential Second Amendment advocacy groups, such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA).
               
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said it was odd that the CCRKBA, nor its sister organization, the SAF, were invited to the meetings -- especially since it was the SAF's Supreme Court challenged that resulted last summer's McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling that solidified the Second Amendment's protection of an individual civil right.
               
The NRA declined the invitation but responded to Obama's op-ed with an open letter on March 15 by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legal Action Chris Cox. The letter said Obama says one thing (i.e. the Second Amendment guarantees a person to bear arms) and acts another way (i.e. setting in place regulations restricting gun rights), and ripped his administration for being "under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law."
               
"We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's 'Fast and Furious' operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms 'walk' across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels," the letter alleges. "One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue.  Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws…"
               
Gottlieb, on the other hand, said he would love to speak with Obama during the meetings, which began on March 15 at the White House and will continue through the end of the month. He “would be eager to talk with the White House, especially about the ‘Project Gunrunner’ and ‘Fast and Furious’ scandals, where federal agents helped facilitate gun sales to suspected gunrunners," he wrote in CCRKBA's response to the President's op-ed.
               
As Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea noted in his March 15 column on examiner.com, the ways the NRA, SAF, and CCRKBA -- and other Second Amendment advocacy groups -- reacted demonstrates "that the 'gun lobby' is not the monolith the media often portrays it to be."
               
But Blogosphere Buzz Examiner Bill Belew in his March 16 column asks if the NRA, SAF, and CCRKBA aren't going to the President's gun summits, what pro-Second Amendment groups are?
               
For more, go to:
-- President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
               
-- Alan Gottlieb would love to talk with Obama at gun summit
               
-- CCRKBA Response To Obama Op-Ed
              
 -- Alan Gottlieb wants invite to Gun Summit that the NRA turned down
               
-- CCRKBA asks Obama for invitation to gun summit that NRA rejected - National gun rights
               
-- NRA Declines to Meet With Obama on Gun Policy
               
-- NRA to Obama: Pursue criminals not law-abiding citizens
               
-- Obama Addresses Gun Control In Op-Ed
               
-- Obama holds gun law meetings, without the NRA

Photo: Ari Levinson

Comments (10)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Johnnie wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

I can see why the NRA declined the invitation. This meeting about gun control is about compromise, there is not any compromising the 2nd Amendment.
Obama invited all sides of the gun-control debate to a series of meetings in Washington. All sides? Yeah all the gun control nuts side versus the NRA.
A good question is why there wasn't invitations extended to other influential Second Amendment advocacy groups, such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)? An answer to that can be that obama wants to out number the NRA with gun control nuts like MAIG, Brady Campaign (or whatever name they are going under now), and what other gun control nut groups that are out there.
Nobody that is pro-gun will walk away from this meeting, which is about gun control, with positive influence in this meeting, because the anti-gun people won't be happy until all guns and the rights of Americans to own guns are eradicated, gone forever.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Deekay wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

We can rest assured that there will be a few faux gun-rights groups in attendance, mostly composed of ex-NRA "Life Members" who are "concerned" about the direction that gun-ownership in America is heading.
Or, to paraphrase ex-Sen. Jim Sasser of TN:
Too much gun-ownership goin' on out 'dere!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from EMSS88 wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

See this article..

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34505

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I have to go with Dcast. This is a case of "'Step into my parlor' said the spider to the fly..." We should do nothing to surrender to them. And trust me, meeting with them on their terms will be portrayed as surrender and would be used against us in a court of unlawful portrayal.
Remember, the way to tell that the Obamanation is lying is his lips are moving...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

If you don't attend you have no say in the matter. I had read the response before and still feel we are losing a chance to voice our views. You don't have to walk hand in hand and have hugs a kisses afterwards.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I'm not sure your receive the NRA newsletter but this is what their letter said:

March 14, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

We agree with your assertion that "Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing" in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy. These included the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly"), the Brady Campaign ("Gabrielle Giffords Shooting 'Inevitable'") and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG ("Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting"). Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda. In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided "playing politics with other people's pain" with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington, D.C.'s and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people – not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court – rather than state court – strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law. We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's "Fast and Furious" operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms "walk" across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels. One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue. Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws – and undermined the firearm industry's concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program. We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.

There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior. If media outlets won't show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don't want to encourage that behavior by others – surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them. In the case of Tucson, a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems. That's not a deficiency in our gun laws, it's a deficiency in our mental health system – and should be treated as such.

In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA's 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one. We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system. Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from pjsabella wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

Fair enough and well stated dcast

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I'm going to disagree with DSM & PJ. NRA isn't filled with a bunch of hacks and they know based off of Obamas record he will use their attendance against them. NRA will not budge and shouldn't and that is what the POTUS would try to do, whether it be mag capacity or some other frivilous ban. The NRA posted what they want and believe should be done and furthermore handed the POTUS his @$$ with the letter they wrote to him about projects "Fast and Furious"(copyright infringment anyone?) and "Project gunrunner". So the NRA did what was needed and didn't get backed into the corner by attending. The POTUS is a hardcore antigunner along with many he put into his cabinet and the NRA, you, me, and everyone else knows this, so it would have been for not, other than maybe a steak dinner.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from pjsabella wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

That's sad to hear about the NRA...makes me a little nervous

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I think it is short sighted and poor PR by the NRA not to attend.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from Johnnie wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

I can see why the NRA declined the invitation. This meeting about gun control is about compromise, there is not any compromising the 2nd Amendment.
Obama invited all sides of the gun-control debate to a series of meetings in Washington. All sides? Yeah all the gun control nuts side versus the NRA.
A good question is why there wasn't invitations extended to other influential Second Amendment advocacy groups, such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)? An answer to that can be that obama wants to out number the NRA with gun control nuts like MAIG, Brady Campaign (or whatever name they are going under now), and what other gun control nut groups that are out there.
Nobody that is pro-gun will walk away from this meeting, which is about gun control, with positive influence in this meeting, because the anti-gun people won't be happy until all guns and the rights of Americans to own guns are eradicated, gone forever.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I'm going to disagree with DSM & PJ. NRA isn't filled with a bunch of hacks and they know based off of Obamas record he will use their attendance against them. NRA will not budge and shouldn't and that is what the POTUS would try to do, whether it be mag capacity or some other frivilous ban. The NRA posted what they want and believe should be done and furthermore handed the POTUS his @$$ with the letter they wrote to him about projects "Fast and Furious"(copyright infringment anyone?) and "Project gunrunner". So the NRA did what was needed and didn't get backed into the corner by attending. The POTUS is a hardcore antigunner along with many he put into his cabinet and the NRA, you, me, and everyone else knows this, so it would have been for not, other than maybe a steak dinner.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I'm not sure your receive the NRA newsletter but this is what their letter said:

March 14, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

We agree with your assertion that "Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing" in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy. These included the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly"), the Brady Campaign ("Gabrielle Giffords Shooting 'Inevitable'") and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG ("Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting"). Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda. In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided "playing politics with other people's pain" with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington, D.C.'s and Chicago's handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people – not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court – rather than state court – strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law. We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE's "Fast and Furious" operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms "walk" across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels. One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue. Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws – and undermined the firearm industry's concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program. We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.

There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior. If media outlets won't show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don't want to encourage that behavior by others – surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them. In the case of Tucson, a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems. That's not a deficiency in our gun laws, it's a deficiency in our mental health system – and should be treated as such.

In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA's 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one. We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system. Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from pjsabella wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

Fair enough and well stated dcast

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I have to go with Dcast. This is a case of "'Step into my parlor' said the spider to the fly..." We should do nothing to surrender to them. And trust me, meeting with them on their terms will be portrayed as surrender and would be used against us in a court of unlawful portrayal.
Remember, the way to tell that the Obamanation is lying is his lips are moving...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from EMSS88 wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

See this article..

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34505

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Deekay wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago

We can rest assured that there will be a few faux gun-rights groups in attendance, mostly composed of ex-NRA "Life Members" who are "concerned" about the direction that gun-ownership in America is heading.
Or, to paraphrase ex-Sen. Jim Sasser of TN:
Too much gun-ownership goin' on out 'dere!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

I think it is short sighted and poor PR by the NRA not to attend.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from pjsabella wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

That's sad to hear about the NRA...makes me a little nervous

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 3 years 19 weeks ago

If you don't attend you have no say in the matter. I had read the response before and still feel we are losing a chance to voice our views. You don't have to walk hand in hand and have hugs a kisses afterwards.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)