MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

When the NRA Opposed Open Carry

NRANRAIn my column last week, I noted that the National Rifle Association had backed away from criticism of the open carry movement in response to objections from Second Amendment activists. Despite differences over tactics, said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, "the National Rifle Association supports open carry…unequivocally." One reason some critics view the NRA as insufficiently zealous in protecting gun rights is that the organization, contrary to its current reputation, has a history of accommodating demands for gun control. Back in 1967, for instance, the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan, whom the NRA endorsed for president in 1980 as a reliable defender of the Second Amendment.

Charles Nichols of California Right to Carry recently shared with me two constituent letters in which Assemblyman Don Mulford (R-Oakland), chief sponsor of California's open-carry ban, noted the NRA's support for his bill. "I am sure you are aware that I am very grateful to the National Rifle Association for its help in making my gun control bill, AB 1591, a workable piece of legislation, yet protecting the Constitutional rights of citizens," Mulford says in a letter dated June 15, 1967. "The bill enjoyed the full support of the National Rifle Association," he says in another letter with the same date. "I must disagree with you that present laws have given excellent coverage in this field," he adds. "If this were true, we would not have armed bands of citizens frightening school children, invading courts, invading police departments, invading the halls of the Legislature, with loaded weapons." Or as Mulford put it in a 1989 interview, "Don't forget in those days...you had the Black Panthers running around with loaded guns in the streets and a number of other acts of violence or near violence."

According to Mulford, then, openly carrying a gun is an "act of violence or near violence." Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Paul.||

    Back in 1967, for instance, the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan, whom the NRA endorsed for president in 1980 as a reliable defender of the Second Amendment.

    This is where I would be willing to entertain the fact that the NRA has traditionally been a white-male organization which was willing to allow racism-- even soft racism to trump its values.

  • ||

    It's also a nice clear example of how most gun control has its roots in racism.

  • Paul.||

    Oh yeah. However, gun weapon control has always had its roots in naked power.

    Tax-and spend Shoguns can't be wrong.

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    Hence my not belonging to them. Swine.

  • Paul.||

    I've considered joining them a couple of times over the last year or so.

    I've always been a gun guy, but never had my carry permit. Until this last round of gun control... then I finally said "enough is enough" and got my carry permit.

    I am proud to be part of this movement:

    State's concealed-carry permits skyrocket, especially for women
    The number of Washington state residents receiving a concealed-carry permit tripled between 2005 and 2012. The surge has been especially large among women, whose ranks have swelled twice as fast as men since 2011. Overall, more than 451,000 residents now have a permit.

    When I was filling out the paperwork for mine, there was a young mom with her husband and two kids there filling out the paperwork for hers.

    Made me proud to be 'murrican.

  • From the Tundra||

    Proud to have to ask permission to defend yourself? :)

  • Paul.||

    Believe me, the irony has not gun unnoticed by me.

    That's a whole different conversation, but for my personal situation, it's a small price to pay to give me legal cover. And the fact that it's shall-issue is part of that equation.

    Washington is actually one of the best gun states in the country-- and it's a bluer-than-blue-found-in-nature-blue state.
    Washington has open carry, no permit required. Washington has shall-issue conceal carry. Washington has no magazine limits or California/New York style gun restrictions (that I know of). All my guns have 'illegal in California' on their cases.

  • From the Tundra||

    Just fucking with you. Minnesota, despite being generally fucked up politically, is a very easy state in which to get a permit. We are also a straight carry permit, not CCW. Thank god for the outstate dems. If it were up to the Twin Cities, the only people armed would be the cops and the transplanted Chicago, Gary and Detroit gangbangers.

  • Paul.||

    Fuck with me... (Believe me, no one else is).

    We are also a straight carry permit, not CCW.

    What does this mean?

  • From the Tundra||

    No conceal requirement. Open or concealed carry.

    I hardly ever see people open carry in the cities, however.

  • 110 Lean||

    My neighbor does. He says, "When it's 98 degrees out and the humidity is 100%, where ya gonna conceal the damned thing?"

  • From the Tundra||

    Depends on your level of commitment!

  • Whahappan?||

    Notice his handle.

  • ||

    I've had mine since I moved here, and kudos to WA state for making it incredibly easy, but I'd prefer a Vermont or Alaska style "no permit required" style system. Which reminds me, I need to go in for my five-year renewal.

  • sarcasmic||

    You ask the cops for permission? That's not very anarchistic.

  • ||

    If you think that's some kind of gotcha, you have an even more fundamentally flawed understanding of individualist anarchism than I thought. Which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Do you have a driver's license?

  • Paul.||

    Do you have a driver's license?

    Funny you mention that. In Washington, driving is a privilege, not a right. The state reserves the right to revoke that shit at any time. So it's permission from the get-go.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Well, that didn't work. That was a gotcha for sarcasmic.

    The idea that somebody wouldn't make use of the legal cover to carry in WA is silly to me. Yes, the constitution and natural law say you don't need permission to defend yourself. But, it's so easy to get the piece of paper in WA, so why not do it? The downside is potentially huge.

    I don't think I should need a license to drive, but I have one anyway. Should it get taken away, I'll continue to drive. But, for $18 every 4 years, it's stupid not to have one. There is a huge downside.

  • sarcasmic||

    When confiscation happens the cops will go to your house first.

  • Paul.||

    Yes they will. All jokes aside, already aware of that. Plus my fingerprints are now in a searchable database. All those things went into the equation when I considered getting the permit.

    Getting the permit was almost a statement for me. I was actually conscious that if I got a permit, it would reflect as 'one more conceal carry citizen' in the ranks.

    I want that number to climb as high as possible. I want legislators and press people to say, "Holy shit there's a lot of armed people walking around..."

  • ||

    They may know that we have CCWs, but they sure as fuck have no idea what guns I have. Many of mine were bought in other states, from private sources, and have no records.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    That's why you need a few that are private transfer and held off-site with a couple thousand rounds each.

  • Paul.||

    That's why you need a few that are private transfer and held off-site with a couple thousand rounds each.

    No comment.

  • entropy_factor||

    +1 wolverines

  • ||

    Well of course.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/burial-cases/

    Knowing my luck, I'll forget where I buried it.

  • ||

    Just get a storage locker under a fake name and stash some there. Fuck, I have a storage place a block away. I should try this out.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I have a storage locker in my wife's name. I like to diversify, though.

    I have some stuff out of state, too. I'm more afraid of CA than the Feds on gun issues.

  • Jordan||

    I donated to the NRA and Gun Owners of America after Newtown because TEAM BLUE was in full batshit insanity mode. That's the only time I've done so.

  • croaker||

    NRA is the largest gun control organization in the country.

    They also lick badges with abandon.

  • Daniel||

    Any one remember the fact that it was the NRA that helped Robert Williams in Monroe, North Carolina when the NAACP would not?

    It is hard to call the NRA, of that time, a bunch of racist white men.

  • Paul.||

    "If this were true, we would not have armed bands of citizens frightening school children, invading courts, invading police departments, invading the halls of the Legislature, with loaded weapons."

    Putting aside the 'frightening school children', all of those things are features, not bugs.

  • Ivan Pike||

    I am very grateful to the National Rifle Association for its help in makng my gun control bill, AB 1591, a workable piece of legislation, yet protecting the Constitutional rights of citizens,"

    Sad that.

  • Ivan Pike||

    A clarification. I mean it is sad that "a workable piece of legislation" has to have special help to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens, not that said rights were being protected.

  • Paul.||

    The president wants to give protections to the press by passing a super-special 'shield law'. That way, our precious first amendment is protected.

  • Ivan Pike||

    The president wants to give protections to the press by passing a super-special 'shield law'. That way, our precious first amendment is protected.

    Sad, no?

  • Paul.||

    Funny, coming from a self-described constitutional law professor.

  • Raston Bot||

    OT, the continuing struggle of York County oyster farmers:

    http://virginiafreecitizen.com.....-rezoning/

    “I am in favor of individual rights, but that should include protecting the individual rights of the homeowners. The exercise of individual rights should not be allowed to personally affect the lives of others as it is in this case.”

    And if you can't prove your imaginary suffering in court, then petition your local govt to take by force.

  • PD Scott||

    If Obama and Hillary's views can evolve, why not the NRA?

  • Paul.||

    Kochporashuns aren't people?

  • SugarFree||

    Evolve? Pfft. Everyone knows the USA is only 6,000 years old.

  • Ron||

    Have you ever done something where you latter decided it was a mistake. My only hope is that in the past the NRA was willing to compromise and from that experience found that compromise got them no where. Unfortunately the NRA has continued at times to compromise and its a disappointment. This is why I joined the GOA but I am also a member of the NRA even though they are the RINO's in the gun advocacy crowd.
    Remember if you keep compromising to get closer to the cliff eventually you will fall off the cliff.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan, whom the NRA endorsed for president in 1980 as a reliable defender of the Second Amendment.

    What's funny is that progs will gleefully bring this fact up because of course all people opposed to gun control are Reagan worshiping Republicans.

    The sputtering you get when you point out that that this just shows how racist gun control tends to be is hilarious.

  • ||

    Don't know much about GOA, but I have supported NAGR. They are highly aggressive with Congress (some poor widdle legislative staffer complained about all the calls they were getting from NAGR members when Newtown brought out the crazy in gun grabbers), and they give away guns every month.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    Might want to do some googling there. Try "Dudley Brown". NAGR has done a few effective things, but they are basically a scam organization.

  • LarryA||

    They are highly aggressive with Congress

    NAGR buys the media myth that members of Congress are afraid of the NRA. Therefore they want to "battle" Congress.

    In fact, pro-gun voters elect pro-gun representatives, who vote pro-gun because they agree with the NRA.

    Which is not something the anti-gun folks or the media can admit.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    The NRA changed pretty drastically in the 1970s after the "Cincinnati Revolution". During the 1977 NRA meeting in Cincinnati, members voted to toss out the established leadership - who had been mostly focused on sportsmen, hunting, and target shooting - and replaced them with people who were far more focused on protecting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. They've been far more rights-oriented since then.

  • LarryA||

    Whatever anyone thinks about the NRA legislative efforts, it is the organization winning the gun-rights war.

    More than 97,000 NRA civilian instructors, plus ovrer 11,000 law enforcement instructors, are teaching people that shooting is safe, fun, and empowering. Add to that the assistance they give to youth groups like 4-H, Hunter Education, Boy Scouts, Appleseed, and women's programs like Refuse to be a Victim and Women on Target. That's where pro-gun voters are coming from, and that's the future of the movement.

    Back in 1967, for instance, the NRA supported the Mulford Act

    Then there was the Gun Control Act of 1968, when I first got involved, and other such legislation. The NRA has learned a lot since then. As have I.

  • California Right To Carry||

    "When" the NRA opposed Open Carry extends to this very day. The sole legal argument in the NRA concealed carry lawsuit, Peruta v. San Diego, is "constitutional avoidance." What did the NRA argue that the courts should not overturn? The Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban of 1967 and California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

    The NRA would have argued to uphold the two recently enacted bans on Unloaded Open Carry as well but they had not been enacted when the NRA lawyer, Chuck Michel, wrote his appellate briefs in the Peruta case.

    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

  • Daniel||

    Any one remember the fact that it was the NRA that helped Robert Williams in Monroe, North Carolina when the NAACP would not?

    It has hard to call the NRA, of that time, a bunch of racist white men.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online