Snowflakes in Hell

I’m trying to join a private shooting club.  The Pennsylvania Game Commission has closed the public outdoor range in my county, and although I maintain a membership at at Classic Pistol, a local shooting range, it’s limited to indoors, 25 yards.  The cool thing about it, though, is you can shoot full auto, rifle, pistol; pretty much whatever you want, except for black powder and API rounds.  Their facilities, for an indoor range, are second to none in the area.

But this place I want to join is very local, and the facilities are nice.  They have a top notch trap and skeet setup, an indoor pistol range, a plinking range, and a 200 yard outdoor rifle range.  It’s available for shooting all hours.  There is a downside though.  They don’t allow magazines to be loaded with more than five rounds, even on the plinking range.

I got a letter today stating that I have to qualify, and be voted in.  Now, I totally understand qualification; they have an interest in making sure I am not a dummy, and can safely handle and shoot a firearm.   But what worries me is this part of the letter:

PLEASE NOTE. ALL GUNS MUST BE CASED WHEN ENTERING THE CLUB.  HOLSTERS ARE NOT A PROPER CARRYING CASE.

It’s a private club, and they can make their own rules.  But that significantly annoys me, enough to make me reconsider whether or not I want to join.  On the one hand, they have really nice facilities, and it’s close to where I live.  On the other hand, it’s shooting club, an NRA affiliated shooting club, in a state where 6% of the population is licensed to carry a loaded concealed handgun, and these guys are uncomfortable with the idea of concealed carry?

I can walk into my other indoor shooting range carrying a concealed weapon with no problem.  Their only rule is that, in the showroom, the firearm must either be cased or in a holster.  That’s reasonable.  Being a gun club, and not being comfortable with carry is kind of stupid.

I’ve been told they’ve had problems with bozos at the clubs doing things that are unsafe.  I am sympathetic to this, and understand making new potential members jump through some hoops, by requiring sponsorship from current members, having to pass a safe shooting test, getting voted in at a meeting, etc.  I think these are all reasonable things for a private club.  But I have no desire to join a club that treats its members as potential bozos, or accidents waiting to happen, and institutes rules that treat them as such.  That’s what anti-gunners do, and I have little tolerance for it.

So the question is, do I want to tolerate the rules, join, and work to try to change the club from within?  Or do I tell them to get lost, and  continue to drive an hour and a half to Lehigh County every time I want to do some clay or outdoor shooting?  I’m not sure.  I’m always a fan of trying to work within the system, but I don’t take kindly to being treated as anything other than an adult who knows how to competently handle, and yes, carry a firearm.

I’ve been trying today to get a new firewall set up and functioning properly at work.  It’s required some work at home to get remote access stuff working properly, so I haven’t had time to queue up posts or post when I get home too much.  Tomorrow I’ll be heading down to Northern Virginia to visit you know who.

I’m glad to see the NRA has finally started to talk to the public, and I like what they have to say. However, now that they are talking again, I really hope they start talking about one, very important thing: the fact that they are working with the Democrats on a bill to get more state records, including mental health records, into NICS.

Now, folks should understand that this doesn’t mean the NRA approached the Democrats and said “Hey, let’s work on a gun control bill together.” In all likelihood the Democrats started working on this, it looked like it had legs, and the NRA wanted to be part of the process. We want the NRA involved in that kind of situation. If they just stood outside of the process and said “We’re taking a hard line stance on this bill and opposing it.”, they are likely to alienate some of the marginal politicians in Congress and make it easier for the hostile politicians, who would love to attach their pet gun control issues to the bill, to influence them.

The NRA can not just come out in opposition to everything that comes down the pike. There are some battles we’re not on good political ground to fight right now, and a battle over NICS is one of those. Politics is an ugly process, and sometimes you’ll get bills like this, which suddenly get momentum because of a tragedy, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. The game, at that point, becomes making sure it does no further damage. Given the two clowns who are introducing the bill, it is absolutely vital to make sure that nothing else gets attached to it, unless it’s something to placate gun owners.

NICS is not going anywhere, because there’s substantial support for it. Even the NRA, who actively pushed instant background checks as an alternative a lengthy waiting period, is resigned to the fact that NICS exists and isn’t going away. So if the Democrats are intent on passing this bill, if you’re the NRA, you have several choices:

1. Oppose the bill, in which case you’re really fighting NICS, which you’ve supported in the past. This will alienate a lot of marginal gun-rights supporters. It will increase the liklihood that the bill might pass with amendments that have more onerous gun controls in it.
2. Not oppose the bill, on the condition that we get something in return. This might be possible, but it might not be. It depends on how much momentum the bill has. If the sponsors of the bill are struggling to find a majority, more people might be brougt on board by adding pro-gun amendments. My guess is for the NICS bill, we are not in a position to demand much, as they probably already have majority support.
3. Not oppose the bill on the condition that it contain only the NICS language and absolutely nothing else. This is probably what they are going to end up doing, because it’s about where the NRA can best use its political power in a situation like this.
4. Actively endorse the bill. I don’t think this is likely. It would piss off too many members, including me. There’s no reason to do this, and it would risk giving too much momentum to the gun control crowd.

Normally, the way you kill a bill that would have broad public support on the floor, is to get your committee members to kill it there, and get the leadership to prevent it from being brought to the floor in the first place. Now that the Democrats are in charge, we have hostile politicians in charge of many of the committees, and a hostile speaker, so what the NRA is probably seeing is that the bill is not killable in committee. If this bill passes, and we get nothing in return for it, don’t blame the NRA. Blame the Democrats. And remember that come election time in 2008.