Reasons of National Rifle Associations Success in Shaping Gun Control Legislation - Research Paper Example

Summary of the Reasons behind the National Rifle Association’s Success in Shaping, Blocking, and Limiting Gun ControlLegislation The impacts of gun violence are fast being experienced in the country, with innocent children sometimes becoming the victims of such violence. By now, most observers would have expected to see tough legislation on gun control. However, this is not the case. Despite the many attempts to enact gun regulation legislation, the country still seems far away from getting stricter gun regulation laws (Draper par 4). The force behind the failure to pass the necessary legislation is the National Rifle Association (NRA) (Aborn 418). The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a national organization whose primary aim is to protect the rights of Americans to own firearms. The organization further aims at popularizing shooting sports, enhancing safety training, and, as its leadership states, defend the US constitution, largely by defending the right of Americans to own guns (National Rifle Association, par. 1). Some of the political reasons why the NRA retains its stranglehold over the proponents for tougher gun legislation are described below. The Collective Action Problem This term is widely used in economics and political science to imply lack of collective efforts by proponents of an agenda to push their scheme to required success. According to De Mesquita and Ludwig (par 3), the proponents of tougher legislation on gun control are more in number than the opponents. The opponents are mainly NRA members, most with licensed guns and willing to retain them. However, the proponents do not have as much will to fight collectively for gun control, since they have relatively lesser to lose even when guns are available to people with questionable backgrounds (Harcourt 15). The public does not have a common opinion over whether the NRA plays an extremely assertive role in protecting gun owners, even when the many defeats to alternative legislation have formed a lens through which opinion makers have been trying to portray the association. According to a Pew Poll conducted in May 2013, the percentage of respondents who believed the NRA was either applying the correct amount or too little pressure comprised 53% of the sample. The problem is sustaining the interests of the larger less concerned population so that their feelings do not wane over time. The NRA appears to have learnt this trend, and it has been using it successfully in its favor. Drake (par 5) and The Center for Public Integrity (par 3) also alluded to the fact that the majority, noisier population without guns has been particularly reluctant to sustain interest in fighting gun violence. This section of the population comes to the limelight when a tragic event such as the Sandy Hook tragedy occurs, but their unison ends as soon as the issue loses focused attention in the media. Drake (par 4) echoed the findings of a Pew Research initiative that indicated that gun owners, most of who are members of the NRA are more politically engaged than people who do not own guns. For that reason, they are more likely to vote, making the necessary difference for “pro-guns” candidates even when the opposition seems mightier. Still, the NRA cannot be underestimated in terms of supporters and sympathizers. The 2013 Pew Research findings indicated that 37% of all households in the country possess at least one gun. Furthermore, most individuals in such households favored the idea of lesser strict regulations, presumably in recognition of the fact that they were privileged to have a gun in their own homes (Drake, par 3). Financial Rollout of Campaigns According to The Center for Public Integrity (par 5), the NRA has invested over $81 million in funding political campaigns since 2000. This money has gone into funding presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, senatorial and other political posts of influence. This has placed the NRA at a good position to not only get effective representation, but also get adequate cushioning against adverse legislative agenda. Being such a significant campaign funder, the eager-for-funds legislators use their friendliness towards the policies of the NRA to solicit for funding during the elections (Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence 16). The patronage offered by the association stretches as far as issuing assessment questionnaires to potential legislative candidates in order to ensure their compliance with the NRA’s agenda. A case in point is the Grange onslaught, in which the registered NRA member was denied support of the association (despite being an NRA member and having defended its legislative agenda severally) for allegedly failing to fill in a “compliance” survey (Marso par 2). Anti-gun movements can hardly match up the financial might displayed by the NRA, which nearly ensures that political conservationists prefer to seek the favors of the wealthier and more powerful association. In 2010, the Supreme Court made a ruling that has greatly affected the way political campaigns are conducted. The ruling set aside capping applied on political sponsorship, implying that interested parties can fund candidates to unlimited sums of money. The benefactors usually have other motives that motivate them into sponsoring candidates into the legislative houses. The larger percentage of the $81 million used by the NRA to fund political courses has been released after 2010. This indicates that the association has embraced this ruling by increasing funding for pro-gun candidates, with steeper additions where the political battle is tougher for their preferred candidates. Political Impeachments The NRA often uses its financial might to intimidate the non-supportive legislators. This happens by surreptitiously triggering the recall clause on elected leaders. Such signs of might help to exaggerate the actual might of the association among legislators and observers. This way, errant legislators who hold opinions that contradict the association’s agenda are punished for their dissent, leaving their colleagues feeling vulnerable and obliged to either go silent on the matter or support the NRA’s course. A recent case is the recall of two Colorado state senators who pioneered legislation against the NRA. Soon afterward, one more state senator from the same state resigned after excessive pressure from the NRA. The organizations that support strict gun regulation do not employ similarly brutal methods to eject elected leaders who do not support them out of office. Owing to its financial might, the NRA is able to apply underhand tactics to intimidate legislators, retaining control over them (Jamieson par 3). Through grassroots lobbying, The NRA has on several occasions orchestrated the downfall of elected leaders who lobby for bills that would seemingly hurt the organization. For instance, Draper (December 12, 2013, par. 3) noted that in September 2013, two state senators who crossed the NRA’s path for spearheading gun control laws in the state of Colorado were recalled. Yet another state senator in the same state resigned in the same month facing a similar fate. Although different media reports indicated contrasting views to the reasons why the senators were being recalled, the majority believed that the recalls were largely related to the passage of gun-control laws in the state. For instance, Caldwell, in an article in the Cable News Network (CNN) website (September 11, 2013, par. 1) noted that the recalls gained national attention due to the factor underlying them: gun control. Despite the fact that the reporter noted that there was no consensus about gun control laws leading to the ouster of the leaders, she still noted that pro-gun activists initiated the process (Caldwell par. 7). Reporting for Fox News, Weber (par. 1) was categorical that the recalls were initiated following the senators’ support for anti-gun laws in the state. She further noted that the pro-arms lobbies in the state were deeply connected to the NRA, which was able to persuade the majority voters with conservative leaning opinions (par 9). Another related instance is when Democrats who had pressured the NRA in 1993 were targeted for removal in the mid-term elections, success that brought majority pro-gun Republicans to the Senate (Draper, par. 10). These measures have effectively intimidated anti-gun legislators who fear their agenda against the movement’s intentions will lead to their loss of office. The NRA supports contestants who share their views, or who can be easily persuaded to take a stand favorable to the association (Wilcox, 157; Duggan, 1088). The organization has further been able to influence alterations to the process of collection of information on criminals by FBI and police, by supporting efficient information collection instead of increased rules (Bugg 1067; MacGills par 4). This has come at the expense of legislating for tougher arms control (Wilcox, 158). Through such machinations, the organization has successfully lobbied for non-provision of research funding for research into gun violence (Jamieson par 2). This aspect helps the NRA retain a significant presence in the legislature, which works against intended negative legislation. Works Cited Aborn, Richard M. The Battle over the Brady Bill and the Future of Gun Control Advocacy. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 22(1994) (2): 417-439. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The NRA: A Criminal’s Best Friend”. Washington, DC. Gun Industry Watch. Print. Bugg, David. Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War (Review). Social Forces. 89(3) (2011): 1066-1067. Caldwell, Leigh A. Colorado Recall Election Prompts Gun Debate. Cable News Network. (September 11, 2013). Web. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/politics/guns-debate/. De Mesquita, Ethan and Jens Ludwig. One Way to Defeat the NRA. Cabal News Network. January 11, 2013. Web. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/mesquita-ludwig-nra-guns/. Drake, Bruce. “5 Facts about the NRA and Guns in America”. Pew Research Center (2014). Web. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/5-facts-about-the-nra-and-guns-in-america/. Draper, Robert. Inside the Power of the N.R.A. The New York Times. (December 12, 2013). Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-the-power-of-the-nra.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. Duggan, Mark. More Guns, More Crime. Journal of Political Economy. 109(5) (2001): 1086-1114. Jamieson, Christine. “Gun Violence Research: History of the Federal Funding Freeze.” American Psychological Association: New York. (February, 2013). Web. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx. MacGillis, Alec. Gun Control – This is How the NRA Ends: A Bigger, Richer, Meaner Gun-control Movement Has Arrived.” The New Republic (2014). Web. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113292/nras-end-real-gun-control-movement-has-arrived. Marso, Andy. NRA Endorsements Raise More Questions. The Topeka Capital-Journal. (2012). Web. http://cjonline.com/news/2012-07-24/nra-endorsements-raise-more-questions. The Center for Public Integrity. “NRA Spends Record Money on Lobbying This Year.” Web. http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year. Weber, Joseph. Colorado State Senators Recalled over Gun Control Support. Fox News. (September 11, 2013). Web. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/11/colorado-dems-face-historic-recall-over-gun-votes/. Wilcox, Clyde. Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War by Scott Melzer. Political Science Quarterly. 126(1) (2011): 157-158. DOI: 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2011.tb02118.x. [ProQuest]. Read More