Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times reported that relatives of three Isla Vista killing spree victims are pressing California lawmakers to approve new gun control legislation, while the Gun Free Zone blog on Tuesday publicized a snit that Moms Demand Action has with the National Rifle Association over a critique in its magazine regarding MDA founder Shannon Watts.
This morning, MDA Deputy Director Jennifer Hoppe sent an e-mail fund raising request that also blasts the NRA’s magazine piece on Watts, and the message should leave gun rights activists shaking their heads with laughter. In the e-mail, Hoppe asserts “The NRA’s leadership has a long history of sexism…”
That’s probably going to come as a shock to former NRA Presidents Marion Hammer of Florida and Sandra Froman of Arizona. Members of the NRA Board of Directors, past and present, including such Second Amendment stalwarts as actresses Susan Howard and Lee Purcell, Sue King, Maria Heil, Edie P. Fleeman, M. Carol Bambery, the late Alice Bull, Diana Dunigan, Cynthia Julien, and many others might also scratch their heads at such a demonstrably false and ridiculous allegation. The story is already getting some play on the Internet.
In a telephone interview with Hammer Wednesday morning, she told Examiner, “If their definition of sexism means that NRA is gender neutral, then that is correct, because NRA for many, many years has had more women in leadership positions, and managerial positions than any other organization I personally have heard of.
“I’m fond of saying freedom is gender neutral,” she added. “Everybody has a stake in freedom. NRA was way ahead of its time in terms of hiring women and having women in leadership roles. We did it because it was good for the cause, not because it was politically correct.”
And, she noted, it happened because the women who were in those leadership roles were qualified and capable of doing the job. Hammer said that NRA long ago “recognized that women make outstanding leaders.” And where sexism is concerned, she quipped that the title “Moms Demand Action” sounds rather sexist in its own right.
“They do the right thing,” she said about women in gun rights leadership roles, “and they do what they need to do, to get the job done.”
Meanwhile, in California, the proposed “Gun Violence Restraining Order” lobbying effort appears to have once again overlooked the inconvenient reality that, even if it had been in place, it would not have prevented three of the Isla Vista murders. Deceased spree killer Elliot Rodger killed three of his victims with a knife.
It fits a pattern of continued Second Amendment erosion. Rather than admit that California’s already-restrictive gun laws including so-called “universal background checks,” a ten-day waiting period – found unconstitutional in some circumstances by a federal judge earlier this week – and magazine capacity limits, all failed to prevent the Isla Vista killings, the gun prohibition lobby wants another law.
Gun prohibitionists have a battle cry: “Not one more!” Perhaps the nation’s gun owners, including the millions of moms who own and use firearms, should also demand “Not one more.” Not one more ineffective, “feel good” gun law that penalizes law-abiding citizens while accomplishing nothing, and leaves women vulnerable by making it more difficult to buy and own a firearm for personal and family protection.
Or how about this: “Roll back the clock.” Repeal ineffective gun laws, whose only purpose has been to diminish a fundamental civil right to the level of a regulated government privilege.