From the Editor

In 1871, the National Rifle Association was formed, (quoting from one of their founders) to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Col. William C. Church penned those words in an editorial explaining the mission statement of the newly formed association. This was an admirable goal then, and still is today. America has always been a nation of riflemen and hopefully will always be. As shown by the wording, the NRA’s primary mission when it was formed was to promote rifle shooting and by extension, support the 2nd Amendment.

It is no secret to anyone within the gun world that the NRA has had some serious credibility problems amongst present-day gun enthusiasts, probably the worst of which has been the almost complete destruction of the member’s trust in the organization, due to the misbehavior of former key officers. This, however, is old news; it would seem that the wisest course at this time would be to follow the old Scottish proverb that says, “Forgive your enemies…but remember their faces.”

In looking through the recent issue of the NRA’s American Hunter magazine I noticed the predictable efforts from the newly elected officers to assure members that it is a new day at the NRA, listing the new programs that are being enacted to ensure accountability and transparency. To all that I simply say, “I want to believe.” It’s obvious to anyone with the least bit of imagination that they are trying to bring disillusioned former members back to the fold, as they should be. I truly wish them luck, and I don’t say this in a sarcastic tone. A strong, focused and transparent NRA is something that we all should desire and support.

However, one thing that was a disappointment to me while reading the various editorials in American Hunter was a perfunctory mention of supporting shooting competitions or of encouraging the expansion of shooting ranges around the country. Considering the previous statement by Col. Church, I would think that the support of current ranges and the creation of new ones would be a bit more important to the NRA. Especially, since in 1892, the NRA lost their range at Creedmoor due to political pressure and was forced to re-locate to Sea Girt, New Jersey.

I’m well aware of the argument made that if we don’t have a Second Amendment, we won’t have any rifle ranges. This is true, but if there are no places for the American gun owner (especially those living in the city) to shoot recreationally, he will eventually lose interest in shooting altogether. This is the strategy of the anti-gun organizations; make owning firearms expensive, over-regulated and complicated. Grandfather may hang onto his guns, but Grandson will dispose of them simply because it is too much of a pain to legally keep them and there is no place to shoot them.

I’m not trying to take anything away from the NRA when it comes to defending our Second Amendment rights. However, there are several national organizations that are focused specifically on countering anti-gun legislation and keeping gun owners in the loop on efforts to undermine their rights to own a firearm. They are focused on this issue and that makes them very effective, something that is admitted to by even the anti-gun politicians themselves. They do not, for the most part, concern themselves with promoting the shooting sports; that issue has always been, and should continue to be, a special focus of the NRA. It was the original stated goal of the National Rifle Association and I think they need to remember that.

It is hard to stress enough the value of supporting recreational shooting. It is fathers and grandfathers who many times introduce young people to the pleasures of firearm ownership. Competitions for encouraging our young people to shoot are fine, but competition is not for everyone. It is a far more effective strategy for encouraging gun ownership to have a young person introduced to shooting by a close relative – who has access to a public shooting range.

The non-shooting public, who see scant justification for gun ownership in general, are threatening the existence of many rifle ranges, especially in heavily urbanized areas. New gun owners who simply desire a place to shoot, and are not necessarily interested in competition, are also inundating many ranges. Public lands are under increasing pressure by anti-gun organizations to be closed to shooting of any sort. Many gun clubs are faced with increasingly high maintenance costs that may lead to their closure. We have to keep our existing ranges open and also encourage the opening of new public ranges if we want to keep firearm ownership on the rise in this country. The NRA can play a huge role in this endeavor by ramping up support to existing clubs while helping new clubs with guidance, insurance and grants.

We are often told that young people are the future of our shooting sports. I would add that young people are also the future of gun ownership, and the best way to get young people shooting, is to have them shooting with old people. Older shooters generally have the time, the firearms and the expertise to correctly introduce young people to responsible firearm ownership and the shooting sports. However, we have to make sure that we have a place for them to do this. Public rifle ranges are an essential part of this equation, because a good local range keeps that interest alive with the older shooters that we are relying so much on.

This much I am sure of – if we don’t keep grandpa shooting by having access to a good range, we will never have the grandkids shooting – or being members of the NRA.

– Gut Ziel