Wayne LaPierre, the Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press today. This followed his press conference of December 21st, in which he responded to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut by calling for the federal government to fund “armed police officers in every school” by January. LaPierre reiterated this recommendation, saying, “If it’s crazy to call for armed officers in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy.”
I accept the invitation: The NRA is crazy. As I noted in my article yesterday, “Observations In the Aftermath of the Newtown Tragedy,” the NRA is promoting a police state.
Diagnosing Cause of NRA’s Craziness
The NRA has not been a reliable friend of liberty, and it is tied to the law enforcement establishment as well as the gun industry. These factors help explain its current posture.
NRA’s Liberty Problem
The NRA is an unreliable friend of liberty. In 2007, Legal Times wrote about District of Columbia v. Heller, which was pending before the Supreme Court. The case concerned the District’s ban on handguns and requirement that rifles and shotguns in homes be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. The article discussed the NRA’s unhelpful conduct:
Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him ‘ever so grudgingly’ only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown.
Ilya Shapiro, criticizing the NRA’s conduct in the later McDonald v. Chicago case before the Supreme Court, concerning whether the Second Amendment applies to the states, wrote in 2010:
Sadly, it’s also typical of how the NRA has behaved throughout this case and before that during the Heller litigation – sabotaging Alan [Gura] at every turn and showing again and again that, even in the face of winning arguments that fully support its legal positions, the NRA prefers to seek glory for itself rather than presenting the strongest case for its purported constituency of gun owners.
The Supreme Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense. It held in McDonald that the amendment indeed applies to states and localities.
The NRA also has failed to distinguish between governmental and private gun control. As Roger Pilon noted, in discussing the NRA’s unfair opposition to a political candidate,
The Second Amendment prevents the government, not private parties, from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. If a private party can ban you from his property for any reason, good or bad, he can do so for carrying a gun.
NRA’s Ties to Law Enforcement
The NRA is tied to the law enforcement establishment through its Law Enforcement Division. The NRA’s website states, “The Law Enforcement Division is here to assist the law enforcement and military in any capacity it can.”
The NRA’s services to law enforcement include providing firearm training and certification, sponsoring firearm competitions, offering insurance, and holding an Officer of the Year program. It also offers a video library called “Life of Duty” for law enforcement, first providers, and the military.
These ties lead to revenue for the NRA. They also give it a political ally.
NRA’s Ties to the Gun Industry
The NRA is also tied to the gun industry. Through its foundation, it solicits direct contributions, licensing fees, donations through customers “rounding up” charges to the next dollar, sponsorships, fundraising events, and payroll deduction programs.
NRA’s Worldview and Its School Police Plan
These factors mean the following:
- The NRA is concerned with gun rights, not liberty per se;
- It will favor the interests of law enforcement; and
- It will promote opportunities for the gun industry to sell more merchandise.
This leads to the NRA’s plan, which would meet its needs, but not those of the public. The NRA is not concerned with liberty; it would like to help its ally, law enforcement, with a new jobs program; and it would be happy to generate demand for guns to arm the officers in the program.
Why the NRA’s Position is Crazy
As I noted in my prior article, the NRA’s press conference had multiple problems. The NRA engaged in fear mongering, despite the reality of the extremely low risk of school killings. It called for an “active national database of the mentally ill,” apparently unaware that this would invite political persecution (perhaps even of controversial leaders who exclaim, “Call me crazy”). It also blamed video games and movies for violence, ignoring both the lack of proof of such relationship and the protection of free speech under the First Amendment.
Let us focus on the NRA’s specific suggestion, though, of federal funding of police officers in every school, by January. The deadline is presumably intended to allow implementation of the program before people could come to their senses.
First, there is no crisis. As I noted yesterday, general gun violence is down, school shootings are down, and such shootings are extremely rare. For perspective, only about one percent of children murdered in the 2008—2009 school year were killed at school. For more statistics, see Gene Healy’s article.
Second, the plan assumes the desirability of a police state. The NRA apparently is unaware of all the pointless misery caused by the federal government having established the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) in the panic following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. The existing presence of police in schools is bad enough. Adding more police will just encourage the “school-to-prison pipeline.”
Third, the NRA assumes that government police are “good guys,” the expression used in the press conference. The very existence of government police is a dangerous idea, and officers regularly engage in abuse. For a taste of the problem, read some of the daily summaries on the Cato Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project website. For more horror stories, see Radley Balko’s columns. If we want to keep our children safe, we should keep them away from the police, seek the end of government policing, and support a free market in security.
Fourth, the plan would be likely to fail. Consider this:
In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby — exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping ‘a bad guy with a gun.’
Fifth, the plan assumes the existence of public—meaning government—schools. The government is the worst provider of any service, and education is no exception. As I recommended, having a free market in education would allow parents to choose schools based on any criteria, including security.
Finally, the plan ignores the fact that there is no constitutional federal power to fund school security.
Conclusion
Yes, NRA, you are crazy! Sane organizations are in touch with reality and can see beyond their own interests. Strengthening the police state is a bad idea!
