NSSF Blog

An Organization That Represents 100 Million Sport Shooters Worldwide

There is an organization called the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities that hunters and shooters should know about because of the work it does on their behalf. It’s a unique organization—an international “association of associations”—that brings together national groups dedicated to preserving the freedom to own and use sporting firearms around the world.

If you don’t hunt or shoot internationally, you might not think WFSA matters. But it does. When other countries restrict the lawful ownership of firearms, that emboldens groups in the United States to pursue similar restrictions. On the other hand, if you do travel to hunt big-game in Africa, bird hunt in South America, shoot competitively in Europe or Asia, or want to enjoy recreational shooting anywhere, it’s much easier to see why the WFSA is so valuable to you. Even traveling through a restrictive country can cause problems for firearms owners. 

With politically powerful forces pushing diverse strategies to curtail gun ownership internationally, WFSA is the international organization best positioned to share information and empower national organizations to respond to such challenges. The group's annual meeting took place recently at the IWA trade show in Nuremberg, where Steve Sanetti, president of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, delivered the important closing "call to action" speech. His “call” was for a bigger, more powerful organization.

Sanetti began by pointing out that in its 14-year history WFSA has established its credibility internationally, becoming recognized by, and invited to provide its viewpoint to, the United Nations and many governments. Last year, for example, Sanetti addressed a U.N. audience at the Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms.

Over the past year, WFSA has had many successes, including organizing the groundbreaking "Ecologic and Economic Benefit of Hunting" symposium in Namibia, but Sanetti cautioned it will take a bigger, stronger organization to parry the many challenges sport shooting faces worldwide. The list of U.N. and regional initiatives the WFSA is engaged in is impressive--and daunting--including the arms trade treaty, U.N. firearms protocol, efforts to establish international small arms control standards, environmental issues (particularly related to the use of traditional ammunition) and countering attempts to restrict ownership of firearms.

"Last month . . . a government commission in Finland recommended the banning of all semi-automatic handguns--200,000 of the 600,000 guns legally possessed by the citizens of Finland," said Sanetti. "This was shocking . . . and it could be a portent of things to come." He pointed out that firearms used in the Olympics, for waterfowl shooting and for target shooting all share the same basic semi-automatic action--a fact most people do not realize.

"We cannot fall into the trap of saying that certain guns are good and certain guns are bad," emphasized Sanetti. The WFSA's Project on Myths works to counter this and other misunderstandings and distortions about firearms and their use.

Sanetti noted how hunters and shooters around the world rely on WFSA to protect their heritage and image, though they may not know it. "The average hunter or sport shooter in America, Italy or any other place . . . is only vaguely aware of what is in store for us in this new globalized environment."

National organizations are fully consumed with responding to issues of concern in their countries, as they should be, said Sanetti. It's up to WFSA, he stressed, to make the national associations aware of how international threats, such as a ban on traditional ammunition, can depress sport shooting and curtail opportunities for all hunters and sport shooters.

He called on members to "bring the message home" that WFSA is the international organization with the experience and expertise to represent the concerns of more than 100 million sport shooters worldwide.

Any association interested in joining the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities can learn more at its Web site.

Huffington Post Readers Deserve A Straight Shooter

We know that many Huffington Post readers are not Second Amendment supporters, although we believe they value accuracy in what they read. HuffPost readers in search of a better understanding of gun ownership trends in America and the firearms industry can do better than to rely on a blog written by Josh Sugarmann of the extremist anti-gun Violence Policy Center. HuffPost readers may want to consider subscribing instead to this blog, which chronicles the firearms industry and firearms trends, often using statistics from the FBI (as below) and ATF to ensure accuracy.

Sugarmann's recent post would have readers believe that the market for the most popular style of firearm--the AR, or modern sporting rifle--is in "collapse" because ONE company, KBI/Charles Daly, which was not well known for sales of that style firearm, unfortunately went out of business.

A collapse? Hardly.

Firearm sales, while off their record-setting peak of a year ago, remain strong. At the industry's recent annual trade show, the SHOT Show, attendance was just a several hundred shy of a record--notable in a still sluggish economy--and buying was brisk, signaling another successful year for 2010.

Sugarmann's posting strikes us as an "I'll try anything" attempt to force-march the dead issue of legislation for an assault weapons ban onto the front burner, which would be a long journey indeed from where it currently rests. It's also an attempt to continue to confuse HuffPost readers about AR-style rifles by using the incorrect and politically-combustible term "assault weapons" to describe what are civilian semi-automatic rifles that are widely used for target shooting and, increasingly, for hunting. Remember, it was Sugarmann who years ago said, "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Note to HuffPost readers: "Assault weapons" are military weapons, and civilian ownership of them has been severely regulated since 1934.

As for the reference to "long-term trends of declining gun ownership," HuffPost readers should know that many who purchased firearms during the record surge in sales that started back October 2008 were first-time gun buyers, as indicated by participants in NSSF's First Shots program and in overflowing concealed carry classes throughout the country. The real trend is that more people are interested in gun ownership and are buying firearms.

For HuffPost readers who think all this gun buying leads to more crime and accidents, they should know that violent crime rates have been falling for years even as firearms ownership has been increasing. Urban centers like New York, Washington, D.C., Boston and Los Angeles showed major declines in violent crime in 2009. Fatal firearms accidents are at historic lows, too.

All sales surges come to an end, and sales of firearms, including modern sporting rifles, are returning to what most consider normal levels. Nevertheless, new data released by the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported 1,243,211 checks in February 2010, ranking the month the second highest February (eighth highest month overall) for most NICS checks. This figure, while being a 1.3 percent decrease from the 1,259,078 checks conducted in February 2009 -- the early stage of the surge in firearms sales -- is an increase of 21.7 percent over checks in February 2008. The total number of background checks reported since the beginning of NICS is 112,380,272. (Background checks are an indicator of used and new firearms sales.)

As you can see, law-abiding Americans are continuing to buy firearms, which they enjoy using for target shooting and hunting, and which they like to own for personal and home protection. We'd like HuffPost readers to know that. Actually, we believe many already do, since we suspect many HuffPost readers are firearm owners. Where else did all those pro-gun commenters come from on Sugarmann's blog?

Sequel to 'Heller': 'McDonald v. Chicago' Goes Before The Supreme Court

The words from the 14th Amendment printed below are central to the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, which will be argued tomorrow before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court will rule on whether cities and states must honor the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The key words from the 14th Amendment are "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . "

When cities such as Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., prohibit owning handguns, residents are denied their right to self protection, a violation of their Second Amendment right and their ability to protect their "life, liberty and property."

You can consider McDonald v. City of Chicago as the sequel to the 2008 landmark case--the District of Columbia v. Heller--in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms as opposed to a "collective" right related to service in a militia. The court's decision, however, applied only to areas regulated by the federal government, such as Washington, D.C. As a result, instead of ending questions about the Second Amendment, the Heller decision actually served as the launching pad for legal attempts to further clarify how the right to keep and bear arms truly applies to all citizens.

After Heller, many lawsuits were filed to overturn laws that prevented individuals from owning handguns. In Chicago, several residents, in party with the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association, brought suit challenging the city's long-standing gun ban. The residents, among them a retired maintenance worker named Otis McDonald, wanted the freedom to own a handgun to protect themselves and their families. The National Rifle Assocation also filed a separate lawsuit seeking to overturn the city's statute. 

Key elements in these cases date to the 18th and 19th century and are fascinating (and complicated) to consider. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the intent was to limit the federal government from infringing on rights deemed to be "fundamental" by the founders--rights such as "freedom of speech" (First Amendment) and protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" (Fourth Amendment). It seems inconceivable that such fundamental rights did not apply to the states, but that was the case. Following the Civil War when newly freed slaves had their individual rights abused by former Confederate states, Congress responded by passing the 14th Amendment. Through the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has applied other amendments to the states, although, not yet, the Second Amendment.

How broadly or narrowly the right to keep and bear arms will be applied to, or "incorporated as against," state regulation of the Second Amendment is what everyone will be watching when the court renders its decision. On Tuesday, one hour has been set for oral arguments. Attorney Alan Gura, who won the Heller case, will argue for the petitioners Otis McDonald, et al. Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will argue for the NRA, which is also a party to the case. Chicago's defense will take up the remainder of the time.

While the court's decision won't be known for some months, one thing we do know is how Americans feel about their Second Amendment rights. Nearly three out of four Americans considered the Second Amendment an individual right to own a firearm at the time of the Heller case, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. 

It's a right that should be honored in every locality in the United States.

Background on McDonald v. City of Chicago can be found at the following . . . 

• Chicago Gun Case
• Supreme Court of the United States Blog
• Alan Korwin's blog
• USA Today story
• NSSF Amicus Curiae Brief

NSSF Hails Washington State Supreme Court Decision on 2d Amendment

The court's ruling holds that the Second Amendment is an incorporated right.

From the just released press release:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry – hailed today’s ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans are applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.

“This decision by the Washington State Supreme Court is a welcomed development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.  “America's firearms industry remains optimistic that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming McDonald v. City of Chicago case that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual liberty that all states and local governments must respect." 

The NSSF filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago, set to be heard by the High Court next month. 

The Hunter's Apprentice

We've heard a lot of good news lately about hunting and hunters--like the 3.5 percent increase in the National Shooting Sports Foundation Hunting License Sales Index and that most hunters went afield as much or more than they expected in 2009. Not to be overlooked, though, are the more than 300,000 apprentice hunting licenses that have been sold over the last three years thanks to Families Afield®.

This program, a joint effort of NSSF, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and National Wild Turkey Federation, works to lower regulatory barriers that stand in the way of introducing a newcomer to hunting. The "apprentice," usually a young person, can then hunt deer and other big game under the supervision of a licensed adult mentor before committing to taking a lengthy hunter education course. Think about it. What youngsters do you know who will sit through approximately 16 hours of coursework in order to do something they have never even tried? Not many, we'd wager.

Research showed that too many states were imposing barriers to newcomers. Some states restricted youth from participating until age 10 or 12 or even later and required extensive coursework. Given these hurdles, it's no wonder that kids passed up hunting and instead turned to video games or organized sports.

Over the last five years, however, Families Afield has made considerable progress. In 2009 Nevada and Wisconsin became the 28th and 29th states to make their hunting regulations more friendly to newcomers. 

Why is it important to change these regulations? Research shows that the "hunter replacement ratio" is below 1.0 for the majority of states, meaning that hunters who drop out are not being replaced. Without an influx of new, young hunters to maintain the ranks, hunting, which is so important to wildlife conservation funding and America's economy, could be compromised. Not to mention that youth would miss out on what has been a rite of passage for generations.

A story called "Outfitters Lament: Too Few Kids With Guns" in The Wall Street Journal touched on some of the challenges that hunting faces, although we think the future is brighter than that article makes it out. Remember, you don't need an outfitter to introduce a youngster to hunting. Also keep in mind that research shows that supervised youth hunters are especially safe.

When newcomers go afield at an early age, memories are created of the sights, sounds, and excitement of the hunt. It's those memories that cause young people to insist in the future that their dads and moms take them hunting, and it's probably the reason the Ohio Division of Wildlife is retaining 47 to 53 percent of apprentice hunters. "This is the best retention rate of any program we currently operate," said an agency spokesperson. 

For hunters, mentoring appears to be natural instinct. A recent HuntersSurvey.com poll showed more than 77 percent of active hunters and target shooters had taken their sons and daughters hunting. Even adults without a child or stepchild heard the calling, with 56 percent of them reporting they also took a young person afield.

The work of Families Afield is helping to make it easier for hunters to act on this innate drive to teach youngsters about this ages-old, normal human activity. It doesn't take a "sorcerer's apprentice" to know that the future of hunting will have a bright spot as the figure of 300,000 apprentice hunters continues to grow. 

Three Accurate Stories About Modern Sporting Rifles

Writers Mark Taylor of the Roanoke Times in Virginia, John Weiss of the Post-Bulletin in Rochester, Minneosta, and Colin Moore of  ESPNOutdoors.com each filed stories recently that accurately discuss AR-style modern sporting rifles. NSSF, which has launched a campaign to correct confusion about these rifles, appreciates their professional reporting and invites you to read their pieces.

From Mark's article:

"[ARs are] one of the fastest growing segments in the market and if you've ever shot one you understand why," [John] Fink [of Remington] said. "They're just a lot of fun to shoot. They're light on recoil and they're surprisingly accurate."

Because the guns share the same basic AR-style platform -- the AR stands for ArmaLite, the company that launched the design 50 years ago -- there are many add-on parts and modification products available to shooters, many of whom are avid tinkerers.

From John's article:

Patrick Cellette, owner of Cellette's Guns Inc. of New Brighton, Minn. agreed that troops coming back from Vietnam set the stage for push to the modern rifle. "Everything just took off like a rocket from there,"he said. "These are not evil." About 90 percent of his business is AR-related. 

From Colin's article:

The growing popularity of these rifles follows a familiar pattern. The military adopts the latest, greatest fighting weapon, whether a Winchester lever-action or a Springfield '03 bolt-action, and soon those firearms enter the civilian market. That's also what happened with black rifles, whose fame began in the Vietnam War era. Vets, and second- and third-generation vets since then, notched out a place in their hearts for such firearms long after their terms of duty ended.

---

Read more about the modern sporting rifle and NSSF's educational campaign to correct the confusion surrounding these AR-style rifles. AR-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

Media and the SHOT Show

When it comes to firearms and accessories, there's no better place to soak up knowledge about them than at NSSF's Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show. Media that cover these outdoor activities know this and use the SHOT Show as a combination story generator and education hub, which can pay dividends throughout the year and even for an entire career.

Last week, 1,800 members of the media made a point of coming to the SHOT Show in Las Vegas so they could learn about and ogle (sometimes not in that order) the latest gear the industry produces and sells. Having a better grasp of what products are designed for and how they function helps media gain a better understanding for why industry holds certain positions on legislation and regulations. For example, when you see how popular AR-style modern sporting rifles and accessories are, and that there's an AR for nearly every sporting use requiring a rifle, you can see why millions of owners of these modular rifles are concerned about potential legislation that would prohibit ownership of them.

Factual errors that appear about modern sporting rifles and many other gun-related issues in media stories often occur because of reporters' lack of knowledge about guns and gun ownership. The SHOT Show not only affords media an opportunity to see equipment on the show floors but to attend "media day at the range," where reporters can see, handle and test equipment, and then pose their questions about design and specifications directly to manufacturer representatives. Most "outdoor media" who attend SHOT know the value of this media day prior to the show, and we were pleased to see that mainstream media writers made good use of the range day to learn more about firearms in a hands-on way.

With nearly 40 million Americans active participants in hunting and the shooting sports, it's important that all media, not just outdoor media, better understand our sports and the equipment gun owners enjoy owning and using--lawfully and responsibly. There are many new owners out there after a record year for firearms sales. This sales surge, as NSSF President Steve Sanetti put it in his State of the Industry address at SHOT Show, "is a testament to the popularity of firearms ownership in America and proof that hunting and target shooting remain popular activities among all ages." 

The show itself was a big success. In an economy that is still sputtering, the 58,444 trade professionals who attended nearly matched the all-time record set at the 2008 show in Las Vegas. And there were positive signs that the industry would continue to see robust sales in 2010, building on the extraordinary sales of the last 15 months.

See NSSF's Bullet Points, the SHOT Show blog and @NSSFSHOT Show on Twitter for highlights of the show. There's also lots of show-related Tweets at #shotshow. And here's the SHOT Show wrap-up press release.

Trying to Scare Hunters Who Use Traditional Ammunition

An alarmist article written by Michael Glenn Easter at scienceline.org tries to scare hunters and others who enjoy eating venison by impying that game harvested with traditional ammunition is unsafe to eat. It is not.

The writer never contacted NSSF to get its position on the matter, yet he gives credence to a North Dakota dermatologist who two years ago unscientifically selected non-random sample packages of venison from food banks and "tested" them, saying they were contaminated with lead fragments. North Dakota health officials, who did not collect their own samples for study, then overreacted by ordering food banks to throw out tons of nutritious food. What the article  doesn't say is that the dermatologist's testing method was called into question, that he sits on the board of the Peregrine Fund, an organization whose stated agenda includes banning lead ammunition, and that the release of the dermatologist's "study" was timed to coincide with a Peregrine Fund conference aimed at advancing its agenda.

Eating game taken with traditional ammunition that contains lead-core components does not pose a health risk. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bears this out. The CDC's study of North Dakota hunters found that their blood lead levels were lower than the average American's. Additionally, the Iowa Department of Public Health has said, "IDPH maintains that if lead in venison were a serious health risk, it would likely have surfaced within extensive blood lead testing since 1992 with 500,000 youth under 6 and 25,000 adults having been screened." It has not.

Here's the data from CDC's North Dakota study: The adult with the highest lead level (9.82 micrograms per deciliter of blood) was still below the CDC recommended threshold for that of a child (10 micrograms per deciliter of blood) and well below the CDC recommended threshold for an adult (25 micrograms per deciliter of blood). Consider too that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration doesn't even require removal of an employee from a job involving lead exposure until that employee's blood lead level reaches 60 micrograms per declilter of blood.

There is no evidence of a single case of human lead poisoning related to eating game taken with traditional ammunition, and no peer-reviewed scientic evidence exists as a reason to ban the use of such ammunition.

To allay any concerns about eating venison taken with traditional ammunition, hunters should point out the CDC study to other hunters, always with the reminder to properly field dress and butcher meat. Food pantries should be made aware of the CDC study as well, so that healthy, low-fat meat donated by hunters to feed the needy is not wasted out of unwarranted fear. To date, the North Dakota Department of Health encourages hunters to continue donating venison to local food banks as long as processing guidelines are adhered to. Food banks in nearly every other state willingly and gratefully accept venison from hunters, something they wouldn't do if it was unsafe.  

We expect less advocacy and more accurate and balanced reporting from a publication with the word "science" in its name.

A Math Lesson

When it comes to gun-related crime, it's standard procedure for gun-control groups to toss around numbers without putting them into perspective. The Violence Policy Center tried it recently and got this math lesson from A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, who calls such tactics "misleading, if not malicious."

Writes Mr. Hinkle,

"Now consider this statistic: Concealed handgun permit holders have killed 107 people since 2007. That news, from the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., sounds pretty bad--until you put it in context. How many Americans have been issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon?"

Using estimates for the number of concealed carry permit holders, Mr. Hinkle writes, "the percentage of concealed-carry permit holders who have killed someone with a firearm comes to two one-thousandths of 1 percent."

Read Mr. Hinkle's full article.

Questions Mount About California's Microstamping Law

First, the state's new law requiring firearms manufacturers to laser engrave identification numbers on a gun's firing pin did not go into effect January 1 because the technology remains encumbered by patents. And now the California Police Chiefs Association raises further questions about microstamping, saying the technology needs more study and is too costly, reversing its original position of support for the legislation.

In a letter sent to state Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, CPCA Acting President Susan E. Manheimer wrote, “There are too many unanswered questions with microstamping in its current iteration” and raised concerns that "statements about the capabilities of microstamping may have been technologically premature."

Several independent, peer-reviewed studies have indicated the technology is flawed and can be easily circumvented using simple household tools. Even wear and tear caused by normal use of a firearm requires owners to replace parts such as firing pins from time to time. For these and other reasons, NSSF opposed the legislation.

Manufacturers have indicated the new law would force them to raise prices of guns significantly, or even abandon the California market rather than go through a costly reconfiguring of manufacturing and assembly processes. Estimated price increases could go as high as $200 per gun. 

Read NSSF's news release on the CPCA letter and the release about why the technology must be certified as patent-free by the California Department of Justice before the law can go into effect.