“I believe fundamentally in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
A lot of people said those words or a close approximation thereof at last November’s 2A rally on Capitol Hill. But one person who surprised the crowd with that declaration was former Brady Campaign president Dan Gross.
Yes, that Dan Gross. The man who used to head the gun control operation that started life as the National Council to Control Handguns. Gross got involved in gun control after his brother was shot during a mass shooting at the top of the Empire State Building in 1997. He was Brady president from 2012 until two years ago.
So it was more than a little jarring to hear Gross address the staunchly pro-gun crowd that day…saying a lot of the right things and getting a generally warm welcome.
But while he didn’t elaborate on why he left gun control advocacy, his audience probably reasonably inferred that he had disagreements over philosophy…basically, how to actually prevent gun-related injuries and deaths.
As he told the crowd that day, gun owners are “relentlessly and, I believe, unfairly demonized.” He has differences with people whose “ideological hatred of guns and the people who own them is more important to some people than the actual goal of saving lives.” These are “people who pretend they care about saving lives but really have other agendas.”
That’s why, he told the crowd of gun owners, he has “much more in common with all of you, a crowd of law-abiding and responsible gun owners, than I do with a crowd of people who just want to ban guns.”
Here’s Gross’s speech:
Gross tells TTAG that he’s convinced that banning guns simply isn’t the answer. He says he knows that the “overwhelming majority of gun owners, like the overwhelming majority of human beings, are decent, responsible, law-abiding people who feel awful when a tragedy happens.”
That’s why Rob Pincus has teamed up with Gross on a new venture, something they’re calling Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility. Pincus is a firearms trainer, consultant and author. He’s also Very involved with operations like Save the Second, The Second Amendment Organization and Walk the Talk America
As Pincus and Gross told TTAG, the idea behind CGRR is to be non-partisan (as Pincus put it, “dogmatically non-political”) advocates for actual gun safety initiatives. Measures that will save lives and prevent injuries.
That, we assume, is as opposed to the bogus “gun safety” euphemism used by the gun control industry to mask their prohibition and confiscation agenda.
The goal, they say, is for firearms owners to reclaim the narrative. If gun owners are going to be against government regulation and interference with their Second Amendment rights, they need to be for something…for taking positive steps to increase the safety and responsibility of gun owners as a group.
They say CGRR’s goal is to promote non-legislative, non-prohibitionist, non-regulatory, non-confiscatory solutions to promote responsible gun ownership and practices. Actions designed to make real differences in gun safety, saving lives and preventing tragedies.
The CGRR had a somewhat halting rollout at the SHOT Show with a number of attendees fairly alarmed at the involvement of someone seen as a prominent (if now former) advocate for gun control. But the two aren’t deterred and Pincus says he’s confident he isn’t getting “played” by a gun-grabber in gun rights clothing.
One of their first initiatives is pushing something they’re calling GunPRO (Pledge for Responsible Ownership). They’re looking for the support of gun shops, ranges, clubs and state associations to promote gun owners taking the GunPRO pledge.
Their three-part pledge will be to 1) learn to use your firearm safely, 2) prevent unauthorized access to it, and to 3) seek voluntary, temporary alternate storage of your gun (with a friend, a club, an FFL, etc.) in times of mental health or other crisis situations when having a gun in the house may present a risk.
The CGRR is still very much in its infancy. They have the beginnings of Facebook and Instagram pages, but no web site yet and nowhere for gun owners to register their GunPRO pledges, though all of that is in the works.
Once that’s all sorted out, they’ll have a formal announcement and rollout of the program. In the mean time, they’ve issued this statement:
LEADERS FROM OPPOSITE SIDES OF GUN DEBATE ANNOUNCE LAUNCH OF “CENTER FOR GUN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY” TO PROMOTE COMMON-GROUND SOLUTIONS
One of the nation’s best-known Second Amendment advocates and firearm experts, Rob Pincus, and the former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Dan Gross, announced the creation of the Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility (CGRR).
The new organization’s mission will be to conduct and advocate for strictly non-legislative educational and awareness projects aimed at reducing negative outcomes with firearms, such as its flagship program, the GunPRO “pledge of responsible ownership” that will be announced at the event.
“In the successful efforts to expand gun ownership and gun rights,” says Pincus, “I fear that we ourselves have not done enough to educate and promote gun responsibility. I fear that we have not policed our own assertively enough when it comes to issues such as gun storage, gun use and general firearms education around the best practices when it comes to defensive firearms carry and the defensive use of firearms in or around our homes, families and businesses. Too many children have been shot accidentally. Too many teens have completed suicide or committed murders with their parents’ guns.“
Dan Gross adds, “”I’ve always believed that If you want to talk about preventing tragedies with guns that are legally owned, it should begin with a conversation with gun owners themselves. By engaging in education and awareness around responsible gun ownership, and without even talking about laws, I believe we have a massive opportunity both to protect gun rights and to do what every decent American wants, which is to keep us all safe.
The organization was launched in Las Vegas at this year’s SHOT (Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade) Show, the gun industry’s largest trade show, on Thursday, Jan. 23, during a discussion with gun industry leaders and advocates from all sides of the issue.
When is Rob going to finish the PD10?
I handled the PD10 at SHOT when it was announced. Felt cheap. I was very disappointed. Im hoping he realized that it was crap and gave up on it.
Someday…
I can only hope Dan’s motives are based on benign humane benevolence, and not on ulterior political motives.
Before having an opinion, one way or the other, here are some questions:
– What are the measures of success?
– – How will Pincus and Gross determine if they are being successful??
– – – What is the definition of “success”?
“Before having an opinion, one way or the other, here are some questions:
– What are the measures of success?”
Easy-peasy.
The louder the Leftists shriek in anger and hate to the proposals, the better it is for gun rights… 🙂
“The louder the Leftists shriek in anger and hate to the proposals, the better it is for gun rights…”
Well….there’s that.
Haven’t accidents with firearms been falling dramatically over the last 30 or so years?
Southern Cross,
Negligent and accidental injuries/deaths with firearms have been dropping dramatically in the United States for something like 100 years.
My personal opinion: mandatory hunter safety training (for the past 40 or more years) in many/most states and the National Rifle Association’s training programs get most of the credit for that.
More recently, the concealed carry wave that has swept the United States over the last 20 years and its attendant training (which is usually a National Rifle Association training package as well) also gets credit for that.
We are at the point now in the United States where annual deaths from negligent/accidental firearms use is on the order of 450 per year. While we of course want that number to be zero, as a percentage of firearm ownership (estimated at about 100 million firearm owners in the United State) at the low, low number of 0.00045% of firearm owners, that is a safety record that no one can match for anything else.
Does that mean we should stop striving for less accidental/negligent deaths? Absolutely not. What it means is that we should consider the best way to lower that already astronomically low number even further. It also means that society should not be framing the debate as irresponsible gun owners. (What other activity can claim a 0.00045% fatality rate? Nothing that I know of.)
“…as a percentage of firearm ownership (estimated at about 100 million firearm owners in the United State) at the low, low number of 0.00045% of firearm owners, that is a safety record that no one can match for anything else.”
Since the underlying fear of AD/ND is from gun-grabbers afraid they or their children are highly likely to be victims, it is useful to note that as a percentage of the entire population (~330,000,000), the rate is 0.00000137%.
However…….
Stats are meaningless against the demand for zero AD/ND. “If it kills only one.”
Very smart of the left to take this approach. Non-partisan “helpful” safety measures that weasel the legal boundaries in the courts. They know bans are gone. But if we can bring a resurgence in this idea of the “public good” and “you are allowed to have it as long as it fits with public safety,” then everything can be rewritten from a legal standpoint. Very smart.
While I suppose that this could have some positive effect on public perception, I have the feeling that the number of distinct groups has an inverse effect on said public perception.
Yeah, I get that the biggest dog in the “fight” is much more bark than bite (even though the Progs believe (without evidence) that the NRA literally has Senators & Reps on leashes).
And with anti-Rights “pro gun” groups (whose names elude me at present) floating in and out of the scene, I am concerned that this will be viewed with suspicion by gun owners. I’m also concerned that the efforts (and $$$) of pro-Rights folks will be further diluted with yet another national group.
Sigh.
So if I am a GunPRO I should be able to carry anywhere and buy any brand new machine gun or silencer I want over the counter, right? I am safe and responsible, no need to make life difficult for me. At least I can get same-day processing for form 4 transfers, right?
“As [Gross} told the crow (sic) that day, gun owners are ‘relentlessly and, I believe, unfairly demonized.’”
He should know. For ten years, that SOB was the demonizer-in-chief. He simply cannot be trusted, by Pincus or anyone.
And YOU trust the self-promoting, self-aggrandizing Pincus?
This sounds like dubious garbage to me.
Let’s just say Ralph isn’t the sharpest.
If say Ralph is smarter than most when it comes to guns and the law. Are you an attorney as well?
I have an anvil I my yard. I can throw it as far as I trust Gross.
It still amounts to a permission slip at somebody else’s discretion. If there’s anything worse than law, it’s some moral imperative determined by society, and enforced by some self proclaimed high priest. Screw that.
Trojan Horse.
Never trust a leftist.
I think Pincus has tendency’s toward gun control too.
(Gut feeling) ymmv.
Whole heartedly agree. Leftist don’t change their ideology. They will change tactics though.
Years ago Pincus came out bashing open carrying.
I don’t respect or trust him at all.
Whut kind of stupid BS do we have here?!? He didn’t have a “come to Jesus” moment. I’m closer to 70 than 60. This boy is an agent provocateur. Ralph nailed it!
As with anything regarding human behavior the people who would listen don’t need to hear it and the people who need to hear it won’t listen.
But I’m sure somebody will profit and or gain political clout so there’s that.
Sounded good if it is what it purports to be, until I got to, “for gun owners to register their GunPRO pledges.” That is almost as scary are universal background checks. Why not let those who own guns keep their pledges (and gun ownership) to themselves if they so choose and why do they have to register anything?
Yep i smelt a rat reading this too. does not sit well with me. Hell i dont even like the idea of background checks. To me if you have committed a crime that warrants your removal from society you should not be released till you can be considered safe and all rights reinstated upon release, then if you commit another Actual crime after that either death penalty or throw away the key
I also am suspicious. These days, most owners never mention the subject, especially with details like ownership. Anti-gun democrats have been so vocal, most owners discuss their arms only with long term, close friends. In places like Virginia, where the government is downright tyrannical, I’ve heard some have even allowed their carry licenses to lapse, hoping they’ll be “aged off” the databases. Telephone surveys? Nothing. Pledges? Usually means money but names, addresses and phone numbers always are requested so they can ask again. Mum seems to be the word these days.
“Gross tells TTAG that he’s convinced that banning guns simply isn’t the answer.”
I think the Leftists have begun to accept the fact they will never get rid of guns entirely, that horse is long gone from the barn.
As for their little ‘endeavor’, lets just watch them very carefully. It is possible that guy is a plant.
(Note – The Leftists are about to blow a major gasket. President Trump knocked the ‘State of the Union’ clean out of the park. Pelosi was so pissed during the speech, that right after Trump finished, on national television, no less, she ripped her copy of the speech in half. Of course, Trump presenting Rush Limbaugh with the ‘Presidential Medal of Freedom’ *might* have been the cause… *snicker* 😉 )
“Banning guns isn’t the answer, for now.”
There, fixed it.
I am puzzled, was the medal of freedom award for his Lortab dealing or for his sex junkets to central America?
You are puzzled by everything on a daily basis it seems.
Neither of those things actually happened, but if they did, so what?
Which is it that makes you upset more, a citizen managing their own health outside of government minders or a woman taking control of her own sexuality?
Oh, wait, it’s a woman of color taking control of her own body, isn’t it?
You’ve given us yet another example of the hypocritical, misogynist, sexist, racist colonial left.
Always control the opposition. That’s what this guy is, controlled opposition. He is there to guard the right flank of the gun control movement.
Like most of you, I smell rats. The notion that gun owners are a special class of citizen and should take a special pledge is a method of control. First, make the pledge simple and inarguable. Then, slowly, begin to demonize those of us who will not take the pledge. Then, expand the pledge, making it just a wee-bit more restrictive. Continue to stigmatize those of us who will not sign-on. Use it to divide the POTG; create discord.
Eschew Pincus and Gross. This cannot be supported.
Unless it’s expressly anti-Left, the command-control types will eventually infiltrate and corrupt this non-political organization just like they did to the ACLU. It’s their playbook. As Iowahawk so succinctly put it:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
#lefties
Dan gross is listed as an FFL in Washington DC, at least he was at some point with HCI as the address.
Dan’s brother was killed by a Palestinian terrorist in 1997, long before 911 and the focus went to guns rather than the assholes who hate us for our lifestyles.
I would caution the third plank of their platform could be construed as justifying red flag laws and the act of voluntarily limiting your own rights could come back to haunt you. The people who see professionals, check into rehab, or even commit themselves face loss of their rights in certain cases and that will only get worse in the future.
(checks calendar) Nope. I didn’t think it was April 1st.
No
Do people really change 180deg? NO! Or do they try to infiltrate the ranks & mess it up?
Sane People don’t change their principles & what they believe in!
“Sane People don’t change their principles & what they believe in!”
My stance has always been that some people should never even be allowed in the same zip code with a gun. My stance is also that 2A is absolute. My firm belief about people and guns does not change, I just recognize the conflict with 2A being absolute, and accommodate my belief to constitutional law. The constitution supersedes my opinion. Am I mentally unstable?