Anti-Rights Candidate for NRA Board
UPDATE: It appears that for all of his threats, Wray either changed his mind or was unable to find 250 NRA members who believed him enough to sign a petition. He is not on the 2009 ballot. For the 2009 NRA Board of Directors candidate endorsements, please click here.
_________
A candidate has declared his run for the NRA Board in an outdoor column. Unfortunately for us, he doesn’t really believe in concealed carry. He’s flat out against any lawful ownership of fully automatic firearms. His previous statements imply support of some form of microstamping and/or databases of lawful gun owners and their guns. He also says that no law abiding gun owner would keep ammunition supplies around. He argues that gun owners who prepare for disasters are out of the mainstream and more akin to angry Minutemen.
Obviously, the Nominating Committee of the Board isn’t going to endorse him. However, if he cons enough NRA members into signing petitions, he will be on the ballot.
Who is this anti-rights candidate? Pat Wray. He has a beef about how hunting lobbying has been done, so he wants to rearrange the entire organization to support his personal views of gun ownership.
So in order to help protect the land and the wild animals I love, I’ve decided to run for a position on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
How, you might ask, will being an NRA director help me preserve our hunting heritage?
Simple. If I have a voice at the table perhaps I can help put a stop to the incredible damage the NRA is doing to long term prospects for hunting in this country.
Of course, I would note for those of you who are like Mr. Wray and don’t know a damn thing about how NRA is structured, even if he is elected, one director cannot outvote the other 74. I’m sure Mr. Wray wouldn’t realize that given that it’s likely he’s never attended a board meeting before.
Of course, Wray also thinks that NRA is fear mongering in talking about gun rights. Apparently, he’s had his head buried in the sand (or up his ass, the jury is still out on that one) for the last month and he missed the fact that individual gun ownership was protected by a single vote on the Supreme Court. The true impact and meaning of that ruling will likely only be determined by a single vote in the future. Telling people that one appointment could make the difference between gun bans and lawful ownership is hardly fear mongering.
But let’s get back to Mr. Wray and his views. I said that he doesn’t really believe in concealed carry. Here are Wray’s own words on the only legitimate reason to get a carry license:
We apply for and receive concealed weapons permits, not because we plan to carry a gun around, but because we want be able to legally transport guns in our vehicles without leaving them in plain sight, as the law requires. (Emphasis added.)
That would be interesting to know for the folks who make their living selling equipment to those who actually do carry their firearms.
Let’s continue, shall we? I said he was against any lawful ownership of fully automatic firearms. That’s certainly the image he created with these words:
We don’t own fully automatic weapons.
Really? That would be news to several folks I know. That would be news to the thousands of folks who would attend the machine gun shoots I went to up in New England. Many people do not, but that’s thanks to artificial market tampering by a ban that drives prices up.
It’s one thing for you guys out there who get frustrated with NRA not taking up Class III issues, it’s another if you guys put a man on the board who actually wants to throw you under the bus. Keep that in mind as you vote next year.
On to the next issue: I said that his statements imply support for some form of microstamping and/or databases of lawful gun owners and their guns. He’s vague about this, and I believe it’s intentional so as not to endure the wrath of angry gun owners.
We are willing to consider creative new ways to identify weapons that have been used for criminal purposes and wish the National Rifle Association were more cooperative in this effort.
Really? The only things I’ve seen them not cooperate on are databases of lawful gun owners and their guns that would make future seizures easier, ballistic fingerprinting that would essentially put ammo prices out of the reach of gun owners & hunters, and microstamping which would jack the costs of guns artificially without any serious benefit to law enforcement. Voting members deserve to know exactly which scheme you support, Mr. Wray, that would put gun ownership out of reach for millions low income citizens.
I noted that he previous said that gun owners have no reason to keep ammunition supplies around.
We don’t stockpile ammunition…
Define stockpile. Does that mean that you’ll be lobbying on behalf of ammunition restrictions? With .22 sold in packs of 500, it’s quite easy to have several thousand rounds of ammo on hand if you find a good price. Does that make us stockpiling freaks? Consider that Sebastian and I took more than 9,000 rounds with us on a road trip to shoot in Texas last year. It really didn’t take up that much room. We got about 1,000 rounds of shotgun ammo because of bulk buying for two different guns. We had multiple rifles because of the opportunity to shoot in wide open spaces, and we had plenty of .22s for the cans and other crap. Oh, and I counted the rounds in the Glock he carried the entire way there, and the Sig I carried some of the time.
Finally, I noted that Wray made sure to broadly throw around the survivalist term, making sure to distance all gun owners from it. Yes, he even did it after Katrina and 9/11. In fact, he considers such preparations to be extremist and similar to the actions of the Minutemen patrolling the desert in terms of how outside the mainstream it is:
It is a mistake to confuse gun owners like those I’m describing with extremist groups like Minutemen and Survivalists.
With all of that said, I should note that the “we” he’s talking about is in the form of an introduction to gun owners for politicians. His version of gun ownership is dangerous, and he’s willing to get on the NRA Board in order to get the title he needs to throw those of who do things like carry concealed under the bus in political circles and in his column. Do not let this man on the Board of Directors. You can refuse to sign his petitions, and more importantly, you can refuse to vote for him. Most importantly, let your shooting buddies know how anti-rights Pat Wray is, and that they need to vote against him as well. We’ll make sure the blogosphere highlights some very deserving candidates for the Board next year, and I can assure you, Wray will not be in that group.
UPDATE: Wray proclaims to put hunting first, and that’s why he’s raising hell about NRA. Here’s the problem. He asks hunters to join anti-hunting groups and excuse their actions to ban hunting.
“Don’t hesitate to explore outfits like the Sierra Club,” he added. “Yes, I know, some Sierra Club chapters have a history of taking part in anti-hunting activities, and because the chapters are essentially autonomous, they may do so again.”
It seems to me that Wray is less than principled and really out for attention. You’d think that it means we should stop blogging about him. However, considering that in less than 12 hours, blogs highlighting his anti-gun record have now moved to take most of the spots on the front page of google results about him and his board run, I think we’d be better off making sure we stay at the top of those pages so when NRA voters look for information about him next year, they find it easily.
Like I said at Uncle’s, I don’t just want to see someone like this not get on the board. I want to make sure he comes in dead last. If you know an Oregon NRA member (the most likely people to vote for him because his state will be listed on the ballot), make sure you forward some of the posts about Wray and his true feelings around to them. Let them know now that if they see a petition with his name on the top, they should refuse to sign it.
No obviously related posts.
[...] A guy running for NRA Board is opposed to concealed carry; says gun owners should not store ammo; supports microstamping and gun owner databases; and if you’re have a gun for disaster preparedness, you’re out of the mainstream. Meet Pat Wray. [...]
Corvallis – Tells me a lot, he’s a bitter Oregonian Democrat clinging to libreal values. He says “…the NRA in its present form is incapable of working simultaneously on behalf of hunters and as a gun rights advocate. Pretending otherwise is a blatant, if well camouflaged, lie.” What a Michael Moore – and that’s one comma too many.
And this statement proves he’s in denial and totally delusional: “Require the NRA to search out and work with politicians who care about the environment, wildlife and wild lands in addition to their support of our 2nd Amendment rights. The two are not mutually exclusive.”
But on a Party-by-Party basis they ARE exclusive – unless you live in the Democrat’s Pelosieville Fantasyland and Bizzaro World.
Not to mention, his ideas of what concerns hunters isn’t in line with what a lot of hunters believe. He talks about the roadless issue. Certainly, most hunters I know don’t want the wilderness paved. On the other hand, if you’re talking hundreds of miles of no road access, not even a place to pull the truck off the side of the road and hike in, that’s a problem for some.
He refuses to acknowledge that even within the hunting community, there’s a lot of disagreement on environmental and access policies.
But what would we know, we’re just a bunch of extremists outside of the mainstream. Yeah…
[...] deer, bears, mountain goats, bighorn sheep and trout do better in areas away from active roads. – Pat Wray at [...]
[...] Bitter, we read the story of Pat Wray. Pat is running for the NRA board of directors. Pat is a hunter, [...]
[...] Here’s why. [...]
[...] Read! [...]
I know how much fun it is to take small portions of an article out of context and try to derive meaning from them, but you are doing yourself and your readers a disservice by doing so. The article you reference was designed as a GENERAL overview of hunters and gunowners and was, I believe, pretty accurate. It was not intended to represent everyone, nor should it have been interpreted as a slam against any portion of the gun owning community. Here’s the truth:
I believe in an unrestricted 2nd Amendment.
I have no problem with fully automatic weapons and enjoy the auto weapons shoot at the rifle range where I belong.
I do support increased ownership regulation for fully auto weapons.
I think the term assault weapons, as used by the general media is a crock…I own several assault weapons.
I have no problem with 50 caliber rifles. I’ve loved the caliber since my days in the Marine Corps…but I don’t believe it should be a legal hunting caliber.
I have no problem with concealed weapons permits or with carrying concealed. I occasionally do, but as I said in the article, most hunters maintain a permit just to avoid hassles while transporting them.
I am a reloader and have several thousand rounds built up in multiple calibers. I don’t consider that stockpiling in the sense of para-military folks.
My use of the term Minutemen was unfortunate and I apologized the day after the article came out. It was nothing more nor less than a mistake…I meant to refer to the Montana Freemen.
I am opposed to micro stamping in its current form, but I am willing to consider new and creative ways to help police identify weapons which have been used in the commission of crimes, as long as they don’t involve methods that could be used to identify and collect guns from legal owners.
So, if all that makes me a anti-rights candidate, then so be it. However, if if it makes sense, then perhaps you should nominate me…then we’ll give NRA members a real choice, for a change.
Best, Pat
Pat, I look forward to your column clarifying all of these statements to the general public. Otherwise, it would appear that your comment here really just emphasizes that you want to divide gun owners into classes rather than trying to bring them together. That a fast way to fall.
Your premise for running also indicates you want to divide hunters and shooters. You said you want to take NRA’s resources to fund a new and separate group for hunters. If you’re so ball-sy, do it yourself. Be an entrepreneur. See if it fails or succeeds. I’m sure all of your supporters from Sierra Club and what’s left of OWAA will jump on board.
I would argue as a shooter only that what you want to do is to, in your own modified words, taken 2A advocate money and funnel it into the coffers of politicians you could count on as dependable environmental policy voters.
You want to scare hunters into thinking they are being conned out of their money. Well then address the fact that shooters are “conned” out of their money when almost all of the excise tax receipts for our self defense firearms and training go to pay for your hunting access instead of our ranges.
Ever consider that when you do the math, the contributions of hunters to paying for us to elect people who protect gun rights actually lines the coffers of your DNR to a much greater degree?
There’s nothing in your little platform that requires you to be on the board. You want a new hunting organization, fine, start one. You don’t like their messaging, fine get a soapbox. You know how it’s done, you write for a living. You want a group that doesn’t fundraise so much. Well, as a non-profit worker, you can count my vote as gone. Fundraising is what keeps the lights on. If you’re against it, start a group that doesn’t do it. You want to focus donations on pro-hunting candidates, go donate.
You have yet to outline one single reason you need to take more money from shooters than you’re already doing through Pittman-Robertson.
As I said, your column also indicates a lack of understanding about the structure of the NRA Board.
So tell me, why would I vote for you if you are against keeping the lights on and want to take over something that you don’t even understand how it works? We’ll get into the other details later. I want practical answers right now.
“I believe in an unrestricted 2nd Amendment.” / “I do support increased ownership regulation for fully auto weapons.”
He must be Bi-Polar.
Gee, Pat- way to doublespeak. So, after telling me I should have my guns registered (“We are willing to consider creative new ways to identify weapons…”), that my CCW was never intended to allow me to actually CARRY a CONCEALED WEAPON (“We apply for and receive concealed weapons permits, not because we plan to carry a gun around…”), that you should have the ultimate say on how much ammo I buy when I visit Wal-Mart (“We don’t stockpile ammunition…”), and that I’d be doing good to join an organization that has publicly declared its opposition to my existance (“Don’t hesitate to explore outfits like the Sierra Club,”)… you expect to have a statement like, “I believe in an unrestricted Second Amendment”.
(well, except for full-auto weapons, which you want to see restricted; and ammo, which you want to see restricted; and MY guns, which you want to see registered; and .50’s which you want to see restricted; and my hunting rights, which you would like me to help your friends to restrict, myself…)
I’m reminded of Bill Clinton announcing he was all in favor of hunting… or Kerry and his “Sportsmen”… or Hillary, and her “support of the Second Amendment”. Why is that, Mister Wray?
Wild Deuce, Pat Wray emailed me a response to your post. He likes the way machine guns are handled today. He doesn’t want them to be available like .22s.
On the other hand, that still shows support for a continued ban on newly manufactured or imported ones.
I’ll be honest, it’s not politically feasible to get restrictions lifted. However, it’s another thing to proclaim that gun owners who enjoy their lawful use or own them are outside of the mainstream. Still sounds like Pat is in that last category. I have to say, the comments in the newspaper don’t exactly match the comments in the blog.
More importantly, everything he said in his platform and in his writing is about dividing gun owners and keeping them in their separate little corners. I, for one, am tired of that game. I will hunt, I will shoot, I will carry, I will go to machine gun shoots, and I will bust some clays. I want to freedom to do it all, and there’s no reason in the world to elect a candidate who feels the need to put me in a box.
“I do support INCREASED ownership regulation for fully auto weapons.”
Increased in what way? It already takes a Class III FFL to procure those weapons. How else can someone increase the regulation outside of prohibition?
Man, keep this guy off the NRA Board!
I’m opposed to all microstamping, and similar schemes. they would be easily defeated by criminals, and they would have a signifigant impact on the price of firearms.
Increased regulation of fully automatic weapons? Hah. They are already regulated to the point where you have to give a kidney and your first born to have one. I realize repealing legislation in this area is unlikely but calls for more regulation damn sure isn’t getting my support.
We just barely won the Heller case 5-4. One of the most anti gun candidates available stands a good chance of being the next president.
The anti minuteman( admittedly revised), anti survivalist, and anti people who have more than what you consider an appropriate amount of ammo talk, is worthy of the astroturf AHSA, and not something I expect to hear from any NRA member.
I’m with Bitter, if you want a more hunting rights oriented organization go found one yourself.
Why would Wray even want to be on the board of the NRA?
“But we need to look beyond the Internet, into the genesis of the anger and fear that fueled the Internet attacks. If we look closely, we will find the National Rifle Association, or NRA. For decades the NRA has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia among gun owners. They have hammered home the message that everyone is out to take our guns and that compromise is tantamount to treason. They created an attitude within their membership that anyone who disagreed was an enemy and the best defense was a good offense. Nowhere has that message taken root as strongly as within the owners of the military style rifles, and it was they who came after Zumbo in their thousands.”
Had he done any actual research, he would note that the “feeding frenzy” as he put it, started on Arfcom and that quite a few of these “”Vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals” are NOT NRA friendly.
Well, they were rightfully angry, and people aren’t entitled to financial support from the people they throw under a bus. Boycotting is a completely acceptable form of protest. Don’t like it? Too bad. Zumbo himself has repudiated his former position on the matter, and he understands that gun owners can’t afford to divide themselves in to little easily picked off groups.
With Barack “Joyce foundation” Obama poised for a likely presidency, a narrow 5-4 Heller victory, and democratic control in both houses of congress, we need to stick together.
All I can say is, that as a patron member of the NRA, he’ll not be getting my vote. Anyone who see’s more regulation of any type of firearm as a good thing, does not belong on the NRA board. As for dividing up gun owners along shooting/hunting lines; “(We) must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” — Ben Franklin
Hey there must be some kind of guideline requiring any good ole boy named Dave to be a staunch RKBA guy. I’m counting three Dave’s in this running commentary so far, and I agree with the other two.
.50 Caliber not legal for hunting?! Someone should tell those blackpowder hunters…
(Plus, I’ve heard of elk/moose being harvested with .50 BMG… at 800 yards.)