FROM THE EDITOR

	I spent part of my vacation in Arizona after the NRA convention, 
and despite the "dry heat" (a concept that eludes me...hot is hot!) had a 
wonderful time in a part of the country I had never visited before.  
Thanks to Stacey, Henry, Kelly, Jason and Cody for sight-seeing, 
terrifying rides up and down the mountains, hospitality, enchiladas and 
late nights.

	It was nice to get away for a few days, especially after the 
extraordinary attention focused on gunowners at the Convention.  I've been
attending NRA annual meetings for a number of years, and generally they 
are a chance to meet and talk with "constituents" in the form of readers 
and potential readers, and get a second look at industry products while 
talking to the nice folks in the business in a much more relaxed 
atmosphere than is possible at the elephantine SHOT Show.

	It seemed to a lot of us attending  that NRA members may have 
been outnumbered by the media in attendance.  There are always some local 
an national reporters around, but it truly seemed as if every other 
person to stop by the Second Amendment Foundation booth was wearing 
press credentials.  The subjects that seemed of most interest to them 
were: NRA internal politics, the militia, women gunowners an bumper stickers.

	Having decided that the NRA was in crisis, the media's focus on 
the internal workings o the group was not surprising, but one would have 
thought that having attended the relatively placid annual meeting, in 
which members seemed particularly united behind their elected officers, 
directors and highly visible staff, and hung around the exhibit hall, 
where true to its western location, not many discouraging words were 
being spoken, they might have concluded that their "story" wasn't much of 
one after all.  That the media should spend time and money "reporting" a 
story, only to find it isn't a story, and thus declaring it, doesn't 
happen very often, though, so much of what came ut was a rehash of mostly 
unnamed sources and non-players commenting on the commentary that was 
already in place.  This type of Alice in Wonderland Red Queen media 
imperialism is a little hard to take, but most of us keep smiling, repeat 
what we said before slowly and hope they spell the name right.  As 
someone who had a ringside seat to some of the truly revolutionary 
goings-on of the members, board and staff in the late 70s, it was easy to 
point out that when things really do come to a head, the NRA's members 
are perfectly capable of providing measurable and reportable differences 
for everyone to view.

	Despite continuing efforts to link NRA spiritually to the heinous 
act in Oklahoma City in April (efforts fueled by presidents, ex and 
ex-in-waiting), there wasn't much story there, either.  People at this 
kind of members convention, be it nurses, Shriners of Mary Kay 
representatives, tend to dress casually and display signs of their 
allegiance in the form of t-shirts, hats etc., as well as their excitement 
over their proximity to new products of interest to them.  They don't 
mutter darkly or meet in murky corners to form cabals.  When approached 
by members of the media, they are generally polite, if skeptical, and the 
comments of the "rank and file" members reflect the workings of the 
Association, albeit usually in a somewhat harder line, since they are 
free to comment as individuals.  Since the NRA has had a position on hate 
groups since the 60s and is on record as having called some to the 
militia groups "delusional," the apparently anticipated reportorial coup 
of linking dangerous, crazy people with 3,500,000 Americans was also a 
non-starter.

	I am at a lose to explain the continual photographing of bumper 
stickers, or, more amusingly, the inscribing of their slogans into 
professional-looking notebooks.  In my neighborhood, where there is no 
such thing as off-street parking, a stroll to the corner can produce the 
sightings of stickers trumpeting political candidates, radio stations, 
vacation destinations, colleges, gay rights, animal rights, PLO 
sympathies, feats of accomplishments by children and grandchildren, love 
of critters objects, and the determination to stop at any and all garage 
sales.  One doesn't like to think that media representatives don't live in 
the real world, where sloganeering on car rears and chest fronts is 
commonplace, but the thought did strike me.  One photographer for a 
national weekly was seen to shoot five rolls of film on a table of 
bumper stickers, although pictures of same never appeared in the 
magazine.  I assume some kindly editor in rolled-up shirt sleeves and 
suspenders, paused to tap his cigar ash, and informed the budding Jimmy 
Olsen that it just wasn't news that in America people were moved to 
express ideas on their cars.

	Why women gunowners again caught the media's fancy is a mystery 
to me.  That women are indeed a force in NRA circles specifically and 
amongst gunowners generally was evident.  The Association's chief 
lobbyist, NRA-ILA Director Tanya Metaksa, is a woman.  So, too, is 1st 
vice president Marion Hammer of Florida.  Both of these strong 
personalities were in evidence in Phoenix, both received the accolades of 
the members they represent, and both appeared to be much sought after by 
the media pack.  Additionally, a women's special session on Sunday, 
featuring, in a five-person panel, a wide array of different women's 
voices, was well attended, and well-received.

	If the reporters gathered needed evidence that women are a 
mater-of=fact presence in the gun rights movement, they needed only to 
pick up a copy of the vote totals for the NRA Board f Director 
elections.  Four of the top five voter-getters, and five of the top seen 
were women: The top finisher overall among eligible voting members in a 
mail ballot, was Arizona attorney Sandra Froman, a formidible activist 
for gun rights.  The next highest finisher was Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, 
followed by actress-spokeswoman Susan Howard, attorney (and chair of 
the Association's Women's Policies Committee) Sue W. Caplan, of New 
Jersey, Women's Shooting Sports Foundation Director (and Molly Pitcher 
awardee) Sue King of Texas, past NRA president Robert Corbin of Arizona 
and Hammer, who is expected to become the NRA's first ever woman 
president next year.  All of these people have long been associated with 
NRA as directors ad officers, as were most of the 1/3 of the Board 
elected this year, which further speaks to member confidence in the group.

	The media reported on this fact, some giving it greater emphasis 
than others, but the man thrust of most of the women gunowner stories 
that appeared after the convention were an umpteenth rehashing of the 
"they're scaring women into ownership/membership" j'accuse type we have 
seen many times before.

	Indeed, on my return, bleary-eyed from my six hour vigil which 
single handedly kept two plains in the air, I was greeted with a slew of 
phone calls from radio an television shows anxious to set up programs on 
the subject.  USA TODAY'S regular Thursday columnist, Susan Estrich 
(mastermind of the Dukakis presidential campaign), was moved to title her 
piece, "Women, Beware of NRA," and rehash the "you're too stupid to 
understand your own problems, so listen to me, not them" line. (Is there 
such a thing as re-rehash?)  "`Firearms can equalize power between a 
weaker and stronger opponent,' one self-described liberal feminist 
emphasized, while other women recounted stories of how their guns had 
saved them," Estrich began.  Note that we are no longer apparently 
allowed to "self-describe" ourselves, lest we be in danger of toppling 
others' views of us or themselves.

	"Blah, blah, blah," (I'm paraphrasing) Estrich continued, 
recitation of Violence Policy Center (Josh Sugarmann, prop.) "study" 
(reworking of old news law review article into self-serving press 
release), "blah, blah, blah," mention of University of Chicago Study 
last year showing ownership of firearms by women static in 10-year period 
(actually, up 4% for an estimated total of 15 million American women, but 
no Estrich mention of figure), "blah, blah, blah," firearms industry is 
bullying women into buying guns (apparently by not running three-year old 
ad described in column), "blah, blah, blah," "If NRA is so concerned 
about violence against women, why don't' they join th fight to punish rape 
and domestic violence more strictly," (this would be the NRA that 
pioneered three-strikes-you're out legislation through it's Crimestrike 
division, headed by a woman, Liz Swasey?), "blah, blah, blah."

	This particular self-described liberalish feminist still thinks 
women can make up their own minds, thank you very much.  And she thinks 
that while not every woman may want ot include a firearm in her own 
self-defense options, that those who do shouldn't be subject to ridicule 
by self-described commentators who are puzzled by bumper stickers.


Peggy Tartaro, 
Executive Editor