At what point do people step beyond the protection of the “Unified Front” clause of the RKBA Movement?

This article was written by Rob Pincus of I.C.E Training. It is being published here with permission and in its entirety.


At what point does the cry of “unification” really just become an excuse to keep things smooth with friends or associates?

At what point do you need to start cutting people out of the club?

Better Question:  At what point do people self-select out of the club?

Last month, when Cheaper Than Dirt! responded to the tragic killings in Newtown, CT by suspending all online firearms sales in the interest of re-examining their marketing approach (presumably to emphasize “sporting” firearms) and followed that miss-step up with ridiculous price gouging of ammo and magazines (400+% markups), they got what they deserved: Swift Backlash from the firearms community and a loss of many thousands of customers. Since that time, reports of them canceling back-orders and selling the same items for the new higher prices have been rampant. Yet, I was still told by some people at SHOT Show last week that we should not ostracize or boycott them, because we need to be “united”.

For a couple of years now, I have been prodded by people in the Open Carry Movement, and occasionally questioned by those who don’t care a lick about open carry, for my criticism of those who wear guns openly to get attention, to cause confrontation and to agitate law enforcement and non-gun owners. I have taken the position that those people have done the Right to Keep & Bare Arms movement more harm than good… as I believe was demonstrated clearly in the legal changes in CA in regard to open carry of unloaded firearms (the first major negative state level firearms legislative action in over a decade up until the recent New York Restrictions) and the ‘clarification’ of Mississippi laws that outlawed OC, which had up ’til then been a gray area. I have been accused of not supporting the Second Amendment because I was not willing to give this cantankerous crowd support on the basis of presenting a “unified” front as gun owners.

Most recently, I have read a statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade organization of the firearms industry, calling for “unification” in regard to the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show. The organizers of that show, Reed Exhibition Company, have decided to ban all AR style rifles and accessories. ESOS is one of the largest hunting shows in the world open to consumers and it is now dealing with many industry leading companies, including Cabela’s and Trijicon, pulling out of the even entirely in response to their decision to ostracize the fastest growing & most popular section of our community. So, why would the NSSF put out a call for people to stay in the show?  Reed Exhibitions also runs the SHOT Show… the largest trade event in the firearms industry. How is it possible that we can stay in a show to present  a “united” front, when the part of the industry that needs our support the most has been kicked out ? I am a member of the NSSF and it makes no sense to me. I do applaud the NSSF’s official statement as a step in the right direction, but I hope that there is follow up that results in a change in Reed or a change in SHOT Show Management.

So, I ask the question, “At what point does one’s actions put them outside the group?”   When your actions make you a detriment to the bigger picture, to the greater good and the fundamental principles of our cause, I think you step out of the umbrella of “unification.”  When you cut off customers, entire classes of firearms, provide the other side with ammunition to paint us as extremists or to give the impression that we have something to hide, be ashamed of, or apologize for, I think you are beyond the scope of claiming protection under the “Unified Front” clause.

Over a decade ago, I wrote a statement for a project called the “Firearms Owners Unification Project“.  The fight at that time was to unify those hunters, sport shooters and even some industry leaders who would accept capacity limits and firearms bans because their interested weren’t being threatened with the rest of us who saw the bigger picture and were being directly affected by the bans and restrictions of that era. We’ve largely won that fight and we’ve seen incremental encroachment for what it is. A temporary ban becomes permanent. A 10 round limit becomes a 7. This process continues until we don’t have any firearms left. As individual gun owners, most of us get that now.

UnknownI’m all for the unification of our movement and our community… but, not if those I am being asked to join with are making our job harder or trying to play the old game of “hide the black guns”. We know that doesn’t work. The primary reason for the Second Amendment is defense of one’s self, one’s family and, ultimately… if need be… this country.  It is not hunting and it is not competition shooting. Those who have benefitted from the amazing growth in the defensive, tactical, “military style” sector of our industry, including Cheaper Than Dirt! and Reed Exhibitions should think about what “Unification” really means.  And, it might be time for NSSF to shop around for a better ally to organize SHOT Show (OR to put some public pressure on Reed to rescind there decision) so that we can know that we are all truly unified.

-Rob Pincus

-I.C.E. Training Company


13 responses to “At what point do people step beyond the protection of the “Unified Front” clause of the RKBA Movement?

  1. Gotta agree with Longbow here. Lumping open carry folks in with ESOS and CTD is insulting. Yes, unification doesn’t me we have to accept everybody when they are selling out rights. You know, like those who are selling out open carry rights- something constitutionally protected and in certain states completely legal (like PA).

    Hiding something that is legal to do- and a right on top of that- because it might cause trouble, is a bad policy. Sometimes you have to cause trouble. Sometimes you have to make the servants understand our rights. Sometimes you have to show what is legal. Sometimes you have to force the issue.

    An excellent example is the right to photograph and video cops in public. Many, many people did it knowing they might get in trouble, even though its a constitutionally and legally protected right. They knew that they had to force the issue because its the RIGHT thing to do. And they (mostly) succeeded in getting it widely accepted by police and courts.

    So I’m going to take your advice, and say its time to kick people like you out of the club. Since you seem to not understand that open carry is a right, and should be supported fully.

  2. It’s sad that the major cities of California control the politics since what I’m about to say affects the ‘right’ leaning folks that live there too, but it seems to me that the entire state has earned the right along with New York to be expelled from the group. That is, it’s time for us to stop doing business with those states and for companies to stop selling the government of either of those states ANY guns or ammo.

    That would get their attention in a hurry.

  3. yeah i’ve heard plenty about the “greater good” from history. no thanks.

    i support anything that’s peaceful, no matter how marginalized, no matter the impression it makes on the mushy. the idea of “police your own” has reasonable limits, too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s