Friday, August 31, 2007

Joaquin Jackson Update

I don't trust the NRA and I'm a life member but I don't give them money any more. I just got a card from them endorsing the current mayor of Phoenix who has made Phoenix an illegal alien sanctuary city.. FAR too often the NRA has endorsed people I’d rather spit on than vote for and pushed bills that do more to further restrict our rights than protect them. I believe the second amendment should be just what it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Scott.
2nd Amendment quotes and freedom quotes

Please reply to feedback [at] using appropriate email format. 

    Yesterday I sent out an Alert about NRA Director Joaquin Jackson's TV interview in which he opined that "assault weapons" were alright if they only had a capacity of 5 rounds.
    This story has actually been bouncing around the internet for a couple of weeks and Ranger Jackson and NRA have released a response to the concerns raised by the story.
    It is very clear in the interview exactly what Jackson is saying and what he means.  Along with some other comments he states;
    "I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you& if you& it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five rounds."

    The interview took place on June 5, 2005 - not long after the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban had been allowed to sunset - so the debate on that issue should have been fairly fresh in Jackson's mind.
    The interview can be viewed at:
   The pertinent segment is the last one on the page.

    For the record, H. Joaquin Jackson is indeed a sitting member of the NRA Board of Directors.
    A complete listing of NRA Officers and Directors, along with their mailing addresses, was published in the current (September) issue of the NRA magazines.

    A response has been posted on the NRA web site,
that is supposed to have been written by Jackson, but which does not really sound or feel like Jackson.  In that response letter, Jackson - or his ghost writer - claims that the mistake is the viewer's, not his.  That his only mistake was in not making himself clear that he was talking about hunting and full-auto assault weapons.
    If that is true, then Ranger Jackson was advocating that the police have full-auto weapons and that it is "alright" for civilians to have then as long as the magazine capacity is restricted to only 5 rounds.

    Here is the Statement:

Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons", and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

For more information on NRA's legislative efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, please visit  and





Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago.  After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine.  And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.


In the interview, when asked about my views of assault weapons, I was talking about true assault weapons fully automatic firearms.  I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles.  While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously.  But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.


In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans.  And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms.  And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right and a Second Amendment right to own them.


As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship.  Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible.  That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting.  In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.


But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines.  In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.


Let me be very clear.  As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution.  As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.


I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.


    Doesn't that sound more like it was written by a Washington PR suit than a Texas Ranger?
    Regardless of who actually wrote the letter, Jackson's name is on it.
    As I said in the Alert yesterday, I like and respect Joaquine Jackson.  I am very disappointed that he would take such a misguided and bigoted position on "assault weapons" and even more disappointed that he would choose to try to blame the viewer rather than owning up to his own remarks.  If he thought civilians shouldn't have "assault weapons" and has now seen the light and changed his position, I could accept and respect that.  Trying to claim that what he very clearly said - and reiterated - is not what he actually meant, I find completely disingenuous.
    I hate having to get into the middle of this at a time when The Firearms Coalition is actively working to bring the gun rights community together, but when you are guided by certain principles, you can not ignore those principles in favor of diplomacy.
    Should Joaquin Jackson be vilified and made a pariah in the gun rights community?  No, absolutely not.  But he should not be a member of the NRA Board of Directors.

Jeff Knox

This is a message from The Firearms Coalition Alerts list.  It is never
sent without a subscription and confirmation.  If you have received this
message from the domain, please forward it with all
message headers to abuse[at]

To unsubscribe, follow the link below.  To change your address, unsubscribe
your existing address and resubscribe from the new one.