However, there are people on the gun rights side of things who aren't exactly jumping up and down over Cox's latest effort. Why? Well, the question is will it really be pro-gun enough?

Yeah, that's right, a former political director for the NRA might not be pro-gun enough.

But let me allow David Codrea to explain:

One of the reasons he and LaPierre opposed confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General is the nominee didn’t support enough “gun control.

“…Mr. Holder was among those in the Clinton administration who strongly resisted a national expansion of Project Exile, a successful anti-crime program in Richmond, Virginia that used true ‘zero tolerance’ federal prosecution of convicted felons, drug dealers and armed robbers to achieve a remarkable reduction in that city’s murder and violent crime rates,” they claimed in a 2009 letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter.

“We condemn any program that involves enforcing unconstitutional ‘laws’, even if such ‘laws’ are enforced only against violent criminals, the Project Exile Condemnation Coalition, a resolution signed by a diverse cross section of national and state gun rights leaders, including Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt, declared. “Unconstitutional ‘laws’ are illegal, harmful to public safety, tyrannical, and are inevitably enforced against ordinary, non-criminal citizens. The ‘Project Exile’ supported by the current NRA management calls for enforcing all existing gun laws, regardless of their unconstitutionality and regardless of their being enforceable against non-criminals.”

There’s more.

“We’ve never advocated fully automatic machine guns and Paul knows it,” Cox responded to then Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke in a 2007 appearance on Glenn Beck’s show.

Why not? Instead of using an opportunity to educate a mass audience, he distanced himself from “every terrible implement of the soldier,” that is, from the arms of the Second Amendment, and publicly cut the legs from under everyone who knows better.

There's more there, so you should go and read the whole thing.

However, I will say that I get Codrea's point here. I know where Cox was coming from on his comment regarding Helmke--it was likely more about it not being politically possible to relegalize machine guns, so that's why it never came up--and while I will also point out the stupidity of pushing for more gun control while failing to enforce the laws on the books, those laws are often incredibly unconstitutional. I at least openly have said I want them all repealed. I don't recall Cox having said as much.

That doesn't mean he doesn't believe it, only that I don't remember him saying it and we see what the NRA's position was while he was political director.

Again, though, the NRA is a political animal. They're going to be somewhat guided by the political climate. They weren't willing to accept a Trump bump stock ban because they favored bump stock bans. It was, as at least one insider told me, because they knew that we were getting a bump stock ban one way or another, but the one working its way through Congress was far worse.

And it was.

My point, though, is that such a position may have been Cox and the rest of the NRA trying to read the room.

But with that said, they were advocating for all gun control laws to be enforced in totality. That means unconstitutional laws being applied to regular people, not just the criminals that represent such a problem for our society.

I don't know where Cox is going to go with his new group. Codrea is asking some harsh questions and I think Cox would do well to sit down and clear the air.