For the first time in more than 40 years--since the assassination of NRA Life Member John F. Kennedy in 1963--we are going into a national election in which national Democrats are downplaying gun control. Democratic candidate John Kerry boasts of his personal firearms, famously took reporters on a canned campaign pheasant hunt and piously proclaimed his devotion to the Second Amendment--while scurrying to Washington to cast votes for the most draconian gun laws.

The cause of this newfound "respect" for gun ownership is the realization that millions of gun owners will cast their votes on the basis of gun rights.

That didn't happen by accident. Developing the political clout of gun owners, which is inextricably linked with legislative clout, has required the work of many people over many decades.

When I first became active in gun politics in the mid-1960s, there were plenty on our side who assumed oppressive gun laws were coming one way or another. As one Republican operative told me, "You guys are just trying to delay the inevitable." After all, onerous gun laws had spread throughout what was always called "the rest of the civilized world." Why not here?

We don't suffer under those laws because a lot of good people fought on two fronts: against the malice and lying of the anti-gunners and against defeatism and appeasement in our own ranks.

The National Rifle Association has been called "the gun lobby" for so long that many would be amazed to hear that throughout the first half of the 20th century, NRA considered the Second Amendment to protect only hunting and target guns. Further, NRA did not see its role as preventing restrictive gun laws--nor defeating the politicians who enacted them.

President John F. Kennedy's assassination was the catalyst for change in gun politics, and legislation such as the Gun Control Act of 1968--along with NRA-bashing from some politicians--caused membership to grow from around 300,000 at the beginning of the 1960s to nearly a million by the passage of GCA '68.

That bill was the wake-up call gun owners needed. In 1971, Alan Gottlieb created the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and quickly proved that gun owners were hungry for political and legislative leadership--and were willing to fund it. In 1975, California State Sen. H.L. "Bill" Richardson formed Gun Owners of California and its spin-off lobbying group, Gun Owners of America. These new organizations and their hardnosed direct mail efforts put a scare into those who still hoped to accommodate the anti-gunners in Congress.

NRA started getting its political act together in fits and starts. In May 1975, Harlon Carter was named to head the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. Carter quickly assembled an experienced staff from Capitol Hill. But two elements were missing: a state level operation to work with legislatures, members and clubs, and a political action program to elect friends and defeat foes.

A year later, NRA directors authorized political activities including formation of the NRA Political Victory Fund. During 1976, state officials in Massachusetts introduced a public referendum calling for the elimination of private handguns. Polls showed it had 2:1 support. Many gun owners and industry observers assumed the referendum would pass, but Carter hired Connecticut activist Tanya Metaksa to defeat the issue. The final vote was 2:1 against banning handguns.

During 1977 it looked like NRA might break apart from within. The old struggle between those who wanted to confront the anti-gunners and those who wanted to appease them came to a head. In a marathon meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, members seized control of NRA, making strong legislative action the group's top priority, canceling a headquarters move out of Washington, D.C., and, most importantly, electing Harlon Carter executive vice president. That meeting was when NRA finally became "the gun lobby."

With the NRA Political Victory Fund able to make direct contributions in 1978 campaigns, gun owners started whittling down the anti-gun majority in both houses and in 1980 ran an independent expenditure campaign for Ronald Reagan, which his pollster, Dick Wirthlin, told me had made Reagan's win a landslide and gave the Senate majority to Republicans.

Almost as important was the 1982 defeat of California Proposition 15, a "handgun freeze" measure that would have prevented new guns from entering the state. It was Massachusetts all over again. The antis started 2:1 ahead and lost so convincingly they have for more than 20 years avoided the referendum process in California.

1986 saw passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, an imperfect measure that nevertheless provided important new protections for gun owners. More importantly, it was a stinging defeat for anti-gunners who just a few years earlier had been hoping to ban whole classes of firearms.

From 1987 on we have seen the steady spread of "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, and while I would argue the National Instant Check System was a defeat for gun owners, the one that rankles them most is the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, known and hated as the "Clinton Gun Ban."

That bill will, with any luck, sunset this year. A price will be paid, of course. The proposed Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act protecting the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits failed when a renewal of the gun ban was attached to it.

There would have been a time when some in the gun industry would have been happy to trade the gun ban for lawsuit protection. That didn't happen this time. Today's industry leaders stand with their customers, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation coordinates its efforts with NRA's. The appeasers and accommodators are gone, and unity between gun owners and the companies that serve them is a bulwark that protects gun rights.

That's why anti-gunners are trying to seduce gun owners into giving them their votes this fall. John Kerry, whose 20-year Senate gun rights record couldn't be worse, said on March 2: "I believe in the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country."

"As it has been interpreted" means he fully intends to oppose gun rights just as he always has--despite his soft words. If elected, he'll nominate judges who will interpret the Second Amendment as he, Schumer and Feinstein wish.

Neal Knox is a columnist for Shotgun News.