NRA sells out to Democrats?

[Hardwood83]

Here is a blog opinion piece: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/ ripping the NRA for a recent position it took. I found the first comment (copied below) under the story exceptionally well-written and thought out. The NRA gets a lot of criticism (sometimes deserved) but it's a gun rights organization and...well I' think 'Freedom is Learned' puts it better then I could:

FreedomIsLearned   Monday, June 14th at 11:09PM EDT   

Erick, much as I respect your posts on other things, you misunderstand quite a few things about the NRA.

1. The NRA is single-issue. It is not a freedom lobby?it is a gun-rights organization. The right to arms is part of freedom, but the NRA doesn?t make calls on economic or any other kind of freedom. You have to weigh the other issues yourself, as it should be (for a single-issue group). That won?t change, and it shouldn?t. If they did as you desire, they would no longer carry the tremendous weight they carry among, for example, conservative Southern Democrats. We have no renewed AW ban or any other gun control legislation solely because the NRA pwns congress, and they do so because they are single-issue. The rest of the world has to be saved by others.

2. Related to that, I?m sorry to say we Republicans overestimate our party?s support for gun rights. Especially in California, the party routinely asks for gun votes and then delivers nothing?just exactly the complaint of small-government conservatives. We need to be earning those votes, not complaining when someone points out we have no clothes. Case in point:

3. Your objections are incoherent. You prefer GoA because it is ?no compromise,? and then take them to task for opposing John Kasich. Kasich voted for the Clinton AW ban twice, voted for the Hughes amendment, and voted against repealing the AW ban. His F rating was well deserved, and as a single-issue organization the NRA would be derelict if it took any other position than it has. You?re asking them to compromise, but they didn?t.

4. The NRA initially opposed Heller because it was a loser as long as Sandra Day O?Connor was on the bench, and frankly Gura was green and unknown. You may complain they were rather conservative later on, but you didn?t, and the NRA?s meddling with McDonald seems to have been rather ham-handed, but their early complaints about Heller were quite reasonable. Fortunately, we got lucky with the timing, and Alan Gura turned out to be a rock star Second Amendment lawyer.

5. The fact is the GoA is ineffective, because it doesn?t know how to lobby at all. ?No compromise? is a code word for ?politically stupid.? The GoA can take any position it wants, and it doesn?t matter (except to get donations). We lost our rights incrementally, and we?ll get them back the same way. They also don?t *think*?the CA state affiliate nearly managed to get us Constructive Possession of CA ?AWs? thanks to ill-conceived lobbying. That was compromise, the thing they claim not to do. CalNRA pulled that one out of the fire?barely. That kind of thing, plus general ineffectiveness, is why I no longer belong to GoC or GoA.

6. The NRA sometimes appears inconsistent because it plays to win, not feel good. You should recognize this?we backed Scott Brown because he was the best that could win in Mass, not because he was a real conservative. We compromised?because we were playing to win. The NRA often has to play it the other way?here in California, it is very easy to run against the NRA, so often they will not endorce a friendly candidate because it does more harm than good. In the primary just past, they did a couple of ?anybody but X? endorsements in three-way races, which is a good way of penalizing an enemy without giving the other side an easy target.

One of those was ?anybody but Tom Campbell,? which is a case where their single interest happened to align with the broader
conservative cause. But they?re not the gun-rights wing of the Tea Party movement?they were here first and do their one job well, much better than you seem to think. The more I learn about the inside politics of gun rights, the more I understand why they do what they do. They drop the ball sometimes, but they?re the most effective gun-rights organization in America.

[Mudinyeri]

So, you're OK with the fact that the NRA (by their own admission) only wants to protect the Second Amendment rights of their members ... not every law-abiding citizen as Wayne LaPierre told me in his last letter to me asking for more money?

From the NRA-ILA website:

Thus, the NRA?s first obligation must be to its members....

I'm coming to the close of my NRA Easy Pay Lifetime Membership plan and I'm very seriously considering stopping all further payments due to the way the NRA leadership is handling their negotiations with the Democrats over the DISCLOSE Act.

Winston Churchill addressed this strategy when he said ?An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.?

[Hardwood83]

So, you're OK with the fact that the NRA (by their own admission) only wants to protect the Second Amendment rights of their members ... not every law-abiding citizen as Wayne LaPierre told me in his last letter to me asking for more money?

From the NRA-ILA website:

Thus, the NRA?s first obligation must be to its members....

I'm coming to the close of my NRA Easy Pay Lifetime Membership plan and I'm very seriously considering stopping all further payments due to the way the NRA leadership is handling their negotiations with the Democrats over the DISCLOSE Act.

Winston Churchill addressed this strategy when he said ?An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.?

I'm not sure how the NRA could possibly only 'protect the 2nd Amendment for their members', was there something I missed? But to answer your question 'Yes' I'm not only okay with the NRA representing their members- I expect it. Non-members (which doesn't apply to either of us) griping about the NRA not doing enough are like people who complain about Govt but don't vote. Fortunately the NRA's efforts benefit everyone, member or not.

I don't like the entire lobbying process particularly with verminous filth like the current Democratic leadership- but the NRA is doing exactly what you & I pay them to do- represent our (Gun rights) interests. In this case that means an exemption from some unconstitutional gag.

For (an imperfect) comparison the city of Omaha has (graciously   ) agreed to forgo their &%@# registration process for CCW holders. Should the NFOA & all who benefit refuse to accept that and register anyway as a matter of principle to stand with non-CCW holders? Or should we take this small and incomplete step and build on it?

[Mudinyeri]

In my opinion, by agreeing to an exemption, essentially custom-tailored for them, and agreeing not to oppose the DISCLOSE Act in exchange for that exemption the NRA has strayed from their previously stated objective of supporting all law-abiding gun owners and only supporting those who are willing to pay dues to the NRA.

I'll agree with you that your comparison is imperfect.  A better comparison (IMO) would be to stay that we would refuse to stand by non-CCW holders in their continued fight against Omaha registration.  If the NFOA or its members chose to do that they would fall into the same category as the NRA.

Speaking of the NFOA, you do realize that we will NOT be exempt from the DISCLOSE Act, right?  Should the DISCLOSE Act pass, political statements made by members of the NFOA will be covered and subject to the required disclosures, limitations, penalties and fines of the act as passed.

Sure would be nice if the NRA would join us in fighting that act wouldn't it?

[Dan W]

DEMOCRATS? ATTEMPT TO ?BUY OFF? NRA SHOWS BANKRUPTCY OF ?DISCLOSE ACT,? SAYS CCRKBA


BELLEVUE, WA ? This week?s highly-publicized effort to exempt the National Rifle Association from the effects of the ?Disclose Act,? H.R. 5175 shows how fundamentally bankrupt the legislation and its underlying philosophy is, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

?The attempt by Democrats to essentially buy off the NRA with a tailor-made exemption should be proof enough that the entire measure is morally, if not legally, repugnant and should be rejected by Congress,? said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. ?The exemption clause, if it were to be formally adopted as an amendment to the bill, is probably unconstitutional. We think that is reason enough for Congress to stop H.R. 5175 in its tracks.?

The proposed exemption would only apply to the NRA, while essentially sascrificing the First Amendment rights of other effective grassroots gun rights organizations due to their smaller membership numbers.

?This proposed exemption is unconscionable,? Gottlieb said, ?but it reveals the desperation of its sponsors to pass legislation that would still silence organizations critical of how the Democrat leadership has mismanaged things on Capitol Hill. We are today urging our 650,000 members and supporters to tell their congressional representatives to derail the Disclose Act altogether.

?Congressional anti-gunners like nothing better than to drive wedges between effective gun rights organizations,? he continued, ?and this week?s events prove they can still accomplish that. We are astonished that anybody on Capitol Hill would imagine for a heartbeat that they could buy off one gun rights group at the expense of all the others. To think they could actually get away with such smarmy Chicago-style politics suggests that the Democrat leadership in Congress has not only lost its moral compass, they?ve lost their minds.

?While it is disappointing that the NRA might have accepted the exemption,? Gottlieb said, ?it is despicable that the offer was ever made in the first place. If pro-gun Democrats want to shield the NRA from the effects of H.R. 5175, they should simply vote against the entire bill instead of trying to carve out a special exemption. They have insulted and infuriated millions of gun owners who are represented by smaller grassroots organizations, and they need to hear that loud and clear.?

 


With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation?s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

[Dan W]

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org

 

?[T]he NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ?neutrality? from the legislation's requirements.?

-- NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The above quote -- part of an editorial authored by NRA Director Cleta Mitchell -- ran in The Washington Post today.

Like Mitchell, bloggers and editorial writers around the country have lit up the Internet with the story that we have been alerting you to over the past 48 hours. Here are just some of the headlines:

* ?The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment,? The Wall Street Journal

* ?Conservatives take on the NRA over deal on disclosure bill,? The Washington Post

* ?The National Rifle Association?s Excuse Holds No Water,? RedState.org

The conservative movement (and to be honest, many liberal organizations as well) are coming together to loudly protest the DISCLOSE Act -- legislation that threatens to gag our ability to effectively hold individual congressmen accountable in the days and weeks leading up to an election.

It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. But rather than cry ?uncle,? liberal Democrats are now trying to buy off more groups with an exemption for those that have at least 500,000 members (rather than the higher threshold of one million, which would have applied to few groups other than the NRA).

Of course, how is the government going to know how many members an organization has? According to the legislation, each organization will have to certify to a government commission how many members they have. But what if the commission wants documentation; will the organization have to ?disclose? the names of their members?

GOA, of course, will never do this. Furthermore, you should know that your Gun Owners of America can NOT be bought off. We will continue opposing this bill on principle, urging all gun groups to stick together in this fight. As we stated yesterday, we realize that: ?We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately.?

GOA applauds NRA Director Cleta Mitchell for the courageous stand she took today. (You can read her editorial here.) We hope that the NRA leadership will heed her wisdom and take a stand against this bill. If they don?t, we wouldn?t be surprised if NRA members start demanding a change in their leadership. After all, the NRA has engaged in many good fights over the years, and it would be a shame to lose this VERY IMPORTANT battle because high-ranking staff led the NRA down the wrong path.

[Mudinyeri]

Yeah, Cleta!

[Dan W]

                        Good News On The DISCLOSE Act

                 Congratulations:  We are Winning... for Now!


 "Gun Owners of America has been one of the key players in opposing the DISCLOSE Act." -- Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)


Friday, June 18, 2010

Thank you all for your hard work.  The DISCLOSE Act is on the ropes!

Here's what The Washington Post reported this morning:

    One of President Obama's top legislative priorities is in serious doubt after top House Democrats' attempt to satisfy the National Rifle Association backfired badly.

The Post says that "top Democrats abandoned plans for a Friday vote in the House" on the DISCLOSE Act after several Representatives and organizations "rose up against the deal with the NRA."

Interestingly, the Post also reported that the intended beneficiaries of the deal -- that is, the Blue Dog Democrats who were expected to drop their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act once the NRA dropped theirs -- were still "spooked" by public resistance to the bill.

You can pat yourselves on the back knowing that you were a huge part of the outpouring of opposition that was generated this week.  You played a big role in "spooking" the politicians who are going to be soliciting your votes in November.

You should know that the sponsors of the bill are still looking for ways to resuscitate the legislation, so GOA will continue to keep you abreast of further developments.

But for now, enjoy the victory and have a great weekend!