Opinions about the NRA sellout on political speech

[TrailDust]

The NRA exemption was an attempt to suppress the gun lobby's opposition for the Blue Dog Democrats who would vote for the bill. To quote a Wall Street Journal editorial about the NRA sellout: "Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run." How true. Next time my NRA membership renewal comes around I'm giving very serious thought about whether to renew it or not.

 

[Texas42]

Could you give more detail please.

 

[Davetex]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Statement From David Keene, NRA First
Vice-President On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I have been an NRA Board member for some years and currently serve as NRA's First Vice-President -- that you may know. What you may not know is that I have been in the forefront of the fight against liberal attempts to tilt the political playing field their way for decades through what they like to call campaign finance reform. This is a battle that began in the seventies when I put together the case that went to the United States Supreme Court known as Buckley v. Valeo. I was a vocal opponent of the so-called McCain-Feingold "reforms" that shackled groups like the NRA in recent years, and I have served as a First Amendment Fellow at Vanderbilt University's Freedom Forum.[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I can assure you that I would never countenance a "deal" of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech. I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The so-called "DISCLOSE ACT" is a horrible piece of legislation designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]But I'm afraid there's more . particularly how it would affect the NRA. When you think of the NRA you no doubt think mostly about the NRA's advocacy on Second Amendment issues, but the NRA also provides training to its members, law enforcement and military personnel, works with states, counties and private organizations to build ranges and runs competitive events such as those at Camp Perry in Ohio. Since Camp Perry is a military base, public monies go into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In other words, this act as originally written by anti-gun legislators like New York Senator Chuck Schumer would have silenced the NRA .which would have been the death knell for the Second Amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]NRA has one major mission . to defend the right of its members and all Americans to Keep & Bear Arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the NRA served notice on Congress that since the act threatened our very existence, we were prepared to do anything and everything that might be required to defeat it unless it was changed so that we could continue to represent the views of our members in the public arena. The letter, sent on May 26, was public. The NRA did not engage in back room shenanigans, but told Congressional leaders quite clearly that we would do whatever we needed to do to protect the rights of our members and our ability to defend the Second Amendment.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Last week Democratic leadership in the House capitulated by agreeing to exempt the NRA from the act -- not in return for NRA support, but to avoid a political war that might cost them even more seats this fall.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I have to tell you that I never thought the Democrats would agree to this -- not because they have much regard for constitutional rights -- because I didn't believe their left wing would allow it. The events since their capitulation convince me that their fear of NRA retaliation forced them to take steps that split their coalition and could easily doom the whole bill.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Consider this: on Thursday night, California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-Second Amendment members of the Senate, announced that she wouldn't support the DISCLOSE ACT if it exempted the NRA. By Friday some two-dozen left wing activist groups that had previously been pressing Congress to pass the bill announced that now they wanted it defeated.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The bottom line is that in refusing to risk its members' rights and the very survival of the Second Amendment, the NRA has also made it less rather than more likely that support for this terrible legislation will collapse and the free speech rights of every one of us will benefit.[/FONT]

 

[deputy]

.........lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment.............

.......so then we should believe the gun grabbers have given up for now, and pose no future danger to the 2A????

I will continue to be a member of the NRA and encourage everyone to join. The nra is first and foremost a lobby to support it's membership on 2A issues........mission accomplished.

The liberals hate the nra and this exemption drew their rath and also stopped their support as they did not want to see any pro gun group.....especially the nra benefit. In effect, the exemption to the NRA brought the house down.
Seems no one is screaming that the AARP and the humane society were also exempted the same as the nra. But make it a pro gun group that gets exempted and the entire media focus is on the nra.................heaven knows we just can't let pro-gunner's have an exemption.

The NRA actually won a tremendous victory for their membership to enable them to keep speaking on behalf of the 2A...............and that victory is really for all gun owners as non-nra members have been benefiting from the nra for decades......without their support or dollars.

And now this victory has become a cry from the left of "foul" to the point that the bill will most likely die....................either way, a victory for the nra and its membership............though i'm sure other organisations including some pro gun groups will do their best to twist it into something else in a never-ending attempt to poach membership and to weaken the nra.
Shame.......the NRA did its job in support of the 2A on this for their members.......yet they are made the scap-goat........................
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 24 06/18/10
Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director
Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"

Click here to vote in this week's poll.
I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported -- nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Setting The Record Straight On The "DISCLOSE Act"
We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA's role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We'd like to set the record straight.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings -- even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn't, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position -- including the Brady Campaign -- have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners' interests will remain NRA's top priority. Please check in regularly at www.NRAILA.org for the latest news on this issue.

 

[SiscoKid]

I will continue to support the NRA because I cannot got to Washington and personally defend my gun rights.

As it was said here previously, the anti-gun liberals HATE the NRA. I like that. It means they know we are here.

Even Slick Willie has stated numerous times that the NRA was instrumental in the defeat of the democrats in 1994 and 2000. There are others in Washington that know better than to buck the NRA.

Until someone better and stronger comes along, I'll stay with them.

 

[Dawico]

The NRA defends the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st. I will continue to support them.

 

[Texan2]

i will still support them under our current system of lobbying, but this nation is in sore need of major campaign finance reform. Money buys power in DC and that fact cannot be argued. While I am glad that the NRA is there to represent us, it is unfortunately at the expense of allowing many other organizations to pull the strings of every congressman and appointed official in DC.
should campaign finance reform finally pass....i for one will welcome it with open arms. the NRA will still survive...

 

[ldcarson]

The NRA does defend our 2a rights, but 2a is worthless without the rest of the constitution in tact. In fact 2A is in the constitution in order to give the people the right to protect the whole thing. When congress starts passing laws limiting rights without a constitutional convention or without refrendum by the people then all groups who support and defend should stand up and be counted. NRA took the easy way on this one...very, very disapointing...

 

[ROGER4314]

I quit the NRA twice since about 1963. I always came back because even though they aren't perfect, they do a damned good job in defending MY rights.

In the 60's, the 2nd amendment was being attacked and the question kept revolving around "Militia" members having firearms rights or do we all have 2nd amendment rights? Now, I am an old man, The NRA forced that issue in the Supreme Court and we all won BIG! It took my whole lifetime to decide that issue and it was central to whether we can own firearms as individuals. Because of the NRA, we are assured of individual rights as gun owners. The people who started that fight are dead and gone but the NRA kept hanging in there as an organization to fight people like Shumer, Feinstein, Kennedy and Pelosi.

I remember when we had to sign a Federal log book to buy a box of .22 LR ammo! That went away. Do you think that happened because our lawmakers decided to be nicer to us? Progress is being made and the NRA is on the front lines. Please support them. They aren't perfect but life is much better WITH them than WITHOUT them!

Flash

 

[TrailDust]

The NRA enacted a political sellout, and has potentially armed unions and Democrats for the November elections. Many Democrats admit the bill is likely unconstitutional, but their aim is not long-term legislation. The goal was to put the bill in place for the upcoming mid-term elections when the Democrats will be hurting most for votes, and with this bill the union's power base will be enhanced and with other aspects of the bill may allow the Democrats to hold the House. If the Supreme Court strikes down the bill after the vote, then who cares? To quote the Wall Street Journal: "The NRA's worst nightmare is that the courts strike down it's blatant carveout and leave other parts of the bill intact. The group would then get to live under the same restrictions it helped impose on the rest of the country. Until then the NRA can wake up each morning knowing it handed a bazooka to the unions that exist to elect Democrats who oppose everything it believes in. Some deal."

People need to see the bigger picture here, the ultimate sellout of the NRA to its members.

 

[Wolfwood]

did "No Compromises" die with Heston?

 

[TrailDust]

Apparently, yes. RIP Mr. Heston...they hardly knew ye....

 

[ROGER4314]

Ok, let's look at it in a practical sense. I would rather eat a fresh dog turd than to make a deal with a politician. The NRA Lobbyists do that for me and represent me in that den of thieves, liars and cheats. If you don't like the NRA, then get a place in Washington DC and spend every waking minute bargaining with those legislative scoundrels to keep your Second Amendment rights. $35 NRA membership is a real deal when viewed in that perspective!

Another alternative to NRA membership is to let your friends pay the tab to ensure your rights.

Flash

 

[TrailDust]

If you look at what the NRA did, they've basically given themselves a reprieve from harassment by Democrats for the next two years, then after that all bets are off. This issue is a matter of principles.

 

[45tex]

After reading the reply on the NRA site I did not quit the NRA. I did however join Gun Owners of America. If buying Arizona a gun range is enough to get Mr. La Peepee to overlook the not-honorable Sen. Reid. Then tha NRA needs to be watched very close, as this is one big left turn.

 

[Wolfwood]

After reading the reply on the NRA site I did not quit the NRA. I did however join Gun Owners of America. If buying Arizona a gun range is enough to get Mr. La Peepee to overlook the not-honorable Sen. Reid. Then tha NRA needs to be watched very close, as this is one big left turn.

+1

will be joining soon myself.

 

[TrailDust]

After reading the reply on the NRA site I did not quit the NRA. I did however join Gun Owners of America. If buying Arizona a gun range is enough to get Mr. La Peepee to overlook the not-honorable Sen. Reid. Then tha NRA needs to be watched very close, as this is one big left turn.

Ditto!

 

[308nato]

When my membership runs out this year I will not be renewing it and am letting them know why before they start sending me all there junk mail.
I will also let them know why I joined GOA. Also they do to much compromiseing to suite me any more.

 

[B17-FE]

"After reading the reply on the NRA site I did not quit the NRA. I did however join Gun Owners of America."

Just joined !
More voices can't hurt.

 

[TrailDust]

By the responses it's starting to look like the NRA screwed the pooch on that one. (Sorry, no smilie for that one....)