NRA is supporting 5175 now!!!

[Bigum1969]

Thanks Kirk for bringing the truth to light on this issue.

There are many folks here who eagerly pounce on the NRA w/o really understanding the political environment or how it works.

Politics is ugly, indeed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

1. Telling someone NO is not a deal. It is a refusal to deal.

2. The thread title is a misrepresentation of NRA's position. Taking no position on a bill is not "supporting" a bill.

3. The mere fact that the NRA is mentioned has made everyone mad, even the sponsors of the bill.

People are passionate, this I understand and a good thing. However, it is important to take a deep breathe and be objective.

 

[aikidoka]

1. Telling someone NO is not a deal. It is a refusal to deal.

2. The thread title is a misrepresentation of NRA's position. Taking no position on a bill is not "supporting" a bill.

3. The mere fact that the NRA is mentioned has made everyone mad, even the sponsors of the bill.

People are passionate, this I understand and a good thing. However, it is important to take a deep breathe and be objective.

That seems pretty straight forward to me and I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat even.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How dare you not have your tinfoil hat in the politics forum!

NRA tells Congress NO! and suddently conspiracies are in bloom like maple seedlings.

From the CSM, June 18th:

******************************************************

Congress can't play favorites with the NRA in campaign reform - Yahoo! News
Congress can't play favorites with the NRA in campaign reform

More »


By the Monitor's Editorial Board The Monitor's Editorial Board – Fri Jun 18, 1:14 pm ET
Trust in Washington is so low that it is startling when [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]Congress[/COLOR][/COLOR] further erodes the public’s trust by offering more perks to special interests such as the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Lawmakers still seem to ignore the hard facts before them about their unprecedented unpopularity: Only 3 in 10 Americans plan to vote for their House representative this fall, according to a Gallop poll. An amazing 60 percent of voters would prefer to elect a candidate for Congress who has had no experience rather an incumbent.
And yet despite this anti-incumbent mood in America, the House tried in recent days to play favorites with the NRA. It effectively carved out an exemption for the 4.5-million-member, pro-gun organization in a bill – and here’s the irony – aimed at reducing the power of private groups in politics.
The bill, known as the [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]DISCLOSE [COLOR=#366388! important]Act[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], is the Democrats’ response to a Supreme Court decision this past January (Citizens United v. FEC). That ruling, which cited the First Amendment’s free-speech clause, bars legal limits on what corporations, unions, and other groups can do in a political campaign during the final months before an election.
While the ruling is troublesome in not acknowledging the corrupting influence of money on American democracy, the provisions of the DISCLOSE Act that would favor one group over another in restricting free speech is clearly unconstitutional.
The provision that was tailored specifically for the NRA to exempt it from rules on [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]campaign [COLOR=#366388! important]activities[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] was deemed necessary to keep the NRA from muscling lawmakers to vote against the bill. The group is so powerful in its use of campaign money that it can eliminate legislation with one click of its lobbying trigger.
The gun lobby, however, didn’t count on an uprising among African-Americans in Congress who favor gun control. To the credit of these urban lawmakers in the Congressional Black Caucus – who know that allowing the easy sale of guns in cities is the moral equivalent of yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater – forced the Democratic leadership to withdraw the bill for now. A [COLOR=#366388! important][COLOR=#366388! important]House [COLOR=#366388! important]vote[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] that was scheduled on the DISCLOSE Act for Friday was quietly canceled.
The bill has other problems of fairness.
It is far more restrictive on corporations than labor unions. Previous campaign-reform laws enjoyed some measure of bipartisanship in order to make sure they weren’t later overturned by a later Congress. Passing a measure that so clearly favors the interest groups of one party over another could easily not last long in the shifts of political power.
In previous campaign-reform laws, the NRA was not exempt from their reach. There is no reason to favor this one group now.

******************************************************

Amazing, all the NRA has to do is say NO! and the gun rights free riders and wacko lefty media both go bonkers over conspiracies.

 

[Prometheus]

I got am email from the nra-ila yesterday and it's a 180 from the first letter I posted in this thread.

THANK YOU! to all the NRA members who called and bi+ched out the NRA this past week. Looks like they are starting to "get it".

For those who want to contrast the differences:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director
Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Click here to vote in this week's poll. [/FONT] [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]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.

[/FONT]


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Kirk: I appreciate your optimism but you're smoking crack-rock if you can't see the stark differences between those two statements.
[/FONT]

 

[451_Detonics]

Keep in mind the NRA is barely 4 million strong out of approx 80 million gun owners. In no way does the NRA represent any significant portion of gun owners, please remember that.

They represent all gun owners, not just it's membership...the money I have given to the NRA has helped defend all gun owners rights, not just mine. I am pretty sure everyone can now own firearms that were banned by the AWB, without the NRA that would have never ended. No other gun owners organization...none of them...have any impact in DC. We have to have a voice in 2010 and 2012 and if the NRA isn't able to speak out during those elections we might as well start turning guns in today. If other groups like Gun Owners of America and the JPFO have the influence they claims then they too would be offered the exemption... but they don't have any influence in DC because they are not the threat the NRA is.

The NRA did not make this deal...it was offered to them. Given what happened when the NRA stood with the republicans on the Feinstein bill in 2002, when they were then betrayed I completely understand why they are waiting to challenge this in court rather than fighting it now.

Friday, June 18, 2010

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.

I would point out this exemption has put the bill at serious risk of not being passed at all. The are many Dems who will not vote for it now because the NRA is exempted. By agreeing to it the NRA may have back door killed the bill.

 

[Prometheus]

They represent all gun owners, not just it's Hmembership...the money I have given to the NRA has helped defend all gun owners rights, not just mine.

I'm a gun owners and many other members here are as well. The nra doesn't represent me or many of my firearms. Heck the nra doesn't represent any of the members in INGO's NFA forum either.

I am pretty sure everyone can now own firearms that were banned by the AWB, without the NRA that would have never ended. No other gun owners organization...none of them...have any impact in DC. We have to have a voice in 2010 and 2012 and if the NRA isn't able to speak out during those elections we might as well start turning guns in today. If other groups like Gun Owners of America and the JPFO have the influence they claims then they too would be offered the exemption... but they don't have any influence in DC because they are not the threat the NRA is.

WTF? The nra FOUGHT for the passage of the 94 ban! Then didn't have to do anything to 'claim' victory in 04.

If the nra is so powerful, why do they have to compromise so much? Why do they willing bend over for schummer, pelosi and ried?

The NRA did not make this deal...it was offered to them.
I would point out this exemption has put the bill at serious risk of not being passed at all. The are many Dems who will not vote for it now because the NRA is exempted. By agreeing to it the NRA may have back door killed the bill.

Out of the kindness of pelosi and rieds heart it was offered? You've lost you mind.

You people do realize that the only NON violent means we have to protect the 2A (and the rest) is with the 1A? Don't you? Are you all really advocating the use of armed force in 2010 and 2012 since we'll have no First Amendment Rights left?

This isn't just about the 2A, it's about all of it. Also do you really want just the nra as the only voice from the 'right' to counter all the lib groups that are exempted like moveon?

You really think the dems will kill the bill because one, ONE pro-compromise group gets a pass and dozens of left wings get the same pass? Delusions of grandure!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

WTF? The nra FOUGHT for the passage of the 94 ban!

Pro, what makes you say this?

 

[CarmelHP]

Pro, what makes you say this?

It makes a good anti-NRA soundbite. The NRA was NOT for it, they were not exactly at their best telling members it was unlikely to pass, they got caught flat-footed when the Dems suddenly rushed it on the calendar, but saying that the NRA supported it is a simple untruth.

 

[DustinG]

The NRA sent me this e-mail, with a link to the full article:

WASHINGTON - A high-profile effort by President Obama and top Democrats to clamp down on special ­interest spending in elections has faltered, nearly six months after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for unlimited corporate and union spending on independent campaign ads.
Action on a bill in Congress that aims to shine more light on such spending stalled after top House Democrats agreed to exempt the powerful National Rifle Association and other large non-profits from new disclosure rules.
"All restriction on political speech is repugnant," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun owners' group, told USA TODAY.
"Am I happy that the NRA's tongue is not cut for the 2010 ... elections? Absolutely," he said. "Do we still think this bill is unconstitutional? Absolutely."

Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle - USATODAY.com

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, the bill failed because the NRA said "no"? I thought they had an ubersecret deal with Pelosi, Reid, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Arbor Day Society and the Bilderberg Group?

This is not officially a victory until Gun Owners of America comes in at the 11th hour and claims credit. I will monitor their website to ensure that the NRA did win.

 

[Vasili]

May the NRA disband.
Long live the Gun Owners of America.

 

[kingnereli]

May the NRA disband.
Long live the Gun Owners of America.

You add such insight to the conversation.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. We have enough problems without dividing ourselves with arbitrary allegiances to specific players on the same team and senseless, inaccurate allegations.