NRA cuts deals to limit free speech

[REACT]

Below are two emails from the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), a Colorado state run, no-nonsense 2A advocacy group.

URGENT ALERT: NRA cuts deals to limit free speech

Three prominent Washington D.C. websites are reporting what many capitol insiders warned of: the National Rifle Association has made a deal with the devil (i.e. anti-gun Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to limit the free speech of Americans in exchange for their carved-out exemption.

While some pro-gun rights advocates may think free speech does not matter or that nothing another gun advocacy group does should ever be questioned, the National Association for Gun Rights and I take a very different view.

Without the right to free speech, we are defenseless in the battle to save our Second Amendment rights.

Let me be clear: restricting our First Amendment rights is the first step to stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, and should be resisted at every turn.

We don’t care who you are or what an organization may have done in the past – we only care about whether your actions will promote or harm our rights.

And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights. After you read up on the facts, I ask you to give the NRA an earful by calling 1-800-672-3888 and insist they renounce the deal with Pelosi and Reid. Believe me, it is not too late if you will get involved.

Yet Again the NRA Sells Out Freedom to the Democrats | RedState (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/)

Dems close to campaign finance deal - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html)

‘Shotgun Sellout’: House Democrats cut special deal with NRANewsroom Center for Competitive Politics (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/shotgun-sellout-house-democrats-cut-special-deal-with-nra)

Though at first objecting to the DISCLOSE Act, which would radically limit the free speech of organizations and thus, gun owners, the NRA has now agreed to an exemption for their organization (and other mammoth, mostly liberal, organizations like AARP and probably Moveon.org) in exchange for support of the Democrats’ bill.

This legislation would place draconian limitations on the ability of organizations to voice their opinions on politicians, and by extension, their legislation. The chilling effect on free speech would be difficult to overstate.

Along with their tacit endorsement of Senator Harry Reid, the NRA is signaling that they trust the Democrats will spare the Second Amendment from further assaults.

But that’s a strategy of appeasement, and to put it bluntly, it’s insane. It just delays the inevitable.

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

Background:

This is not the only time the NRA has cut a deal to harm gun owners and gun rights in the glare of an anti-gun media frenzy.

Just a three years ago, the NRA joined with arch gun-hater Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to pass H.R. 2640, the Veteran’s Disarmament Act. When gun control advocates saw the Virginia Tech shootings as an opportunity to pass gun control, the NRA immediately signed the documents of surrender and actively lobbied Congress to pass legislation that will disarm tens of thousands of Americans, including veterans.
Why did they do that? Frankly, they were more concerned with what the media and Washington power-bosses were saying than their loyal-to-a-fault members.

Similarly in 2004 when, desperate to pass the Firearms Manufacturers’ Lawsuits Protection bill, the NRA dangled a re-authorization of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban in front of hungry politicians. The deal was going to be that if anti-gun politicians voted for the Lawsuit Protection bill, the NRA would not oppose re-authorization of the sun-setting Clinton Gun Ban.

Thankfully, a coalition of groups led by the National Association for Gun Rights joined together to kill that deal by exposing it to the light of honest gun owners across this nation... just like we are doing now. In that fight, after a few weeks of excuses and covering their tracks, the NRA backed off of the deal, the Lawsuit Protection Bill still passed and the Clinton Gun Ban ended.

What can you do?

Tell the NRA you’ve had enough, and urge them to kill the DISCLOSE Act, not cut a deal to pass it. Call them at 1-800-672-3888 today.

Wall Street Journal, Roll Call confirm NRA Sell-Out

Washington is ablaze with news about the NRA's abandonment of free speech.

Some of you still may not believe the NRA could strike such a gruesome deal with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on the DISCLOSE Act, which is sponsored by the Senate's most shrill gun-hater, Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Those of you still not convinced need to view this morning's Wall (http://[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308470831235224.html) Street Journal editorial, which jumped into the fray, decrying the NRA's sell-out and pointing out that their exemption is not only dangerous but abandons their natural allies.

"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" - Wall (http://[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308470831235224.html) Street Journal, 6/16/2010
Or you can check out this story from Roll Call:

"The National Rifle Association is publicly pledging to uphold its end of the bargain with House Democratic leadership over a measure to roll back a controversial Supreme Court decision on political spending." - Roll (http://[URL]http://www.rollcall.com/news/47348-1.html) Call, 6/15/2010

The NRA response (which can be read here (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13902)) is somewhat different than you might get on the phone if you call NRA HQ.

Some members are reporting the NRA is responding with "Who, us??" while others report the response as "We oppose DISCLOSE". But both of these responses are the type you'd expect from politicians, not allies in the fight for freedom (which they aren't).

But to better arm you in this battle, here is a supply of fact-tipped ammo:

Every news source in Washington, and the NRA itself (in the NRA's own words, linked above) agree that an exemption for the NRA itself (which would not apply to any other gun rights group) will remove their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act.

The existence of the exemption, in the form of an amendment to the DISCLOSE Act, is not being debated by anyone, only whether or not this deal with the Democrats serves their members (again, read the alert).
Only a few organizations will be exempted, as is the intention.
If gun owners do not have the right to free speech, our firearms freedoms are going away... quickly.

How, after all, can we defend the Second Amendment if we're not allowed to talk to voters, the general public, or even our own members?
How can politicians be held accountable if organizations cannot discuss their votes? That's the ultimate politician protection device.

Though the NRA can say it's a one-issue group (just as we are), mark my words: if we get rid of either the First or Second Amendment, the other is sure to follow.

What can you do?

Call the NRA again, as soon as possible, and urge them to kill the DISCLOSE Act, not cut a deal to pass it. Call them at 1-800-672-3888 today.



Now, I understand that any completing 2A group will throw the NRA under the bus in a second in order to divert my money their way, but RMGO has been straight shooters since I've been a member. They have done great things here in Colorado.


...and...discuss

[joje]

thanks for the alert! i read the full article in WSJ - disappointing to say the least. i shot them an email to express my sentiments.

[Chief Joseph]

This isn't just about the 2nd Amendment, this about the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION. I count on organizations like the NRA to support the whole thing and not act like a liberal democRAT and cut deals to help itself while ruining everything else.

[recoilguy]

I too shot an email to the NRA. I can support that type of activity.

Gun Owners of America will now get my NRA money.

It's a right..
not a privelege!

I am a bitter clinger

RCG

[REACT]

I too shot an email to the NRA. I can NOT support that type of activity.

Gun Owners of America will now get my NRA money.

It's a right..
not a privelege!

I am a bitter clinger

RCG

Fixed.

FYI, the bill died again, but this should not be the end of the discussion. The NRA still took an exemption to the 1A allowing all of the smaller groups to twist in the wind. Don't let this end here.

[AFVet]

This is a perfect example of the NRA thinking tactically and not strategically.

First, why throw other groups that are sympathetic to 2nd Amendment rights under the bus just because you got an exemption?

Second, why support a law that empowers Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Does anybody in their right mind think they're pro gun?

Lastly, supporting Democrats, any Democrats with the current leadership team is crazy if you're pro 2nd Amendment. Just like are no pro life Democrats, there are no pro gun Democrats because what an individual Democrat wants mean nothing.

[jlottmc]

Makes me kinda glad my NRA membership just expired. I had been getting fed up with their policies and strategy, as they had just been making themselves better, and not helping the cause. I will say that they ultimately did a good deed by horning in on the MacDonald case. The justices were far more receptive to the argument that the NRA brought to the table, than they were to Gura's. It may still be quite some time before I do anything with the NRA again.

[REACT]

This is a perfect example of the NRA thinking tactically and not strategically.

Actually, I see this as a strategic plan. They are positioning themselves to eventually be the only 2A group.


First, why throw other groups that are sympathetic to 2nd Amendment rights under the bus just because you got an exemption?

If the NRA remains the only 2A organization with full 1A rights, their membership numbers will eventually increase ($$$) after the smaller groups are deemed ineffective. It may take years for the masses to forget what happened, but eventually this move will make the NRA stronger.


Second, why support a law that empowers Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Does anybody in their right mind think they're pro gun?

The NRA strongly opposes the DISCLOSE act...except if they are exempt from it. They don't seemed concerned about fighting for all of the smaller organizations that will be effected by this deal ($$$).


Lastly, supporting Democrats, any Democrats with the current leadership team is crazy if you're pro 2nd Amendment. Just like are no pro life Democrats, there are no pro gun Democrats because what an individual Democrat wants mean nothing.

It is, in the long term, very crazy.

[AFVet]

If the NRA remains the only 2A organization with full 1A rights, their membership numbers will eventually increase ($$$) after the smaller groups are deemed ineffective. It may take years for the masses to forget what happened, but eventually this move will make the NRA stronger.


So what you are telling me is that the NRA only cares about the NRA. That's an even better reason not to support them.

[aray]

I know the following comments won't win me any popularity contests. However please don't misunderstand my position: HR 5175 is evil and all Americans should do everything in their power to defeat this tyrannical bill. Now having said that:

The NRA is a non-partisan single-issue organization. There is no doubt that a part of its success is its laser-like focus on the Second Amendment.

Given that, one could argue that having secured an exception for the NRA in HR 5175, their job is done and they should properly take a neutral stance on the legislation.

Yes, there are greater issues here for which all Americans should be concerned. The First Amendment is under assault and this bad bill should be vigorously opposed. But then again America is under simultaneous assault in many areas: abuse of Federal powers and trashing of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, deficit spending to the point of bankruptcy for our children and grandchildren before they’re even born (I call it fiscal child abuse), Social Security (and arguably our whole budget) being operated like a giant Ponzi Scheme, perpetuation of a welfare state to the point that almost half of the population is now exempt from income taxes (and they vote for the status quo), etc. While all good citizens should be concerned and proactive on solutions to these problems, the NRA would lose effectiveness if it were to engage in any of these other battles.

Having secured a Second Amendment exemption for the NRA in HR 5175, is it their job to further pursue a First Amendment battle? The NRA Leadership obviously thinks “no”; the GOA obviously knows it has been left out in the cold and argues "yes". But while we legitimately discuss that aspect of the controversy, let’s not forget that we’re both on the same side in the fight for the Second Amendment. The real enemy is outside both of those two fine organizations, not within. People of sincere belief can differ on this point, and criticism of the NRA's stand is understandable. But I think calling for people to abandon the NRA goes too far and is counter productive for the 2A.

Ironically but happily, the NRA exception seems to be weakening support for the bill, as fierce anti-gun forces are upset at this exception, even with the more recent changes to include other non-profits. (See for example Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-06-21-campaign-spending-legislation_N.htm)) Let’s hope the NRA exception turns out to be a poison pill that ultimately scuttles the bill entirely.

OK, you can flame me now. I put my asbestos Speedos on. (That's a mental image you don't really want to have. :( )

[REACT]

The NRA is a non-partisan single-issue organization.

The NRA, GOA, and other 2A groups defend our rights using the 1A. They cannot say that they are only interested in the 2A and do not want to get involved in 1A discussions.
What bothers me most about the deal is that the NRA should be absolutely opposed to the DISCOLSE act, exemption or not.

[O'Dell]

I'm not going to flame you, aray. In fact I tend to agree with your position.

[AFVet]

Let's say the Dems get their anti free speech legislation, you don't think they'll be back for another bite at the apple? In fact, every bill they pass makes passing the next bill with further limits that much easier.

This kind of reminds of that saying, "First they came for the Jews, but I did not say anything because I was not a Jew....Eventually, they came for me, but there was no one left to complain."

[Bawanna]

I try to avoid this RKBA area, bad for my temperament.
What we need to do in addition to cleaning out the house and senate and hopefully the white house asap is work on the base issue. We need to educate the voting public so they as least have positive number IQ's. This will of course be difficult with the influx of non english speaking new democrates if the O dude completes his mission.
Even if the house and senate are cleaned out, there's a whole flock of cloned losers to take their place. It seems cold hearted but we need to clean out the free loaders both in office and the life long recipients of welfare programs. You don't pay, you don't play. No saavy da engrish, get on the bus, it's time to go home. The O dude can be the bus driver but of course we'll need a boat to get him home to his mother land.
I'll wait for my ban notice.

[aray]

The NRA, GOA, and other 2A groups defend our rights using the 1A. They cannot say that they are only interested in the 2A and do not want to get involved in 1A discussions.
What bothers me most about the deal is that the NRA should be absolutely opposed to the DISCOLSE act, exemption or not.

NRA's response (from the nraila.org web site):

From David Keene, NRA First Vice President:

I am writing in response to your email to NRA Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox protesting what you term a "backroom" deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to "regulate and limit the First Amendment right to political free speech of other groups."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AFVet]

I got that letter from the NRA too, but I believe their logic is flawed.

[AFVet]

I see the Disclose Act passed the House today. Thanks NRA.

[johnatw]

I need the opinion of you guys please. There is a Pistol shooting club nearby that requires membership in the NRA. I'm not a member of the NRA yet and my question is would you all join the NRA after all the posts on this thread?

[AFVet]

I think prior to today, I would have recommended that everyone join the NRA. However, there's a memo making the rounds that the NRA won't let its board members testify in the Kagan confirmation. This is apparently another deal cut with the Democrats or perhaps part of their Disclose Act exemption.

Now, we know Kagan is not pro 2nd Amendment, and the NRA can't claim her nomination to the SC won't impact our gun rights, so it'll be interesting to see how this gets spun.

But, back to your question--I would not recommend people join the NRA. I believe they are short-sighted and cut deals too quickly. Doubt I will be renewing my membership.