PDA

View Full Version : NRA's response to their weaselly HR 5175 position


Cowboy T
06-26-2010, 7:46 AM
Folks,

I sent a letter to both Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre about their weaselly position on HR 5175. As many of us know, the NRA got bought off by the Democracks to be silent via a special exemption strictly and only for the NRA. This would keep others like Calguns, GOA, Dick Heller, etc. from lobbying before an election.

This attack on the First Amendment, and concomitant threat to the Second Amendment, is not good for us.

Here's the letter I got from Chris Cox in response to my letter of opposition. This same letter obviously was sent out to all sorts of people. In the style of some other pro-gun organizations, I have added my own annotations in {curly brackets}.

---------------------------------------------------------

National Rifle Association of America
Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Office of the Executive Director
Chris W. Cox

June 21, 2010

I received your letter regarding the NRA's 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. {CowboyT: Untill the NRA got an exemption for specifically and only itself, that is....}

The NRA has never supported--nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong. {CowboyT: Oh, really? Is that why my girlfriend heard Wayne LaPierre saying that he actually supports this bill?}

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. {CowboyT: Wow...that's pretty arrogant. Unless the NRA and only the NRA exists, we will lose the 2A? So, GOA, VCDL, Calguns, etc. just don't matter? If we all switched our membership to GOA, what would Mr. Cox say then?}

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. {CowboyT: Wrong. This isn't about "protecting other organizations". This is about protecting the American principle called the First Amendment!} That's easy to say--unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do. {CowboyT: Even when it means casting off other Constitutional Amendments to do that?}

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. {CowboyT: Is that right? Then why, in this month's edition of America's 1st Freedom, is the NRA going on about illegal immigration? Why did the NRA take a position in Citizens United at all, a FIRST Amendment issue?} We do not represent the interests of other organizations. {CowboyT: So, they're in this for themselves, are they? Then I will treat them as such.} 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 {CowboyT: This is a total red herring with nothing to do with 2A issues} and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill {CowboyT: Again, another red herring, not 2A-related--wow, so much for being a "single issue organization", eh?}. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots. {CowboyT: OK, this one is appropriate, but they don't get "extra points" for that. They're supposed to do that.}

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. {CowboyT: No, we blame this Congress for this Congress's un-Constitutional attack on free speech. We blame the NRA leadership for getting bought out to keep quiet about it.} That's a shame. {CowboyT: Yes, it is.} If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you. {CowboyT: Also contact the NRA about changing their weaselly, un-American position as well.}

Sincerely,

{signed}

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director

---------------------------------------------------------

Werewolf1021
06-26-2010, 8:50 AM
Not this **** again. This has already been discussed ad nauseum. Plus, GOA doesnt do jack.

GaryV
06-26-2010, 9:01 AM
I don't have a problem with this. As he says, the NRA is a SINGLE ISSUE organization. While they may strongly believe in the First Amendment, it is not their responsibility, or even their freedom, to use funds donated for protection of the Second Amendment to lobby for protection of the First, except in as much as such activity is necessary for them to fulfill their Single Issue role. What if some significant portion of NRA members are fine with this law, as long as the NRA is exempted? The NRA would then be using their donations to fund political activities contrary to their beliefs, and contrary to the reason the money was given, if they were to continue to lobby against it after being exempted.

I donate to the NRA so that they can protect my 2nd Amendment rights, and nothing else. I don't want them diverting a cent of it to any other political activity, even if it's one I also support. For them to do that would be no different than what the government does with my taxes without my consent. I can donate to another organization that lobbies for those issues if I want someone acting on my behalf in relation to them. For the NRA to do otherwise would be to divert some of their resources away from what I enlist them to do on my behalf. The NRA isn't a clearing house for all my (or anyone else's) political positions, only those relating directly to the protection of the Second Amendment.

Window_Seat
06-26-2010, 9:17 AM
Didn't this bill already die? I think that the strategy that the NRA played was a way to get this bill to die. If so, then we still have a voice, and so does the CRPA, SAF GOA, JPFO, PPSF, Etc.

Erik.

Cnynrat
06-26-2010, 9:26 AM
No, it actually passed in the House last week. I think it's an unconstitutional law, and likely would be overturned. But, I agree with the NRA that they should be spending their resources on 2A issues unless other issues directly affect them.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Gray Peterson
06-26-2010, 9:28 AM
The NRA has never supported--nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong. {CowboyT: Oh, really? Is that why my girlfriend thought she heard Wayne LaPierre saying that he actually supports this bill?}

Fixed it for you.

RRangel
06-26-2010, 9:33 AM
Cowboy_T, have you been hiding under a rock?

Paladin
06-26-2010, 9:45 AM
I love how the GOA uses bashing the NRA as its primary fund raising method and then when the GOA is about to be squashed, who do they want to save them? You guessed it, the NRA! LOL

I'm sure all of the people who are bashing the NRA for not going beyond its mission by actively fighting this legislation are NOT hypocrites -- they will be sending the NRA the (hundreds of thousands?) of dollars of donations required to engage in this political battle. (yeah, right)

ETA: I should mention that I OPPOSE the Disclose Act and will be calling DiFi and Babs Boxer on Monday to urge them to oppose it as well.

bwiese
06-26-2010, 10:01 AM
I love how the GOA uses bashing the NRA as its primary fund raising method and then when the GOA is about to be squashed, who do they want to save them? You guessed it, the NRA! LOL

Circular confusion.

dantodd
06-26-2010, 10:11 AM
Folks,

I sent a letter to both Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre about their weaselly position on HR 5175. As many of us know, the NRA got bought off by the Democracks to be silent via a special exemption strictly and only for the NRA. This would keep others like Calguns, GOA, Dick Heller, etc. from lobbying before an election.

I think you will find an abundance of people here who appreciate the NRA sticking to their primary issue in this and other cases. If the bill got killed because the NRA shed light on it, all the better, but it is not a 2A law and it doesn't effect the NRA in any other way. If you want someone else to fight THAT battle then you'll surely find lots of people happy to take your donations to support just such a fight.

I do agree that the NRA membership publications and radio programming is almost always very conservative politically but I think that is merely delivering to their membership what they feel most want to hear. It doesn't mean they spend their lobbying time, money and political capital pursuing such endeavors.

Lulfas
06-26-2010, 11:22 AM
Democracks


Really? Is this third grade again or something?

7x57
06-26-2010, 11:38 AM
Unfortunately, when the GoA's mindshare expands at the expense of those groups that actually do useful stuff, nobody will attribute it to the fallout from moves like this one. It seems to be very effective at moving people who are pro-gun but not focused on guns away from the NRA where their money is actually useful.

I don't think the GoA could have gotten a more effective recruiting tool if they'd been allowed to design it themselves.

7x57

dfletcher
06-26-2010, 12:20 PM
No, it actually passed in the House last week. I think it's an unconstitutional law, and likely would be overturned. But, I agree with the NRA that they should be spending their resources on 2A issues unless other issues directly affect them.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

I see HR 5175 is the House's version of sticking it to SCOTUS and having read the bill I would imagine it eventually suffers the same fate as McCain Feingold.

If NRA believes the best way to fight this for the 2nd is via exemption, fine. If they believe they must engage the 1st to save the 2nd, fine also - so long as the focus is the 2nd.

I can imagine some folks who don't like NRA - but also don't like DISCLOSE or NRA's exemption approach - would be more than happy to pile on with "see, they're getting involved in other stuff and selling us out" if NRA actually did engage on the 1st only.

I posted a pdf of the bill on another thread - check out page 24, quite the restriction. Anyone wonder why this bill, if passed by the Democratic Party controlled Congress, would take effect within 30 days? Might be just in time for the November elections, right? ;)

7x57
06-26-2010, 12:23 PM
Might be just in time for the November elections, right? ;)

There is no other actual reason for it, and that seems to be widely understood by everyone. Politics is for keeps.

7x57

Cnynrat
06-26-2010, 12:55 PM
I see HR 5175 is the House's version of sticking it to SCOTUS and having read the bill I would imagine it eventually suffers the same fate as McCain Feingold.

Well, you've probably got one up on most of our Congress people then! :rolleyes:


Anyone wonder why this bill, if passed by the Democratic Party controlled Congress, would take effect within 30 days? Might be just in time for the November elections, right? ;)

That right there is their primary objective no doubt, and I assume SCOTUS wouldn't have time to react before then.

FirstFlight
06-26-2010, 1:36 PM
Really? Is this third grade again or something?

Amen, Amen, Amen Brother!