Did the NRA sell out other pro-gun groups on the DISCLOSE bill?

Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
52,005
Location
Arizona
Congress is considering a bill (The DISCLOSE bill, HR 5175) which would require, among other onerous things, organizations exercising their First Amendment rights during political campaigns to disclose their donor lists. The NRA fought this tooth and nail until the creation of a provision which would exempt them and any other organization with over a million members and existing in the 50 states from the bill's provisions. NRA then promptly took a "neutral" stance on the bill. The bill is a blatant attempt to override the Supreme Court ruling nullifying portions of the McCain-Feingold act prohibiting organizations from getting involved in political campaigns within a certain time frame preceding elections.

Outraged NRA members (including me, an Endowment member) flooded NRA-ILA with phone calls protesting this sellout of other pro-gun groups with memberships of less than a million. I'm also a Life Member of Gun Owners of America, which is loudly protesting NRA's move as a sellout for other pro-gun organizations. GOA has stated time and again that they will never release their membership list, least of all to the government.

I told the NRA that if it is an organization touting "Freedom" as its main principle, then it has abandoned its principles by not still fighting this anti-free-speech bill with everything it has.

The NRA has responded with some justification for its actions, and rumor has it that they are reconsidering their stance. Here's a typical news article on the controversy.

Did the NRA sell out other gun rights organizations? Not so fast...

And another:

Timothy P. Carney: NRA isn't the villain in the free-speech fight | Washington Examiner

The reaction of the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

CCRKBA?s Gottlieb to Democrats on revised Disclose Act exemption: ?Pound sand?

I believe all gun rights groups should stand together to oppose this bill. The NRA may be reconsidering. Here are the NRA-ILA numbers to make your views known on this issue.

1-800-266-2278 or 1-800-392-8683

Note: their switchboard has been flooded with calls. It took me 20 minutes to get through day before yesterday.

Comments, especially from NRA members, welcome.

John
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Congress is trying to pass an "incumbent protection act" that would nullify the First Amendment. It's primary target is the "tea party" movement, but it affects others.

It seems to me that is the real issue, and we should be flooding Congress with outraged calls and urging others to do the same.

However, I'm irked (also an NRA Patron) that many of the posts on the internet seem to be concentrating on bashing the NRA rather than Congress.
Some "gun advocates" seem to find in necessary to attack their friends rather than the gun grabbers? What's that supposed to help?
 
Last edited:
For those who are interested, here's Chris Cox's response. It makes sense to me. -- Jim

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Message on H.R. 5175
I received your email 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.

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.
 
I've read several articles in the WSJ the last couple of days that take the NRA to task. It just seems to me that saying the NRA is a single issue organization is a cop-out that they (NRA) use quite often. The first amendment is first for a reason - all others would eventually be rendered moot without it. As a life member, I think it's a sell-out that will benefit only the liberal anti-gun politicians who are running in pro-gun states.

Too simplistic - don't think so - why is Schumer et al suddenly on the side of the NRA?
 
Outraged NRA members (including me, an Endowment member) flooded NRA-ILA with phone calls protesting this sellout of other pro-gun groups with memberships of less than a million. I'm also a Life Member of Gun Owners of America, which is loudly protesting NRA's move as a sellout for other pro-gun organizations. GOA has stated time and again that they will never release their membership list, least of all to the government.

GOA is full of it if they think they can defy an order based on a lawful requirement that they turn over records. See how long they hold out when US Marshalls show up with search warrants. Hopefully, it won't come to that. GOA needs to spend more time defending the 2nd Amendment and less time vilifying the NRA.
 
I've read several articles in the WSJ the last couple of days that take the NRA to task. It just seems to me that saying the NRA is a single issue organization is a cop-out that they (NRA) use quite often. The first amendment is first for a reason - all others would eventually be rendered moot without it. As a life member, I think it's a sell-out that will benefit only the liberal anti-gun politicians who are running in pro-gun states.

Too simplistic - don't think so - why is Schumer et al suddenly on the side of the NRA?

OK, you want them to take a stand on free speech. How about abortion? Immigration? Off-shore drilling? Jobs? If they take a stand on one of these issues, then suddenly other members want them to take a stand on their pet. I'll take the NRA as the good old single issue group they have always been.
 
If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

Jim, I have contacted all my congresscritters about this very blatant, distasteful and probably unConstitutional bill. I don't blame the NRA for the bill, far from it. I do blame the NRA for not vocally opposing it even now that they have an "exemption" written into the bill. We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately. First GOA, then CCRKBA, then JPFO, then NAGR, and then... you fill in the blanks. "Make no mistake," the NRA must stand firm against any attempt to silence pro-gun groups, and this is just such an attempt. The NRA has consistently stood for freedom. They should act like it. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of some pro-gunners, I disagree violently with the Brady Bunch, but I will fight for their right to say their piece in a free society. We ARE a free society, aren't we?

The NRA's only weapon is their Constitutionally-protected right to free speech. It is ALSO the only weapon of other pro-gun groups who don't have the numbers of members enjoyed by the NRA. An assault on free speech affects our only tool in the fight to preserve the Second Amendment. This therefore differs considerably from other controversies such as gay marriage, etc. and is definitely in the best interest of the NRA to protect.

Just my 2 cents here, but this one really PO'd me.

John
 
Last edited:
Latest from GOA on the DISCLOSE bill controversy

Got this email from GOA this afternoon:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]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:
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]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.
[/FONT]​
[FONT=arial,helvetica]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!"

[/FONT]
 
For all the "blind" NRA members

KEEP DRINKING THE KOOLAID and sending them your money. They know how to spend it.:D
 
For all the "blind" NRA members

KEEP DRINKING THE KOOLAID and sending them your money. They know how to spend it.:D

Yeah, they do. When Saxby Chambliss, a good South Georgia conservative Republican defender of the 2nd Amendment was forced into a runoff because the three percent lunatic fringe Libertarian vote held him to 49.5%, NRA ran dozens of radio ads per day supporting him against his liberal Democrat opposition. I thought it was an excellent expenditure of my money. In fact, I am inspired to make a contribution to NRA/ILA before the upcoming Fall elections.

I did not hear a single radio ad, nor did I see a single print ad paid for by GOA, GCO, or any of the other organizations that are so incensed with NRA. I think they need to put their monies where their mouths are.;)
 
KEEP DRINKING THE KOOLAID and sending them your money. They know how to spend it.:D
Yes, they do know how to spend it. I would rather send my money to the only RKBA organization who accually gets things done. Why anyone would even consider contributing time or money to an organization like GOA escapes me. Their only accomplishment is to trash the NRA while pimping themselves(and they can't even do that very well).

Bob
 
The DISCLOSE act was pulled from a floor vote yesterday for revision.

From where I stand, it looks like the NRA managed to insert a poison pill and kill it with the "carve out."

Anybody here play chess?
 
The DISCLOSE act was pulled from a floor vote yesterday for revision.

From where I stand, it looks like the NRA managed to insert a poison pill and kill it with the "carve out."

Anybody here play chess?

Check GOA's website. They are taking credit for the bill being pulled.:rolleyes:
 
I contacted the NRA yesterday about my concerns. It seems to me that in their zeal to protect their own interests, they lost sight of the big picture (the Bill of Rights as a whole) and played some inside the beltway politics. At this time in history there can be no compromise with those who wish to steal away the liberty of a slumbering nation. Just my opinion.
 
I suspect that if you asked your Washington representatives and senators about GOA, CCRKBA, JPFO, and NAGR they would all say, "Huh?" The same is not true of the NRA, and that pretty well settles the issue of which organization I am going to support. The NRA certainly isn't perfect but it is the most powerful and effective weapon in the American gun owners' arsenal to protect their Second Amendment rights. I expect them to focus exclusively on that issue and no others.
 
This looks like classic "divide and conquer" tactics to me.

The more time and effort we spend fighting each other = the less time and effort we spend fighting the antis.

Just sayin.
 
IMO the GOA is simply an alarmist group trying to take $/members from the NRA. Most of their "alerts" are akin to "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" or, perhaps more correctly, they are little boys shouting "Wolf!"

I am very happy with the NRA's activities on behalf of the Second Amendment and will continue to support them.

I don't want them getting involved in other things that don't involve the Second Amendment. I want them to keep focused on that one thing.

Bob
 
Back
Top