NRA-***?

[38-44HD45]

I just got this e-mail from a friend. Had I not seen the disgraceful article in the last American Rifleman, I would think it was some kind of hoax. What on earth are they thinking??




Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun champion Sharron Angle.

Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT deal.

Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination.

Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing.

Why would they do this? Why would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes and his leadership?

Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out, Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County, Nevada.

NRA members were recently treated to a three-page spread in the American Rifleman about a visit to Nevada by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox to “thank” Reid for the earmark. The article even includes a cliché picture of Reid cutting a ribbon with a gigantic pair of scissors. (Every good porker has his own giant pair of gold earmark scissors.) More here.

Here is a video of the event from Reid’s youtube site.

At 3:25, you can hear LaPierre touting Reid’s record on guns saying, “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners. “

The American Rifleman article also commends Reid’s Second Amendment record noting, “His dedication to this project is just one of the ways Sen. Reid has demonstrated his support for gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

Well, that’s all very nice. What politician representing a pro-gun red state wouldn’t want Wayne LaPierre to come out for a personal photo op at their earmark ribbon cutting.

But, here is the problem. Reid has not supported the Second Amendment “every day.” Or ever.

Reid has a lifetime rating of “F” from Gun Owners of America (who Ron Paul once called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”). GOA is actively supporting the 100% pro-gun Republican nominee, Sharron Angle, in her campaign to unseat Harry Reid.

But if you don’t believe GOA, see for yourself below the fold. Then call (800) 392-VOTE (8683) before it is too late and make the NRA knows they’d be betraying second amendment voters by endorsing Harry Reid.

Below are just a few of the votes that demonstrate Reid’s longstanding hostility to guns and the Second Amendment. Not included in this list is the long list of consistent and active support for anti-gun nominees to the Federal Judiciary and to high level cabinet posts. The reason I did not include anti-gun nominees is because he supported every last one of them.

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms

 

[38-44HD45]

Glad to hear that, Klas.

 

[n4zov]

There is a good discussion of this on Politico:

NRA on firing line over Harry Reid - Manu Raju and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

 

[bk43]

I find it interesting that these recent campaigns to trash the NRA seem to always include Redstate.com and GOA, both piling it on the NRA and then promoting each other. Makes you wonder what the connection is don't it.

Bob

 

[bmx]

I've been a NRA member since I was 14 years old but since the 1990's I've started to question some of the positions taken by the NRA.

IMHO the NRA is doing way too much compromising with leftist politicians and not enough of saying "not only no BUT HELL NO!"

I firmly believe that if we didn't have the NRA we would be alot farther down the road to a more socialist government, but it seems to me they are not fighting hard enough for our 2nd Amendment beliefs in the past few years.

We, the NRA members, can influence the political outcome of this country and the NRA leadership should grow a set and return to our old time principles and beliefs.

No comprise on the 2nd Amendment in any way shape or form, no sweetheart deals and no backing of leftist politicians such as Reid.

 

[oldRoger]

I have finally accepted that I am not going to agree with the NRA about political candidates, and it took 50 years on my part to get there.
What C. Cox said that he and the NRA would rather deal with the Devil they have than the one they will get. While most agree that The GOP will pick up senate seats very few believe a GOP senate majority is at hand. Therefore we might see Durbin/Schumer or worse for Senate Majority Leader, which will make the NRA’s job difficult. More difficult if they are seen as helping Harry go down to defeat.

I look at the NRA suggested candidates and then vote the way I want to vote. In the past I have seen NRA endorsements for people like Dingle that caused a gag reflex.
But, I get the message, the NRA will look out for the 2nd amendment, I can look out for the rest of life.

Florida Sportsman and the NRA might endorse Charlie Christ for Senate, but I will not vote for him.
Would I vote for Harry Reid if I lived in Nevada, not even a small chance!

 

[redlevel]

IMHO the NRA is doing way too much compromising with leftist politicians and not enough of saying "not only no BUT HELL NO!"

You need to remember that the only governmental system that doesn't involve compromise is a dictatorship. GOA bills itself as the "no compromise gun organization." That tells me they are not going to get much done.

NRA also has taken a lot of heat for not being more involved in court challenges. That is mainly because NRA has been much more successful at influencing policy in the legislative rather than the judicial branch.

Deals have to be made in a representative government. I think it is GOA that describe themselves as the "no compromise" gun lobby. Someone needs to tell them that the only type of government where compromise doesn't occur in the law-making process is a dictatorship.

Over the years the NRA has indeed compromised and supported legislation that infringed on our rights. The way that works is that the lobbying organization opposes as long as it can. When it becomes obvious that some type of legislation is absolutely going to pass, then NRA says, "hey, take this, this, and this out of the bill, and add this and this, and we will cease to oppose the bill."

The result is that a less onerous bill is passed than would have been passed without NRA input. Then, some genius comes along and says, "Hey look. NRA sold us out by supporting this."

NRA will almost certainly endorse my Congress critter, Sanford Bishop. Since his ill-fated vote on Clinton's AWB, he has had a fairly good 2nd Amendment record. NRA is a single-issue lobbying organization. They don't care how Sanford voted on the Health Care Bill or the bailout. I understand why they endorse him, but I have never, and will never vote for him. I won't fall out with NRA because of their endorsement. I understand how the system works. NRA wouldn't be much good as a lobbying organization if they let any issue other than 2nd amendment affect their endorsement policy.

 

[OKFC05]

You need to remember that the only governmental system that doesn't involve compromise is a dictatorship. GOA bills itself as the "no compromise gun organization." That tells me they are not going to get much done.

NRA also has taken a lot of heat for not being more involved in court challenges. That is mainly because NRA has been much more successful at influencing policy in the legislative rather than the judicial branch.

Deals have to be made in a representative government. I think it is GOA that describe themselves as the "no compromise" gun lobby. Someone needs to tell them that the only type of government where compromise doesn't occur in the law-making process is a dictatorship.

Over the years the NRA has indeed compromised and supported legislation that infringed on our rights. The way that works is that the lobbying organization opposes as long as it can. When it becomes obvious that some type of legislation is absolutely going to pass, then NRA says, "hey, take this, this, and this out of the bill, and add this and this, and we will cease to oppose the bill."

The result is that a less onerous bill is passed than would have been passed without NRA input. Then, some genius comes along and says, "Hey look. NRA sold us out by supporting this."

An excellent summary of the political reality of dealing with the US Congress. NRA is regarded as the most effective lobby of any kind partly because they understand the reality that an elected official can be influenced, but not controlled. I spent five years in the Pentagon learning how Congress really works (the hard way).

 

[bmx]

I realize and am aware of the politics envolved at the national level but IMHO the NRA has not been forcefull enough on several gun issues in the past at the national and state level.

Comprimise is OK if the gun owners of America are the winners but don't comprise on a turkey like the AWB bill, or the BS DC and Chicago are now pulling after the SCOTUS rulings.

As an example, just this summer in Oklahoma there was no support from the NRA or the Oklahoma Rifle Association for open carry. This is an issue of basic 2nd Amendment freedom....where were the NRA and the ORA? We started this reform from a grassroots effort and when push came to shove "we the people of Oklahoma" needed a little more horsepower to get this bill signed into law there was no one around to help and the demoncrat governor vetoed the bill.

When a clear cut 2nd Amendment issue is at hand the NRA should step up to the plate and forcefully back the local, state and national issues and fight harder than they are doing.

The NRA and the state organizations should also file more lawsuits to challenge unfavorable laws and decisions handed down by the activist judges.

 

[ancient-one]

In my opinion the NRA and the ORA did not support the Open Carry legislation because it was not supported by the majority of Oklahoma gunowners.
Most gunowners are very happy with the current concealed carry situation. It has provided them with ample ability to self protect and created no problems and therefore they saw no use in messing up a good thing to please a few.

 

[redlevel]

In my opinion the NRA and the ORA did not support the Open Carry legislation because it was not supported by the majority of Oklahoma gunowners.
Most gunowners are very happy with the current concealed carry situation. It has provided them with ample ability to self protect and created no problems and therefore they saw no use in messing up a good thing to please a few.

And now we know "the rest of the story."

We just got a very gun-friendly series of laws passed in GA the last few years, mostly the result of some very dedicated individuals in GeorgiaCarry.org (GCO) and lawmakers. Technically, open-carry is legal. I believe, however, that those efforts could be seriously undermined by a small but vocal group who want to take it upon themselves to "educate" the public about the legality of open carry. There have been "events" where several (15 or 20, I guess) would go to a restaurant with pistols strapped on, just for the attention and shock value. Almost weekly there will be a thread in the Georgia Outdoor News forum entitled "OC'ed at Walmart," or some account of being challenged at some public place and "educating" a store manager or in some cases, even a police officer. I believe these things are 100% detrimental to gun rights prospects.

 

[bmx]

I travel all over Oklahoma and everyone I talked to wanted open carry.

So far I haven't heard anyone mention "educating the public" by going into restaurants etc. and open carrying.

In ranch and farm country total CCW is a pain and we do have all sorts of poisionous snakes in Oklahoma.

Individual opinions are what make this country great and maybe we will get a real governor next year rather than obama lite.

 

[oldRoger]

I used to think that the NRA should be more aggressive, but I have grown to see that when winning is not possible an artful compromise might save you from a big loss.
In some respects and sometimes you might be successful with a no compromise take no prisoners attitude. I do not think this is one of those times.
The house of reps especially, is run by those with no sympathy for our right to keep and bear arms. In fact I doubt their respect for the Constitution in any form. Those who run the house now will mostly still be there next year but in the minority (I hope). The bureaucrats are more or less permanent, BHO is there until 2012, many liberal judges are there for life, so tell me why you think we no longer need compromise?
For the last 60 years or so the NRA has had to deal with a very hostile Federal Government in all three branches at least partially most of the time. I think they have done well considering the hostility.

While this is thread drift;

If the majority of voters statewide, not just gun owners, but those who go out to vote want open carry, it can happen.

I would like to see a more liberal open carry law in FL especially in the less settled areas, but there is not strong statewide support. Evidently seeing a holstered gun causes the majority in the more urban areas to choke up in panic. Of course many in the more urban areas migrated here from the big eastern cities and bring a anti-gun attitude.
Here in Florida the voting majority favors gun ownership, but it seems that there is not a majority in the cities even for ownership. However, the state has preempted the whole gun ownership question leaving the big city mayors to fret and fume but basically toothless. When it comes to open carry we simply do not have public support.

It will be tough to win the argument that self defense relies on open carry.

 

[Hoplophile]

Endorsement or grade?

The NRA grades as many candidates as it can, based on previous voting records on the Second Amendment issue or candidate responses to a questionnaire. But they do not "endorse" all candidates. That's usually indicated by an asterisk next to the name or grade of a candidate, as posted in The American Rifleman or other NRA publication.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the NRA rate BOTH Reid and Engle an "A" for this election. It will surprise me if they "endorse" either candidate.

 

[OKFC05]

Let's clear the air on what actually happened in Oklahoma this year.
The OK Senate amended a House bill to include open carry. It went back to the House and was approved, as amended. The Democrat Governor vetoed the bill, citing strong opposition from LE and Education groups. The lame duck governor vetoed many conservative bills in addition to the open carry bill.
Since the open carry bill had passed both houses with more than enough votes to overide, it went to the house for an overide vote. 6 democrat representatives (mostly from Tulsa area) changed their vote to prevent an overide. I watched the debate and vote.

A small strident minority of shooters demanded the NRA come in and "fix it" and get another overide vote. NRA declined, and the minority continues to denounce the NRA as responsible for the loss.

It shoud be noted that ALL of the representatives from west of I35 supported the overide, and most of the vocal criticism is coming from districts whose representatives failed to support open carry.

Seems to me the problem can be cured this fall by OK voters, especially those in the districts that defeated the veto overide.

 

[cubguy]

"Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun champion Sharron Angle." This should have every member calling & emailing the NRA, unbelievable!

 

[bk43]

The NRA has not announced any plans to endorse Reid. They are concerned that if Reid is defeated, but the Democrats retain control of the the Senate, Schumer or Durbin will become leader. Reid is pro gun and both of those are vehement anti gun. I share the NRA's concern and have no doubt the NRA will do what's best for gun owners in the end. I would bet the NRA gives both AZ candidates high marks and doesn't endore either.

This is the type of situation that highlights the folly of GOA's position on issues. They just don't have the brains to think through more than the most simple problems.

Bob

 

[oldRoger]

“Multiple Sources tell me that..... NRA will endorse” ????
If we suppose that these sources are correct, and that is a supposition. I would doubt the “endorse” part. See #9, #10, & #16 above.
The message I get when wearing my Tin Foil Hat is that you will see either high grades or perhaps multiple endorsements in races like Reid’s. It is possible that as the incumbent Reid’s name will appear in bold print.
I seriously doubt there will be a big effort on the part of the NRA to get out the Reid Vote.

M. Hammer who is IMO in a large part responsible for the happy state of the gun law/self defense situation in Florida is very careful to give Charlie Crist (Florida Governor, Independent, running fro US Senate) credit for everything he does right. He will without doubt rate an A+ from her when the time comes.
However, I will not vote for Crist unless the election sorts out to him and a Democrat. Nor do I particularly care how the NRA rates the race.

When it comes to elections the NRA does what they think best, power to them!
I vote for whom I think best as well.

 

[Bassamatic]

Well, I for one think all this talk of compromise is a bunch of bull crap. Especially when it pertains to the Second Amendment.

The left will never be satisfied on anything they had to compromise on. They will keep coming back and back and back again until they achieve their goal of taking away all our gun rights....forever. Just look at Chicago. They are busily passing new laws to deal with the recent SC decision. You can only have one gun, it must be unloaded, locked up and then probably buried ten feet down in your back yard.

The left will never be satisfied. Never. Yet we still have so many gun owners considering themselves fortunate to have "settled" on some issue with them believing that everything will be OK from here on out. It won't be.

I've read other threads on here about how Congress has left gun owners alone this last 18 months and therefore think that things will not be so bad with them. Crazy talk. The only reason they have left us alone is that have been too damn busy passing all their other liberal causes and simply don't want to rock the boat anymore than they have. Unless we make some dramatic changes in November I guarantee you they will come after our guns as soon as they think the time is right. By the way, we sure have seen a lot of compromise coming out of Washington over this last 18 months, haven't we?

Having said all that, I have been a lifetime member of the NRA since 1981 and will continue to support them with donations as much as I can...regardless of how often they piss me off. They still do a lot of good things....endorsing Harry Reid is just not one of them.

 

[redlevel]

Well, I for one think all this talk of compromise is a bunch of bull crap. Especially when it pertains to the Second Amendment.

You need to remember that the only governmental system that doesn't involve compromise is a dictatorship.

The reality of the situation in a legislative body is such that very often, unwillingness to compromise means that instead of part of your legislative preferences becoming law, none of your preferences become law.