NRA Board Members Told Not to Testify Against Kagan


PDA






bskillet
June 28, 2010, 12:27 PM
Story is available here (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/27/nra-discourages-board-members-from-testifying-against-kagan/).

Partial text of article:

NRA Discourages Board Members From Testifying Against Kagan

On the eve of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan -- and for the second time in two weeks -- the National Rifle Association (NRA) is under fire from conservatives.

According to RedState's Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative blogger, "internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association's management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA's board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues" during the Kagan hearings.

Continue reading. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/27/nra-discourages-board-members-from-testifying-against-kagan/)

I just joined the NRA about a month ago. I am going to send them a very strongly worded email, telling them I will not renew my membership next year if they do not change their ways. After the DISCLOSE disaster, it is now clear to me that they have been infiltrated by liberals and are closet supporters of the Obama-Pelosi agenda.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Board Members Told Not to Testify Against Kagan" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
auschip
June 28, 2010, 12:51 PM
"More likely, the NRA, which is heavily involved in lobbying in Washington, does not want board members representing themselves as speaking for the organization without its approval. And it's reasonable to assume that testifying in a Senate hearing against Kagan would be frowned upon more than simply writing a column that does not mention any affiliation with the gun group."

From the article.

TexasRifleman
June 28, 2010, 01:30 PM
Let me ask you 2 questions, and please answer them honestly, ignoring any NRA, etc biases.

Do you believe that Obama would nominate someone to the Supreme Court who had pro 2A leanings, no matter who they might be?

Do you believe that the current makeup of Congress could stop the confirmation of anyone Obama might nominate?

If you answer those honestly then why should the NRA expend political capital for a fight that cannot be won?

Politics is a dirty business. Favors, back room deals, it all happens. Save the deal making for times it matters.

Unfortunately, this one is a done deal no matter how much screaming and yelling there may be.

She is replacing Stevens. Go read Stevens in today's MacDonald opinion. You really think she could be any worse?

hso
June 28, 2010, 01:36 PM
Firstly, Kagan's approval to the Supreme Court is a foregone conclusion. There's literally nothing short of a smoking gun in her background that will stop it. By this afternoon she'll get Congressional approval.

Secondly, the NRA is an organization that has an official position that comes from the organization. No individual gets to speak for the NRA whether they're a board member or not.

Thirdly, railing against any nominee to the Supreme Court based on their political bias when there's no way to block their being passed on to the position is an absolute waste of time and only makes enemies when there's no return on the investment. As pointed out, any nominee put forward by the current President is going to have this president's bias. There are no surprises here except from the people that refuse to understand that some fights are won by not picking them.

mbt2001
June 28, 2010, 02:29 PM
I grow tired of the NRA bashing and conspiracy nonsense that some members have.

+1 everyone who has responded so far.

ArmedBear
June 28, 2010, 02:48 PM
From the article.

Oh, auschip, what sort of a person are you, who would actually READ the article before engaging in ignorant, gratuitous NRA-bashing?:cool:

auschip
June 28, 2010, 02:50 PM
what sort of a person are you, who would actually READ the article before engaging in ignorant, gratuitous NRA-bashing?

My bad, my handle flying techniques are a bit rusty. ;)

TexasRifleman
June 28, 2010, 02:52 PM
I grow tired of the NRA bashing and conspiracy nonsense that some members have.

It seems that a lot of people actually believe the media and the left when they claim that the NRA is all knowing and all powerful.

Wish that were the case, but it's not remotely true.

Saw a thread the other day where some guy was mad that NRA didn't introduce some new legislation :scrutiny:

mbt2001
June 28, 2010, 03:01 PM
Rifleman,

As has been the case now for years, I agree with you.

Mudinyeri
June 28, 2010, 03:30 PM
IIRC, the NRA just had one of their board members go "off message" a bit regarding the DISCLOSE Act. I'm guessing they're trying to prevent something similar here.

fireside44
July 17, 2010, 11:25 AM
I grow tired of the NRA bashing and conspiracy nonsense that some members have.

I feel your pain. I grew tired of watching them bilk decent gun owners of their hard earned money in exchange for selling out the 2nd amendment on a repeated basis.

alsaqr
July 17, 2010, 11:28 AM
Another hate the NRA thread is re-born.

fireside44
July 17, 2010, 11:30 AM
Another hate the NRA thread is re-born.

Can't imagine why.

Contact David Olofson, he should be able to tell you more about it.:uhoh:

alsaqr
July 17, 2010, 12:20 PM
I don't need to contact anyone to know that the NRA has gone on record as opposing the nomination of Kagan:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13980

Yep, another fine article from politicsdaily. This one originated at redstates and Erick Erickson. Erickson is a far outer and NRA hater.

According to RedState's Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative blogger, "internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association's management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA's board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues" during the Kagan hearings.

I have belonged to the NRA for over 50 years. Anyone who knows anything about the NRA nows that the NRA leadership works for the board of directors. Buck the board of directors and find yourself out of a job quick. This happened to an NRA executive vice president some time ago.

If this story were true it would be all over ABC, CBS NBC and CNN. The fact that the story is not all over the mainstream news media should tell the astute observer that it is all trash.

The stark fact is that the opposition in the US senate does not care enough about their gun owner constituents to filibuster the nomination of Kagan. Nine opposition party senators voted to confirm the rabidly anti-gun Sotomayor to SCOTUS. 6-10 of the suckers will also vote to confirm Kagan.

rscalzo
July 17, 2010, 12:43 PM
According to RedState's Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative blogger,

You have to love the internet. everyone, regardless of credibility automatically because a valid source of information....just because it was posted on the internet.

I don't blame the NRA for taking action. Without some sort of control, you would have literally a hundred varied and probably conflicting opinions coming from the organization. Speak as a private citizen with no mention of the NRA and I doubt they would have a problem.

Frank Ettin
July 17, 2010, 01:08 PM
...I have belonged to the NRA for over 50 years. Anyone who knows anything about the NRA nows that the NRA leadership works for the board of directors. Buck the board of directors and find yourself out of a job quick. This happened to an NRA executive vice president some time ago.... That's how it is in every corporation. It's basic to the corporate form. The board of directors is the top level of management -- the very top of the food chain. Staff doesn't tell the board of directors what to do. The board of directors tells staff what to do.

DT Guy
July 17, 2010, 01:42 PM
It's easy for some people to find 'philosophical' reasons to not send the NRA money. Hmmm....

Short story is that, like it or not, if there were no NRA, there would be no private ownership of firearms in the US. You'll never find an informed person who would contest that, IMHO. So if you don't agree with everything they do, fine-but they're the reason we haven't yet lost, and the primary reason we're sometimes winning now.


Larry

DeepSouth
July 17, 2010, 02:01 PM
^^^^^^^^

I've never heard it put better than that.

fireside44
July 17, 2010, 02:31 PM
Short story is that, like it or not, if there were no NRA, there would be no private ownership of firearms in the US.

This kind of thinking is what keeps snake oil salesmen like the NRA in business.

You'll never find an informed person who would contest that, IMHO.

The key phrase was "In my honest OPINION".

So if you don't agree with everything they do, fine-but they're the reason we haven't yet lost

1986 ring a bell? During the "conservative" Reagan administration no less. Brady bill anyone?

and the primary reason we're sometimes winning now.

Play both sides of the coin and you win regardless. Not exactly a brand new tactic.

Deltaboy
July 17, 2010, 03:23 PM
I have no fears boys we are trading 1 liberal for a liberal. Lets use our time and energy to toss the rascels out in Nov. and handicap OB for the rest of his term.

JohnKSa
July 17, 2010, 03:38 PM
National Rifle Association's management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA's board they are prohibited...Isn't the NRA management team appointed by the board of directors? How would the appointees prohibit the appointers from doing anything they didn't want to?

As far as not testifying (and assuming the story is true) if the NRA has found a way to negotiate something of value in return for not testifying in a proceedings with a foregone conclusion then that's pretty smart tactics.Contact David Olofson, he should be able to tell you more about it.If you could get him to give you the straight story like he did over on arfcom before he was found guilty in his most recent scrape with the law then he could, indeed, tell you all about it. I especially liked his "strategy", which he claimed to have used before in his other court cases, of telling the federal government that they had no jurisdiction in the matter.

I'm actually pretty pleased that the NRA is careful which cases it throws its support behind. Supporting the Olofson case would have been an abysmally poor use of NRA funds and effort.

cassandrasdaddy
July 17, 2010, 04:52 PM
wait!? is olofson trying to parley his screw up into a career as an activist? someone needs to tell him hes not the next randy weaver.

alsaqr
July 17, 2010, 05:45 PM
What in hades does the NRA have to do with Olofson? According to the testimony of the man he loaned the rifle to; Olofson made that AR-15 into a full auto weapon. Then Olofson was dumb enough to loan that gun to his friend who took it to a public range and fired it full auto.

You sound like your are mad that the NRA did not break their bank to defend Olofson? BTW: The SCOTUS refused to hear the Olofson "case".

http://lagniappeslair.blogspot.com/2008/07/david-olofsons-off-to-jail-and-suns.html

First, stop telling us that he was a National Guard Drill Instructor, as if that somehow gives him credibility. Fact is, he has prior gun-related misdemeanor convictions and a long history of being a deadbeat and he's neither the saint nor the "career soldier" that you guys claim he is.

fireside44
July 17, 2010, 06:45 PM
According to the testimony of the man he loaned the rifle to;

You mean the new found "informant" aka the guy caught shooting the "machine gun" who was paid an undisclosed sum of money and probably saved his own skin from hanging in club fed in the process?

Yeah, his testimony.

Olofson made that AR-15 into a full auto weapon.

Olofson wasn't the individual who was caught firing the rifle in "full auto" mode aka malfunction. Sounds like you are kind of sketchy on his case details. We could go in depth into his railroading but it's off topic and more than likely a waste of finger grease on my part.

Let's just say it's all fun and games until some self important "authority" hears two reports that sound a hair to close together for their comfort.

Supporting the Olofson case would have been an abysmally poor use of NRA funds and effort.

Well said. With their stellar track record I'm surprised they didn't jump all over it. If they were as good at their jobs as the ATF every man could have a pallet in every weapons cache and a machine gun in every safe.

Fact of the matter is this is the age of information and nobody with a computer has an excuse for not realizing there are other gun rights organizations out there more worthy of your money.

That's my two cents anyhow.

alsaqr
July 17, 2010, 07:59 PM
I am well versed on Mr. Olofson and his AR-15. Olofson loaned the gun to his neighbor who fired the gun on full auto at a public range. Not surprisingly, he was arrested. Olofson had two prior gun-related offenses. I will shed no tears for Mr. Olofson. The NRA was smart to not get involved in this case.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/17/ldtw.01.html

TUCKER: The sentence was consistent with what the prosecution wanted. A sentence they argued that Olofson deserved. The assistant U.S. attorney Gregory (Handstadt) noted that Olofson had two prior gun charges on his record and he does. But he doesn't have any gun convictions. Both charges concerned Olofson carrying guns in public. The first incident was at a park. The charge was dismissed. The second was a complaint that he was carrying a gun while trick-or- treating with his children. That complaint resulted in a conviction for disorderly conduct. Olofson's lawyers admitted that he had shown bad judgment but also noted that the behavior was within the law because in Wisconsin a person can openly carry a gun.

JohnKSa
July 17, 2010, 08:00 PM
Olofson wasn't the individual who was caught firing the rifle in "full auto" mode aka malfunction.I'm trying to decide why you think that's relevant.

1. No one here said he did.
2. He wasn't prosecuted for firing the gun in full auto. He was prosecuted for illegally modifying the gun and illegally transferring it to someone else.Sounds like you are kind of sketchy on his case details. We could go in depth into his railroading...No, it sounds like you're the one who is sketchy on the details of the situation. I followed Olofson's thread on arfcom. He never said he was innocent. His whole strategy was that he was going to tell the judge that the feds had no jurisdiction and get his case dismissed.

In other words, he didn't dispute what he had done, he just claimed that the laws against it didn't apply to him. Not surprising. His track record made it plain this wasn't the first time that he had made the decision to break a law because he didn't think it applied to him. He even discussed some of his previous court "experiences" on the thread over at arfcom.With their stellar track record I'm surprised they didn't jump all over it.Initially you started by complaining because the NRA didn't step in. Now you're saying that you're surprised that they didn't because they're so incompetent it would make sense for them to take on such an ill-advised challenge. Basically agreeing with me that it would have been ridiculous for them to try to help Olofson.

The bottom line is obvious. You're going to be unhappy with the NRA no matter what they do or don't do. You're unhappy that they didn't help Olofson even though you obviously agree it would have been a really bad waste of funds/resources if they had. :rolleyes:

mljdeckard
July 17, 2010, 08:38 PM
I'm absolutely with TR and HSO. I don't want the NRA spending my money on a futile fight with the elections coming up this fall.

If you guys know so much about how to work this system, YOU go to Washington and try to do it yourself. I am not so skilled. I am perfectly willing to pay the NRA to do it for me, and I am glad they do it so well and cost effectively. I not only maintain my membership, when I buy something from Midway or Brownell's, I donate a bit there too.

Frank Ettin
July 17, 2010, 08:46 PM
...1986 ring a bell? During the "conservative" Reagan administration no less. Brady bill anyone?...Are you suggesting that the NRA is responsible for the passage of the Brady Bill? Are you suggesting that if it were not for the NRA somehow the Brady Bill would have failed passage? Are you suggesting that some other organization could have successfully killed the Brady Bill?

And your dates are wrong. While the Brady Bill was introduced during the Reagan administration, massive opposition, including considerable lobbying by the NRA, managed to stall it. It wasn't actually enacted until the Clinton administration, and the bill was signed by Clinton in 1993, almost 5 years after Reagan left office. And NRA efforts at least helped include a provision in the Bill calling for the five day waiting period to be replaced by the current instant check system.

...Olofson wasn't the individual who was caught firing the rifle in "full auto" ... We could go in depth into his railroading...He did, however, have his day in court and full opportunity to try to make his case/defeat the government's case, both at trial and on appeal. He lost.

hso
July 17, 2010, 09:05 PM
This has wandered far from the original post, now irrelevant since the NRA has started an effort to stop the appointment.

Read the New York Times article on all the political "sausage making" the NRA is doing "outside" of it's declared 2A scope. The New York Times makes a better argument for the NRA while being opposed to them than most anyone.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Board Members Told Not to Testify Against Kagan" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!