NRA Gag Order Angers Membership


PDA






arcticap
June 29, 2010, 02:14 PM
The NRA has apparently angered many of its members by enacting a gag order prohibiting its Board from testifying against SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan. The gag order is alleged to be the result of a deal to carve out an exception for the NRA from the proposed Disclose Act. Now many NRA members are up in arms and threatening to terminate their membership.

Read the comments:

NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/27/nra-issues-gag-order-to-its-board-members-on-elena-kagan/

Related:

NRA chief should be fired

http://tdn.com/news/opinion/article_0dc53e26-8300-11df-94dc-001cc4c03286.html

And here’s John Boehner’s response: (R, OH)

http://thomasjeffersonclubblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/murphy-comes-down-on-the-side-of-the-unions-surprise/

Recent coverage:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Gag Order Angers Membership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ConstitutionCowboy
June 29, 2010, 02:48 PM
... 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 Elena Kagan confirmation hearings.

Who the :cuss: is the NRA's management team, and who are they to dictate ANYTHING to the Board of Directors? Can anyone here remember voting for a management team for the NRA? Why do we have a board of directors in the first place if there is what appears now to be an autonomous "management team"?

:cuss: Where is the bottom of this pile of crap and how do we cinch up the sphincter an kick the bums out? :fire:

Woody

Fremmer
June 29, 2010, 03:01 PM
Testifying about Second Amendment issues? Why would they be testifying about anything, and what makes you think that the demos who control the judiciary committee would allow them to testify?

There's no need for NRA board members to testify. Kagan's hatred for the second amendment is well known based on her actions while working for the Clintons. The Republicans can grill her about that without any help from NRA board members and, frankly, that is their job.

So it is not the NRA's fault. There's no "gag" order, because none of the board members are ever going to be permitted to testify. And the testimony of NRA board members wouldn't do anything, anyway. The Republicans can either a) fillibuster her nomination (which they won't do because they are too wussy to do it), or b) ask her a bunch of questions to receive the "correct" scripted response from Kagan, then vote against her, and watch as she is confirmed by the majority of democrats in the Senate.

And that's what sucks about being a minority party, especially when the leaders of the minority party are too limp-wristed to actually fillibuster a nomination. That isn't the NRA's fault.

HexHead
June 29, 2010, 03:02 PM
What a load of crap. Since when are anyone other than Senators allowed to question the SCOTUS nominee? I don't recall outside groups being allowed to "testify" during confirmation hearings in the past.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2010, 03:06 PM
No it doesn't anger members. Not members who understand how all of this works.

Why do NRA members think the NRA should get involved in this?

There is nothing the NRA or any other group can do to stop her appointment so why expend the political capital on a losing fight?

Save it for something important.

As for the gag order, it's not uncommon for board members of organizations to be asked to keep their mouths shut in cases where it might be seen they are speaking for that organization.

Some of you need to do a little more research on how the world works before freaking out.

ArmedBear
June 29, 2010, 03:07 PM
who are they to dictate ANYTHING to the Board of Directors?

They can dictate whether someone on the Board says or does something in the name of the NRA. That is what this is really about. It's either written poorly, or it's disingenuous.

Has anyone else here ever BEEN on the Board of Directors of an organization?

Lovesbeer99
June 29, 2010, 03:08 PM
So where did this "News" come from? Is this a hoax or is this just a very big twist on a smaller story?

Fremmer
June 29, 2010, 03:08 PM
Well, the NRA needs to completely revise the Senate rules so that NRA board members can testify during hearings, control the anti-gun President to force him to nominate someone who (actually has some litigating experience) doesn't hate the Second Amendment, and control the anti-gun democrat majority and force them to vote against an anti-gun nominee.

Look, the democrats would never allow the Republicans to hold a vote on someone who has never tried a case to a jury, who has never been a judge, and who has been in academia her entire life; they would scream "unqualified!!!" over and over, and then fillibuster her nomination. But the Republicans are too weak and limp-wristed to fillibuster, so I guess we'll go through the motions (dog and pony show) before she's confirmed by the majority of democrats in the Senate. :rolleyes: But this isn't the NRA's fault.

CoRoMo
June 29, 2010, 03:09 PM
As if there was a snowball's chance of keeping her off the bench.

I agree with Woody, but there's no way she's going to be blocked.

ArmedBear
June 29, 2010, 03:12 PM
Is this a hoax or is this just a very big twist on a smaller story?

It's not a hoax AFAIK. It's a poorly written, or disingenuous, report about a true story.

I have no doubt that the NRA leadership told Board members not to make any statements in the NRA's name about Elana Kagan. That hardly means that Tom Selleck can't go on Scarborough Country in a Stetson and say, "I don't think Kagan will make a good Justice." It means he has been instructed not to say, "The NRA opposes Kagan."

The NRA leadership -- right or wrong -- decided not to use up the NRA's political capital on Kagan's nomination. That's their strategic and tactical judgment to make.

Like I said, has anyone else here ever been on a Board of Directors, or occupied any post whatsoever in any club? It is not at all unusual for a club's leadership to decide how to respond to a political issue.

Think press release: "The West Podunk Mountain Biking Club opposes the trail closure between I-69 and Highway 420 in the Lizardback National Forest and wishes to work with the Rangers and other groups to improve trail use rules" vs. a board member who says to a TV reporter: "I think that the National Forest Rangers are a bunch of goddamn fascists! They should all go stick their closure signs up their butts!" The club wouldn't want that board member speaking in the club's name, or mention the club's name, even if that's the general feeling among the members, right? It would be counterproductive, in the view of the club's leadership.

This is a similar deal. Sober heads considering political goals have decided how to proceed. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but they have the job of trying to do what they think is best.

JohnBT
June 29, 2010, 03:59 PM
Imagine that, there are NRA haters in the world. Is this the best they can do for a "news" story? I guess so. All organizations have rules about public statements, even the government. A bunch of fringe links are posted and at least one of them is completely off topic.


"And here’s John Boehner’s response: (R, OH)

http://thomasjeffersonclubblog.wordp...ions-surprise/"

There is barely a mention of the NRA and nothing about the Board of Directors. I don't get it.

John

cassandrasdaddy
June 29, 2010, 04:05 PM
Some of you need to do a little more research on how the world works before freaking out.


much wisdom there

dc.fireman
June 29, 2010, 04:09 PM
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/27/nra-discourages-board-members-from-testifying-against-kagan/

I found this, just by searching :"NRA Executive Board Members". I gotta admit, I hate underhanded politics as much as anyone (especially living so close to the heart of it), but I don't see her confirmation being blocked any more than Sotomayor's was blocked. I sincerely hope that some of these mistakes can be corrected in the mid-terms in November.

Robert
June 29, 2010, 04:13 PM
When posting a link it is common courtesy to provide some idea of what you are linking to. Or even better a piece of the actual article in the link.
Edit: Thanks!

TX1911fan
June 29, 2010, 04:13 PM
The only "source" that mentions the gag order is from a hysterical website. The rest don't mention it at all. The "gag order" is crap, but even if it's not, it makes sense to me. Why piss of a justice who will be confirmed anyway. It's not the NRA's job, it's the Senators' jobs and I'm sure they'll do it just fine. This sounds like GOA trying to increase membership again. I'm really starting to dislike those guys. If you guys here hate the NRA so much, then don't join. But you should be thanking your lucky stars they are around. WHO do you think was a major funding source for both Heller and McDonald?

kingpin008
June 29, 2010, 04:20 PM
Some of you need to do a little more research on how the world works before freaking out.

But..but...I GOT IT IN AN EMAIL, IT MUST BE TRUE!

Why you gotta go and spoil their fun, Rifleman?

GEM
June 29, 2010, 04:28 PM
Here's a take on it.

Original post on: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=414824

Allow me to quote a letter I received from an NRA board member, refuting this claim.

"NRA Members of New York,

There are a myriad of rumors regarding the NRA cluttering the internet but one in particular is causing me personal anguish. That rumor reports that the NRA staff has issued a gag order to the NRA Board of Directors regarding comments on the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court. Let me explain something about the structure of the NRA; authority to do anything within the NRA comes from you the members of the NRA. That authority is delegated to your elected Board of Directors who in turn elects officers and formulate policy that is then issued to the Executive Vice President/CEO who then turns that policy into action through the professional staff. Gag orders for the Board of Directors do not exist.

Friends; those of you close to me should know by now that telling me I can’t speak up on an issue of vital importance to the 2nd Amendment is going to get you into a war. I spoke vociferously regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; in fact I joined a number of national 2nd Amendment leaders protesting the appointment and urging through a nationally published letter she not be confirmed. I did that because of her ties to New York State and the position she took, on then recent, anti 2nd Amendment decisions. I have not taken a position on Elena Kagen’s nomination to the Supreme Court because I find it absurd that anyone with no judicial experience would be nominated to the Supreme Court and fervently hope the Republican Senators will block this nomination.

The 2nd Amendment protects all the rest. Why would the NRA, the protector of the 2nd Amendment, attempt to limit the 1st Amendment rights of its’ own Board of Directors? It does not but if you think the Board members you voted for could be gagged then you voted for the wrong guys.

Tom King

NRA Board of Directors

President

NYS Rifle & Pistol Association"

killchain
June 29, 2010, 04:37 PM
...WHO do you think was a major funding source for both Heller and McDonald?

The Second Amendment Foundation.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2010, 04:40 PM
The Second Amendment Foundation.

Cite your sources for funding by SAF, NRA, Gura personally etc please.

Here I am, ruining all the fun again asking for facts.

killchain
June 29, 2010, 04:43 PM
Cite your sources for funding by SAF, NRA, Gura personally etc please.

Here I am, ruining all the fun again asking for facts.

http://www.saf.org/

"SAF Lawsuit Challenging Chicago's Handgun Ban Heard by Supreme Court"

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2010, 04:46 PM
I don't see anything there showing SAF was the major funding for the case.

TX1911fan
June 29, 2010, 04:47 PM
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=11949

Nothing here says the NRA is not paying for the appeal itself, so its safe to assume they are paying for it.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13958

As a party to the case, they would have incurred substantial expense.

hso
June 29, 2010, 04:47 PM
There certainly no reliable source on this and there's no internal logic. A court issues "gag orders" not organizations. Board members only speak for the organization when they're officially representing the organization position. They certainly can act as independent citizens, though. The only problem is that outside "testimony" from outside groups isn't possible during these hearings and the idea that anyone "gagged" would have had any participation is just goofy.

The whole rumor falls apart upon logical examination, but that seems to be beyond too many people.

***

they would scream "unqualified!!!"

They did when Harriet Miers was nominated during the previous administration, but it was other issues about qualifications that caused her to withdraw.

killchain
June 29, 2010, 04:48 PM
I don't see anything there showing SAF was the major funding for the case.

So prove me wrong.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2010, 04:48 PM
So prove me wrong.

That's not how it works. You have made a statement saying that NRA was not a major funding source for the case, but SAF was. You implied that in your post.

You are the one who needs to offer proof, or simply admit that you don't really know for sure. I don't believe it's public information about the breakdown of funding the case.

hso
June 29, 2010, 04:50 PM
Side bars need to go to PMs or start another thread of their own.

Libertarian
June 29, 2010, 04:52 PM
From what I have seen watching the NRA in action over the years is that they only jump in and try to take over a case once it looks like it is a sure thing. They did this in Miller and they did this in McDonald. They've done this in many other cases that I can not remember offhand at the moment.

I've been a life member for over 12 years and an annual member for several decades before that. I am sick of the NRA compromising away my rights. I am sick of the NRA trying to appear "reasonable" to the gun grabbers as if that will make them liked or listened to by the enemy. IMHO the downward spiral of the NRA began soon after La Pierre became King for life.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2010, 05:01 PM
They did this in Miller

I assume you meant Heller here, not Miller. Miller was in 1939.

As for Heller, that's been talked about before with much debate, no need to rehash it. Heller was a calculated risk. NRA took the too conservative approach though, without a doubt.

Libertarian
June 29, 2010, 05:06 PM
Sorry, brain fart. Yes, Heller.

Although they were around for Miller and could have joined in. After all, the firearm in question was undeniably a military use weapon.

Walkalong
June 29, 2010, 05:07 PM
Two posts. Did you sign up just to bash the NRA "Libertarian"? We expect that from posers, but not from true freedom loving folks.

The NRA is the best thing going for gun rights, whether we agree with everything they do/say or not. There seem to be many people whos main goal is to discredit and destroy them. Some of them pretend to be gun folks who belong to the NRA, but "just can't support them anymore".

Rant off, and apologies if I am wrong. ;)

ArfinGreebly
June 29, 2010, 05:14 PM
Y'know, some of y'all need to take a step back and breathe.

As has been pointed out, "gag orders" come from courts and from elected officials having that scope of power.

Further, I see that everyone has forgotten to mention that the board of Boeing will not be on hand to testify either -- which clearly shows there's some kind of conspiracy here.

In fact, I have a long list of corporations and associations whose board members will not be invited to testify. Like all of them.

Some of you are easily stampeded.

Our opposition is really good at throwing "chaff" to distract us from seeing what really requires our attention. It's actually a policy with them: isolate & demonize.

They're doing their best to isolate the NRA and drive a wedge between it and its membership, as well as other organizations that should be its allies.

I would invite you not to take the bait.

Instead of making them your target (and thus validating our opponents' countermeasures), it will be orders of magnitude more effective if you 1) make your voice heard in D.C., 2) make your voice heard in your state, 3) isolate the actual opposition and turn your energies on them.

The NRA is the wrong target.

You need to engage the right target.

SSN Vet
June 29, 2010, 05:23 PM
Let's see....

Heller... win

McDonnald... win

I think the NRA knows how to play the game to win and strategizes well enough.

Face up to the facts my friends... The Dems hold the Whitehouse, senate and house of reps. and the "limp wristed" republicans don't have the sack that they did back when Nute led the charge for the "Republican revolution"....

Obamma is going to replace a liberal justice with another liberal justice and leave us hanging on a thin string of 5:4 votes for some time.

The mid terms are coming.... save your engergy and make sure you get your arse out there and pull the right levers in November.

I'd honeslty like to know how many on this fine forum were duped into voting for Obamma in '08

Libertarian
June 29, 2010, 05:34 PM
No Walkalong. I joined on December 24, 2002 and made a post then promptly forgot the link. I got a PM from the site and thought I'd come back and take a look. The top story was this one and I have my own thoughts on it, so I posted.

How many posts does one need before one can have a strong opinion that is counter to some others?

Libertarian
June 29, 2010, 05:44 PM
Let's see....

Heller... win

McDonnald... win

I think the NRA knows how to play the game to win and strategizes well enough.
Yet, in neither case was the NRA on board from the beginning. IIRC they refused to join Heller until it looked like it was a sure thing. Then they had bragging rights. Had it looked like a loser, they wouldn't have joined and been able to say "See? We knew we shouldn't waste our time and money!"

I'm sorry if this offends some of you. I just think that NRA has lost its way and is no longer responsive to the less compromising membership. They pander to the sporting gun and expensive O/U owners. When was the last time you saw a director hold up an EBR at a convention and say "From my cold dead hands!" Never in my memory. Being too open about support for EBRs for civilians looks bad to the Bradys and others. (Unfortunately, unless the NRA went totally anti-gun, the anti-gunners will never see them as reasonable. "Reasonable" when it comes to gun laws is code for a total ban.)

In any case, I stopped supporting them a while back and only donate to GOA now.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2010, 05:49 PM
In any case, I stopped supporting them a while back and only donate to GOA now.

An organization that has never been credited with any successful lobbying or legislative change?

I'm a GOA member too, but let's be honest about all of the pro 2A groups and what they can and cannot do.

NRA
SAF
GOA

In order of effectiveness that would be hard to argue I think.

ArmedBear
June 29, 2010, 06:18 PM
Effectiveness ranking?

NRA in politics
SAF in the courts
GOA nowhere

GOA exists to collect money for itself, and undermine the NRA.

If you're in a battle, the guy who spends all his time shooting at your ally is not your ally. He's your enemy.

TX1911fan
June 29, 2010, 06:26 PM
ArmedBear +infinity. Thank you.

arcticap
June 29, 2010, 07:35 PM
While I understand that technically it's not truly a "gag order", the article cited in post #13 by dc.fireman corroborates the schism that has developed between some of the NRA Board and the Executive Director of NRA-ILA.
That article is titled:

NRA Discourages Board Members From Testifying Against Kagan

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

Of three NRA board members I contacted, only one confirmed "explicitly and directly" receiving any sort of directive that could be interpreted as a "gag order" regarding Kagan. But all three sources confirmed that NRA board members actively opposed to Sotomayor's confirmation have been severely chastised "to the degree that they would not speak out against Kagan" (as one board member – who requested anonymity – told me)....

19&41
June 29, 2010, 08:05 PM
Out of curiosity, when have the NRA board of directors been called to testify in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing? This is the second red herring issue I have seen involving the NRA in two weeks. First the non issue involving the DISCLOSE act, now this.

Fremmer
June 29, 2010, 08:10 PM
Welcome to the GOA, 19&41. This is their purpose. Attack the NRA. Produce no substantive lobbying results. Whine and complain about the NRA. Lather, rinse, repeat.......

alsaqr
June 29, 2010, 08:24 PM
Out of curiosity, when have the NRA board of directors been called to testify in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing? This is the second red herring issue I have seen involving the NRA in two weeks. First the non issue involving the DISCLOSE act, now this.

GOA exists to collect money for itself, and undermine the NRA.

If you're in a battle, the guy who spends all his time shooting at your ally is not your ally. He's your enemy.


Excellent!!!!

Strange that all of this stuff is coming from places like redstates and politicsdaily. If the NRA had actually tried to "gag" board members it would be all over the mainstream media. The fact that it is not all over the mainstream media tells me that it is disingenuous at best and a bold faced lie at worst.

The GOA is a very small gun rights wannabe organization that has no clout in congress or anywhere else. The GOA exists to bash the NRA. NRA board members are elected by rank and file NRA members. No one in the NRA can "gag" a board member.

This NRA board member says it never happened:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=156&t=1058684

RAF......

Brother, I am on the NRA BoD.......

This is nonsense and untrue.

Joe

stickhauler
June 29, 2010, 08:50 PM
What's laughable to me is that the annual or life membership dues do not go to fighting 2nd amendment issues anyway, those funds come from members who donate above and beyond their membership dues to support the fight. But as soon as someone sees even a biased report claiming the NRA screwed the pooch on some issue, we see the replies that "I'm quitting" immediately. My guess is that those who do so weren't really much of a benefit to the cause anyway, and we'll not miss their continued "support" too much.

And I'd venture to say many aren't even truly NRA members anyway, but really like to bitch about anything they can find.

arcticap
June 29, 2010, 09:27 PM
It does seem that John Boehner (R,Ohio) went out of his way to criticize the NRA leadership, and NRA members are also a part of his loyal conservative constituency. So by criticizing the NRA he's taking a risk if his criticism is considered to be wrong or unwarranted.

... The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill. The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don’t care about protecting the First Amendment. That’s very disappointing.

http://johnboehner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=192240

alsaqr
June 29, 2010, 10:18 PM
If John Boehner suddenly cares so much about the First Amendment then I suggest that he join the ACLU. The NRA is a Second Amendment advocacy group.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 29, 2010, 10:22 PM
Yet, in neither case was the NRA on board from the beginning. IIRC they refused to join Heller until it looked like it was a sure thing. Then they had bragging rights. Had it looked like a loser, they wouldn't have joined and been able to say "See? We knew we shouldn't waste our time and money!"

It has been the same with the McDonald v. Chicago case. The case made it all the way to a grant of cert and the NRA scrambled in and petitioned the Court for some of Alan Gura's time at oral - though in retrospect, the Court having rejected cert for NRA v. Chicago did include the question of due process which the NRA wished to pursue.

It will remain a mystery as to whether the NRA's involvement pushed or "allowed" the Court to lean toward due process and away from privileges or immunities. Thank Heaven for Justice Thomas, though, and his understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, and his willingness to stand up for what's right. (This is not to say that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy went the wrong way, or were weak - due process is as much a part of the Fourteenth Amendment as is privileges or immunities. It's just that privileges or immunities carries so much more weight.)


As for the funding, it's pretty much common knowledge that the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of Otis McDonald and the three other Chicago residents in the case. That said, I'm sure the NRA paid a significant amount for their case as far as it went, and for Paul Clement's time in McDonald.

As for the Board of Directors of the NRA appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and testifying in Kagan's hearings, yes, we know that won't happen. But being told not to speak out about her IS a gag order and would prevent our Board members to exercise their influence over the Senators who will all get to vote yea or nay if she passes out of committee - which is likely - and who would think this appointee will not have a detrimental effect on each and every case concerning the RKBA and the Second Amendment? If there is one iota of truth to this ...

How many here caught Wayne LaPierre on Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk"? He fell into lawyerese when Tom had him cornered. Right when honesty would have been the right tack, off he went. Go to the archives at Tom's website (http://guntalk.libsyn.com/), and download hour two of June 20, 2010, labeled "Guntalk 2010-06-20 Part B" and listen for yourself. I, for one, am disappointed in Wayne's lack of candor - especially to the folks he works for!

None of this would be happening if there weren't a modicum of truth to it. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify". Lately, I've had to lean heavily on the verify, and I don't like what I perceive to be.

So, again I ask the NRA Board of Directors, and the "Executive Committee?" for their voting records so I may make informed decisions at election time. For now, something smells fishy and it ain't the chicken.

I wonder why there hasn't been a refutation of this published by the NRA yet.

Woody

JohnBT
June 29, 2010, 10:27 PM
This needs to be reposted at least 3x per page.


"Quote:
RAF......

Brother, I am on the NRA BoD.......

This is nonsense and untrue.

Joe"

1911Tuner
June 29, 2010, 10:32 PM
If John Boehner suddenly cares so much about the First Amendment then I suggest that he join the ACLU. The NRA is a Second Amendment advocacy group.

I have to agree. The NRA has enough on its plate without taking on 1A issues. That's a matter for the ACLU...and of course, the voting public.

alsaqr
June 29, 2010, 11:03 PM
The NRA staff cannot tell the NRA BOD to do anything. The staff, including LaPierre, works for the NRA BOD.

This stuff is a malicious lie designed to stir up discontent. It is being spread by dedicated NRA haters.

From a closed thread on another website:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=414824

"NRA Members of New York,

There are a myriad of rumors regarding the NRA cluttering the internet but one in particular is causing me personal anguish. That rumor reports that the NRA staff has issued a gag order to the NRA Board of Directors regarding comments on the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court. Let me explain something about the structure of the NRA; authority to do anything within the NRA comes from you the members of the NRA. That authority is delegated to your elected Board of Directors who in turn elects officers and formulate policy that is then issued to the Executive Vice President/CEO who then turns that policy into action through the professional staff. Gag orders for the Board of Directors do not exist.

Friends; those of you close to me should know by now that telling me I can’t speak up on an issue of vital importance to the 2nd Amendment is going to get you into a war. I spoke vociferously regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; in fact I joined a number of national 2nd Amendment leaders protesting the appointment and urging through a nationally published letter she not be confirmed. I did that because of her ties to New York State and the position she took, on then recent, anti 2nd Amendment decisions. I have not taken a position on Elena Kagen’s nomination to the Supreme Court because I find it absurd that anyone with no judicial experience would be nominated to the Supreme Court and fervently hope the Republican Senators will block this nomination.

The 2nd Amendment protects all the rest. Why would the NRA, the protector of the 2nd Amendment, attempt to limit the 1st Amendment rights of its’ own Board of Directors? It does not but if you think the Board members you voted for could be gagged then you voted for the wrong guys.

Tom King

NRA Board of Directors

President

cassandrasdaddy
June 29, 2010, 11:33 PM
GOA exists to collect money for the professional lobbyist who runs it

dc.fireman
June 30, 2010, 12:07 AM
I have to agree. The NRA has enough on its plate without taking on 1A issues. That's a matter for the ACLU...and of course, the voting public.

The NRA initially backed the Supreme Court decision.

“This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre in a statement on Jan. 21. “This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.

On May 26, the NRA had announced opposition to the bill as “intimidating speech,” but dropped opposition after the carveout.

from this article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0618/Did-Democrats-deal-with-the-NRA-kill-campaign-finance-reform

mbt2001
June 30, 2010, 01:19 PM
The fact that the anti-gun idiots specifically hate the and fear the NRA is reason enough to be a member of that organization. I am a member of the NRA and GOA. I encourage all of you to do likewise. Don't neglect the state RKBA organizations, because the states have a lot of swing, a little less now, but there you go.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 30, 2010, 06:42 PM
Inane babble. I don't know how familiar people are with corporate structure; but the Board of Directors is the body responsible for appointing Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and others to their positions. When is the last time you saw General Electric or Boeing's CEO dictate orders to the Board of Directors? No different at the NRA.

This is just Erick Erickson at Redstate pitching a fit again because he would like to see NRA-supporting Democrats squashed in the November elections by being forced to choose between their party's Supreme Court nominee and an NRA record vote. The NRA isn't obliging him on that (or on the DISCLOSE Act) because they recognize that you can't advance the Second Amendment by tying it to a single political party.

That is what this inane squawking is all about and it is what the previous complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are all about. Redstate wants the NRA to fall on its sword for conservative causes unrelated to the Second Amendment and not suprisingly, the NRA isn't going for it.

Prion
June 30, 2010, 06:47 PM
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!!!!!" -Chicken Little

alsaqr
June 30, 2010, 07:15 PM
What Bartholomew Roberts said.

Twice in my lifetime i've had to defend my family and myself against gun armed home invaders. My Second Amendment right is the most precious right there is. Political hacks on both sides of the aisle in DC would love to take away my right to defend myself and mine.

This 50 year+ NRA member could care less that the staunch pro-gun politician is a fire breathing Baptist preacher in the mold of John Brown or a lesbian Wiccan.

The anti-gunners are laughing their rears off as gunowners regurgitate hate mail aimed at the NRA. :cuss:

JohnBT
July 1, 2010, 02:13 PM
"This is just Erick Erickson at Redstate pitching a fit"

He is so full of it that I can't imagine why anybody reads his silliness. I suppose there's no accounting for taste. Or lack of it.

TX1911fan
July 1, 2010, 05:54 PM
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/elena.kagan.confirmation.2.1783230.html

Interesting that the NRA itself is opposing Kagan. I guess they wanted to keep all the glory to itself so that the Board Members didn't get it? Or maybe the BS about a gag order was just that, BS.

JohnBT
July 1, 2010, 06:07 PM
Maybe?

Have you read any of this thread?

ArmedBear
July 1, 2010, 06:10 PM
Yeah, if you're going to be silent about Kagan, I'd wildly guess that the front page of the Wall Street Journal On-line is not the best place to do it...

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

As of 3:00 MDT, it's front and center: NRA: Kagan 'Should Not Serve on Any Court'

stickhauler
July 2, 2010, 02:32 AM
It does seem that John Boehner (R,Ohio) went out of his way to criticize the NRA leadership, and NRA members are also a part of his loyal conservative constituency. So by criticizing the NRA he's taking a risk if his criticism is considered to be wrong or unwarranted.

I live in Ohio, matter of fact in the neighboring congressional district to Mr. Boehner. John says a lot of things, sometimes he even gets lucky and doesn't stick his foot into his mouth clear up to his crotch. I'll give him credit, he doesn't say as many truly stupid things as the VP does, but he's a close second on that list.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 2, 2010, 12:54 PM
From Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA, June 30, 2010 (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13972)

... I sent an e-mail to NRA board members and staff stating that with the critical case of McDonald v. Chicago still pending before the Court, “it is very important that NRA not comment on Justice Stevens nor engage in speculation on potential successors.”

Similarly, when the President nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Court in May, I sent a message to the NRA Board pointing out her lack of a judicial record; noting that NRA-ILA was reviewing all available information; and stating that “it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.”... (Emphasis Added)

OK. He didn't use the word "gag"...

Woody

ArmedBear
July 2, 2010, 02:08 PM
it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.

This sentence sounds to me like, "We need to be grownups, keep our heads out <...>, and make sure we know what we're talking about before we go off."

Now I've seen and heard a lot of people here who seem to advocate:

1. Being childish
2. Shoving our heads up <...>
3. Going off about things we don't know about.

Now maybe you might find doing that amusing, but it's not very smart. In fact, it's about as stupid as one could possibly be.

<...Insult removed...> It sounds that way. I am an NRA member who LIKES that the NRA is not giving sound bites to the enemy, making us look foolish, and squandering political capital. There are things about the NRA that I don't like, but a policy of not speaking out before gathering information is not one of them!

Let me make this clear: someone who <...Insult removed...> gives fodder to the enemy, is NOT on my side. <...>

Chris Cox doesn't want the NRA's efforts -- imperfect though they may be -- to be sabotaged by people who think they're on the same side. If that's a "gag order", so be it. <...Low Roadism removed...> Alan Gura is on our side, no matter what I think of his giving away potential NFA challenges in Heller. Chris Cox is on our side, no matter how I feel about the NRA's political game-playing. Larry Pratt will be on our side the moment he is a net positive for RKBA, but not while he's doing nothing but attacking the NRA. I totally disagree that we should be NRA and GOA members. Support efforts in the courts, and in politics. SAF, NRA, and other groups do this, however imperfectly. GOA merely funnels money away from them.

cassandrasdaddy
July 2, 2010, 02:35 PM
armed bear just said what i was thinking

ConstitutionCowboy
July 2, 2010, 08:20 PM
Armed Bear

I, too, am an NRA member. Maybe if the NRA was a little more forthcoming to its members - you know, like posting messages to the hoi poloi about the goings-on - then there wouldn't be so much vocal dissent. The handling of the DISCLOSE Act certainly was a bust!

In this case, all it would have taken is a statement that the NRA was looking into Kagan and would come out with a statement shortly at the same time the Board members were cautioned.

It's undeniable what Chris Cox said to the Board members concerning Justice Stevens, however. Evidently Chris Cox has about as much faith in the Board as you do in me!

<...Response to Low Roadism removed...>

Thanks for the advice. I'll certainly take it under advisement.

Woody

JohnBT
July 2, 2010, 08:25 PM
"OK. He didn't use the word "gag"..."

Nope. Or anything even similar to it. What he was doing was leading and organizing. That's what they pay him for.

John

ArmedBear
July 2, 2010, 08:34 PM
In this case, all it would have taken is a statement that the NRA was looking into Kagan and would come out with a statement shortly at the same time the Board members were cautioned.


I don't know what language you speak, Woody, but "it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment" says exactly that, to me.

First off "we are looking into Kagan's 2nd Amendment stance" is a <...Low Road...> statement from the NRA! Why would he need to say that to the Board (assuming he didn't already)?

Your attempt to justify your irrational accusation by imagining words that should be in a sentence is not working, sorry.

oldfool
July 2, 2010, 09:03 PM
some of the people here (when not too busy building backyard bomb shelters) need to send money to GOA

some of the people here need to read actual statements from the NRA board of directors

some of the people here need to "buy more rope"

some of the people here need to send a few more of their hard earned dollars to NRA, even if they do not always agree with every position NRA may take (like me)

some of the people here have never done and never will do, no matter their loud sense of outrage, what NRA has done for us

some people (like me) think Heller and McDonald would never have happened in the in the last or next 30 years, absent what NRA has done for us for over 50 years

people who use only angry words to make you angry have only one purpose in mind, and is not your best interest they are thinking about, it is your money (or your vote, pretty much one and the same) in their pocket

grow up

Art Eatman
July 2, 2010, 11:44 PM
I note that in the history of corporations, board members give orders. They may take advice, but they give orders. Kinda hard for employees to give orders to the boss--and still remain employed.

Nuthin' like making this website resemble a day nursery with missed naps...

Enuf.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Gag Order Angers Membership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!