NRA Gag Order Angers Membership

Status
Not open for further replies.
arcticap

arcticap

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
8,717
Location
Central Connecticut
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.word...omes-down-on-the-side-of-the-unions-surprise/

Recent coverage:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show
 
Last edited:
From Redstate said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
who are they to dictate ANYTHING to the Board of Directors?
Click to expand...

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?
 
So where did this "News" come from? Is this a hoax or is this just a very big twist on a smaller story?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Is this a hoax or is this just a very big twist on a smaller story?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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?
 
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"
Click to expand...
 
The Second Amendment Foundation.
Click to expand...

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

Here I am, ruining all the fun again asking for facts.
 
Last edited:
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!!!"
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top