http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3621
“Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups. For *years*. Good size chunks, too.â€
By David Codrea
[email protected]
November 3, 2003
“[Arnold] Schwarzenegger…agreed in the meeting to work with [Dianne] Feinstein to win an extension of her ban on assault weapons, a matter fiercely opposed by the NRA and many Republicans...â€
—San Francisco Chronicle
“He pledged to work with Feinstein to extend the federal assault weapons ban which has been one of her signature issues and which is scheduled to expire this year.â€
—Associated Press
As a California gun owner, it gives me no pleasure saying I told you so.
I told you then-candidate now California governor-elect Schwarzenegger was wrong for gun owners. I warned you he could not be trusted. I produced documentation showing that, in addition to voicing support for “stiffer†gun control laws, the Brady law, the ban on politically incorrect semi-autos, “closing the loophole of the gun shows†and mandating trigger locks, Schwarzenegger favors banning .50 caliber rifles and semi-auto handguns that do not have load indicators or magazine disconnects.
I lamented that, in spite of Arnold’s clear anti-gun positions, NRA and other groups had opted to keep silent on the most watched race in California history, and not inform and activate their members (with the notable exception of Gun Owners of America/Gun Owners of California, both of which issued strong endorsements for Tom McClintock). I welcomed the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s 11th-hour endorsement of McClintock, happy to see them finally coming on board, but disappointed that it was too late to affect voter registration and many absentee votes, and that no real grassroots mobilization was being put forth.
And I reported, incredulously, that a professional gun rights lobbyist had publicly claimed one of the candidates was secretly pro-gun, and running a stealth campaign.
“I’ve been given information that Arnold is not unfriendly to law-abiding gun owners, but he seems to think he has to hide that to get elected,†the lobbyist reported. “I can't go into evidence on that. Sorry...I was told something in confidence that has me convinced he's quite probably pro-gun. Rather seriously pro-gun at that.â€
What could convince a professional lobbyist that a candidate is a pro-gun ally in the face of a long record of anti-gun pronouncements? What could convince the pro-gun lobbying groups that they had such a secret friend? What information did they have that we, their voting members did not, and why was it withheld from us?
“Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups. For *years*. Good size chunks, too,†the lobbyist reports. “This is what I was gagged on.â€
And what “pro-gun groups†has Arnold “been giving...good size chunks†to?
“[W]e suspect the NRA got some but CCRKBA and/or SAF also got a bunch...He appears to have avoided giving money to pro-gun PACs where he might have to report his donations publicly,†the lobbyist claims.
To “suspect the NRA†is one thing. But to spread such suspicions without evidence hardly seems conscientious and fair. It’s not a claim that should be made lightly by a professional addressing a public forum.
The lobbyist’s next assertion seems less uncertain.
“Yes, he gave money to pro-gun groups. Not just NRA, either,†he proclaims.
And he seems downright authoritative declaring “Like I keep saying: yes, my info is that Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups for a LONG time. NRA and CCRKBA among them, no idea which others. JPFO is a possibility, as he was careful to give money to...well, Jews. For reasons that should be obvious.â€
One person it’s not “obvious†to is Aaron Zelman, executive director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, who responded to this claim by unequivocally refuting it.
“JPFO has NEVER received a penny from Arnold Schwarzenegger,†Mr. Zelman states. “I would be surprised if he knew we existed.â€
Clearly, the lobbyist had no cause or evidence to warrant dragging JPFO into this public discussion. A public retraction and apology to them would seem to be in order.
And without substantiation that he’s willing to bring forth, claiming that NRA received confidential contributions from Arnold seems irresponsible and inflammatory — after all, they sat out of the governor’s race despite McClintock’s long and faithful Second Amendment record and Schwarzenegger’s numerous anti-gun proclamations. To imply that secret contributions played any part influencing that decision simply looks bad, and could undermine member and public confidence in the organization’s political leadership.
If the lobbyist makes disclosures about his own organization, that is his prerogative. But unless he can provide substantiation for his allegations on NRA involvement, a retraction and apology to them would seem to be in order as well.
In any case, whichever “pro-gun groups†Arnold gave “good size chuks†to, it appears he got his money’s worth — especially in light of his recent anti-gun overtures to Sen. Feinstein and their apparent silence about it.
“Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups. For *years*. Good size chunks, too.â€
By David Codrea
[email protected]
November 3, 2003
“[Arnold] Schwarzenegger…agreed in the meeting to work with [Dianne] Feinstein to win an extension of her ban on assault weapons, a matter fiercely opposed by the NRA and many Republicans...â€
—San Francisco Chronicle
“He pledged to work with Feinstein to extend the federal assault weapons ban which has been one of her signature issues and which is scheduled to expire this year.â€
—Associated Press
As a California gun owner, it gives me no pleasure saying I told you so.
I told you then-candidate now California governor-elect Schwarzenegger was wrong for gun owners. I warned you he could not be trusted. I produced documentation showing that, in addition to voicing support for “stiffer†gun control laws, the Brady law, the ban on politically incorrect semi-autos, “closing the loophole of the gun shows†and mandating trigger locks, Schwarzenegger favors banning .50 caliber rifles and semi-auto handguns that do not have load indicators or magazine disconnects.
I lamented that, in spite of Arnold’s clear anti-gun positions, NRA and other groups had opted to keep silent on the most watched race in California history, and not inform and activate their members (with the notable exception of Gun Owners of America/Gun Owners of California, both of which issued strong endorsements for Tom McClintock). I welcomed the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s 11th-hour endorsement of McClintock, happy to see them finally coming on board, but disappointed that it was too late to affect voter registration and many absentee votes, and that no real grassroots mobilization was being put forth.
And I reported, incredulously, that a professional gun rights lobbyist had publicly claimed one of the candidates was secretly pro-gun, and running a stealth campaign.
“I’ve been given information that Arnold is not unfriendly to law-abiding gun owners, but he seems to think he has to hide that to get elected,†the lobbyist reported. “I can't go into evidence on that. Sorry...I was told something in confidence that has me convinced he's quite probably pro-gun. Rather seriously pro-gun at that.â€
What could convince a professional lobbyist that a candidate is a pro-gun ally in the face of a long record of anti-gun pronouncements? What could convince the pro-gun lobbying groups that they had such a secret friend? What information did they have that we, their voting members did not, and why was it withheld from us?
“Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups. For *years*. Good size chunks, too,†the lobbyist reports. “This is what I was gagged on.â€
And what “pro-gun groups†has Arnold “been giving...good size chunks†to?
“[W]e suspect the NRA got some but CCRKBA and/or SAF also got a bunch...He appears to have avoided giving money to pro-gun PACs where he might have to report his donations publicly,†the lobbyist claims.
To “suspect the NRA†is one thing. But to spread such suspicions without evidence hardly seems conscientious and fair. It’s not a claim that should be made lightly by a professional addressing a public forum.
The lobbyist’s next assertion seems less uncertain.
“Yes, he gave money to pro-gun groups. Not just NRA, either,†he proclaims.
And he seems downright authoritative declaring “Like I keep saying: yes, my info is that Arnold has been giving money to pro-gun groups for a LONG time. NRA and CCRKBA among them, no idea which others. JPFO is a possibility, as he was careful to give money to...well, Jews. For reasons that should be obvious.â€
One person it’s not “obvious†to is Aaron Zelman, executive director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, who responded to this claim by unequivocally refuting it.
“JPFO has NEVER received a penny from Arnold Schwarzenegger,†Mr. Zelman states. “I would be surprised if he knew we existed.â€
Clearly, the lobbyist had no cause or evidence to warrant dragging JPFO into this public discussion. A public retraction and apology to them would seem to be in order.
And without substantiation that he’s willing to bring forth, claiming that NRA received confidential contributions from Arnold seems irresponsible and inflammatory — after all, they sat out of the governor’s race despite McClintock’s long and faithful Second Amendment record and Schwarzenegger’s numerous anti-gun proclamations. To imply that secret contributions played any part influencing that decision simply looks bad, and could undermine member and public confidence in the organization’s political leadership.
If the lobbyist makes disclosures about his own organization, that is his prerogative. But unless he can provide substantiation for his allegations on NRA involvement, a retraction and apology to them would seem to be in order as well.
In any case, whichever “pro-gun groups†Arnold gave “good size chuks†to, it appears he got his money’s worth — especially in light of his recent anti-gun overtures to Sen. Feinstein and their apparent silence about it.
