NRA: 2A Yes, 1A No.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a subscriber so I can't read more than the first few lines.

Explain the details for us, please.
 
A friend of mine and I are going to deliver our resignations to NRA HQ in Fairfax.

Perhaps a few thousand of us should do so.
 
Good for them. With a Dem controlled Congress, they are ensuring they can continue to do their work on our behalf. Without their influence, the only groups Congress would hear from would be the antis.
 
The problem is that all "Movements" eventully become a racket. From wars to civil rights to the environmental movement. People enjoy the power they get from these organizations. Every movement should have an agenda/goal, and when they reach that goal they should disband. THE NRA IS A PAPER TIGER. grrrh.
 
This sounds to me like hedging your bets. How many of us believe that the 2A gives us the right to carry arms, but still submit to the CCW requirements in our state? Are we hypocrites too? If this legislation is going to pass, isn't it good that it doesn't restrict the NRA? And if it isn't, who cares? It's not like the NRA wrote the bill, just an exemption to allow them to continue to advocate for us? Would you guys prefer they did nothing and got shut up? I'm not seeing the outrage here.
 
The article:

The National Rifle Association just sold out your First Amendment right to participate in the democratic process. Sources on the Hill tell RedState that House Republican members are “furious” at the National Rifle Association (NRA) for negotiating a special provision exempting the NRA from a new campaign finance reform measure racing through Congress.

Roll Call describes the campaign finance reform measure as follows:

The bill, officially the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to the high court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January that struck down many restrictions on political communications and the groups that fund them. The proposal would bulk up disclosure, political coordination and disclaimer requirements, and impose new limits on political involvement by government contractors and foreign governments.

Evidently, the NRA has inserted a provision in the bill that would exempt organizations under 501(c)(4) of the IRS code that qualify under certain conditions. The conditions apply to the NRA and were clearly crafted by the NRA. This special interest carve out for the NRA has sent Republicans in the House into a rage. Expect House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to unload all they have against the Democrat and NRA enabled attempt to restrict First Amendment rights of all Americans to participate in the electoral process.

Under the DISCLOSE Act, 501(c)(4) organizations would be limited in political communications, unless they qualify for a special exemption. If a group satisfies the following conditions (that fit the NRA’s description like a trigger lock on a gun) then they are allowed to participate in First Amendment activity:

Established under 501(c)(4) for 10 years;
1 million or more dues-paying members;
Members in all 50 states;
No more than 15% of funding from corporations or unions; and,
Does not use corporate or union money for campaign related expenditures.
A senior staffer on the Hill tells RedState that “the NRA apparently believes that the 2nd Amendment is the only constitutional amendment that matters. They don’t care about the 1st Amendment. Their selfish actions will help this bill pass.” This rage is well founded because the NRA is a hypocrite on the matter. On Thursday, January 21, 2010, the NRA issued a statement about the Citizens United v Federal Elections Commissionpraising the Supreme Court for “removing unconstitutional restrictions on the NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.” The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt by Members of Congress to overturn parts of that Supreme Court holding. The NRA’s recent actions evidences a will on the part of the NRA to sell out the 1st Amendment right of free speech for all in order to protect a 1st Amendment carve out for themselves.

For the NRA, a group that is fighting to protect the rights of all Americans to exercise their constitutionally recognized natural right to “keep and bear Arms,” to sell out on another constitutionally recognized right is an outrage. It also destroys its credibility on Capitol Hill. Why would the NRA cave on the natural right of people to participate in the electoral process? It is because it is manned by political insiders and part of the illness plaguing Washington, D.C. elites.

The most recent actions of the NRA are enraging so many principled conservatives. It is shocking that David Keene, a veteran of the conservative movement and head of the American Conservative Union, would not have put a stop to this madness in the lobbying arm of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre is Obama-like in his propensity to take actions that are contrary to his public statements. Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, said about the Citizens United case as recently as January (please put on a BS flack jacket before reading):

This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us. The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it fo 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. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amploify the voices of average citizens who want their voices heard.

Great rhetoric — too bad it is complete BS. Wayne LaPierre should be ashamed of himself. You know who else should be ashamed? Chris Cox, chief lobbyist and principal political strategist for the NRA for coming up with such a terrible strategy to protect the NRA at the expense of the Constitutional right of all Americans not members of the NRA.

Erick Erickson wrote yesterday on RS the reasons why the NRA is selling out the Constitution in the name of self preservation:

This is just the NRA not wanting competition for itself. If they were really committed to freedom, let alone the second amendment, they should be encouraging more freedom loving, second amendment loving organizations to rise and fight. Instead, they are collaborating with the left to shut out competition.

Moe Lane also had an excellent post on RS titled “Deja Vu: the NRA and the Democratic crockodiles.”

Members of the NRA need to understand that an internal Tea Party may be in order to right the ship. The NRA has shown signs of weakness over the past few years and they seem more interested in protecting their right to participate in the democratic process than the right to “keep and bear Arms.” Tea Party rage should hit the elites in the conservative movement when they sell out their principles in the name of political expediency.
What is the basis of the accusation that the NRA is actively working to stifle political dialog? My read on this (based solely upon the content on the article) is that the NRA is working to ensure that their voice remains heard despite the DISCLOSE Act. Yes, I would prefer that they oppose the act, but I can't fault them for hedging their bets by inserting language into the act that protects them in case the act passes....
 
This sounds to me like hedging your bets. How many of us believe that the 2A gives us the right to carry arms, but still submit to the CCW requirements in our state? Are we hypocrites too? If this legislation is going to pass, isn't it good that it doesn't restrict the NRA? And if it isn't, who cares? It's not like the NRA wrote the bill, just an exemption to allow them to continue to advocate for us? Would you guys prefer they did nothing and got shut up? I'm not seeing the outrage here.
Exactly. I was leaning toward thinking that way but I don't know if I missed something.
 
Alert from the NRA this morning

Statement From The National Rifle
Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA's opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA's first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America's lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

---nra---
 
NRA picks its battles. Whatever this looks like to Monday-morning quarterbacks, this is how you win battles.

Some of you need to read Sun Tzu, and give this a little thought.

The GOA can afford to be the "no-compromise" pro-gun organization because it's easy to be "no-compromise" when you don't actually do anything, and therefore have no responsibility for making any tough choices. If there's a racket, it's GOA.

The NRA has become commercialized, with lines of t-shirts, etc., to be sure, but it also is an organization of millions, and it has real influence. With that comes a whole lot of baggage -- that's just life in the big city. The NRA doesn't have the luxury of doing whatever someone feels, because the NRA actually has specific goals, and it has the power to achieve at least some of them.

Does this mean the NRA is always right, in everything it chooses? Probably not. Neither am I, and neither are you. That's just not how the world works.
 
This sounds to me like hedging your bets. How many of us believe that the 2A gives us the right to carry arms, but still submit to the CCW requirements in our state? Are we hypocrites too? If this legislation is going to pass, isn't it good that it doesn't restrict the NRA? And if it isn't, who cares? It's not like the NRA wrote the bill, just an exemption to allow them to continue to advocate for us? Would you guys prefer they did nothing and got shut up? I'm not seeing the outrage here.
those aren't remotely comparable.

The NRA sold out 1A rights for basically a monopoly on free speech. the law is written to include them but would probably exclude GOA, JPFO, etc.

The way I see it, you are either for rights, or against rights. You can't really pick and choose.
 
The NRA sold out 1A rights for basically a monopoly on free speech. the law is written to include them but would probably exclude GOA, JPFO, etc.

The way I see it, you are either for rights, or against rights. You can't really pick and choose.

Bull.

The NRA's biggest responsibility is to give its members a voice and influence over the political process regarding 2A. Period, end of story.

That's exactly what it's doing with this, whether you like it or not.

"Monopoly on free speech" ... listen to yourself. lol8.gif Don't you belong over on HuffPo or the DailyKos with this shrill hyperbole?
 
the law is written to include them but would probably exclude GOA, JPFO, etc.

Not true. You could research this, instead of making things up.

JPFO and GOA are both non-profits for tax purposes. They aren't restricted by the proposed legislation. Only NRA would be. There was nothing for the NRA to fight for here, but it's own right to have a voice; theirs was the only 2nd Amendment voice that would have been silenced by the legislation, to the best of my knowledge. And yes, I've read a fair amount about this, not in this thread.

NRA can't qualify for non-profit status under tax law, but it is an advocacy organization. The exemption in the legislation is for advocacy organizations that don't qualify as 501(c)3's. The definition of an advocacy organization used in the legislation does include the NRA, but it is by no means limited to the NRA. I don't happen to like the legislation, or the definition used, but I also can see that wrangling over such things is not what NRA's members pay for. There are other organizations that have that in their stated missions.
 
Evidently, the NRA has inserted a provision in the bill that would exempt organizations under 501(c)(4) of the IRS code that qualify under certain conditions.


The NRA cannot "insert" anything into a bill.
 
Incumbents are still seething at the SCOTUS decision.

The bill will pass.

It will get tied up in court for years.

In the meantime, we have an election to win, or two, and need access to print and airwaves.

This was not a compromise it was necessary.
 
I think that the DISCLOSE act is reprehensible, constituting a clear attempt to stifle free speech. The problem that a lot of politicians have is that they were fine with having this type of speech stifled, as they believed that it threatened their hold on power. It's a clear case of politics over civil rights.

Given the NRA's core mission, I'm fine with them trying to escape the clutches of a law that is fundamentally--and I believe constitutionally--flawed.
 
Last I checked, it's the National Rifle Association, not the National Rifle and Free Speech Associtation. The NRA is not directly responsible for protecting anything other than the 2nd Ammendment. That's what we pay them for. They are not a one-stop-shop for all your political needs. If you feel strongly about the 1st Ammendment, go out and support one of the special interest groups that are fighting the new act. Don't expect the NRA to do everything for you.
 
The article:

What is the basis of the accusation that the NRA is actively working to stifle political dialog? My read on this (based solely upon the content on the article) is that the NRA is working to ensure that their voice remains heard despite the DISCLOSE Act. Yes, I would prefer that they oppose the act, but I can't fault them for hedging their bets by inserting language into the act that protects them in case the act passes....

+1

This sounds to me like hedging your bets. How many of us believe that the 2A gives us the right to carry arms, but still submit to the CCW requirements in our state? Are we hypocrites too? If this legislation is going to pass, isn't it good that it doesn't restrict the NRA? And if it isn't, who cares? It's not like the NRA wrote the bill, just an exemption to allow them to continue to advocate for us? Would you guys prefer they did nothing and got shut up? I'm not seeing the outrage here.
+1

From the article:
“the NRA apparently believes that the 2nd Amendment is the only constitutional amendment that matters. They don’t care about the 1st Amendment. Their selfish actions will help this bill pass.”

What a load of crap. The NRA hasn't said that, claimed that, or implied that. All I read in the article is that the NRA wants to ensure it's right to speak about 2A issues. It is not trying to pass this bill, it is just making sure that if it does pass it doesn't hurt the NRA's ability to be an advocate for 2A. That article is nothing but a load of hooey! :banghead:

Seriously, why all the NRA hate? No, they are not perfect. If you find a better 2A organization with more influence than the NRA, join up. Post your amazing successes with this group and try to get us involved with them. Join your local RKBA group (like the TSRA in my case). But please stop trying to declare the NRA worthless and bankrupt just because you claim they don't do enough, they aren't active enough, or that you get some junk mail (still waiting for my junk mail from the NRA...I'm starting to feel jipped). But please stop trying to weaken the NRA by going nuts on forums when they send you a few pieces of paper in the mail. Or when they don't rush in to EVERY constitutional controversy that comes up.
 
I maintain that they do more harm than good and refuse to give them a single penny. This is just one reason.

William
I am just thankful that all gun owners don't have the same attitude as you.

If you are a gun owner that refuses to support the NRA you are a part of the problem unless of course you are using your own funds to fight against unconstitutional gun laws and bills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top