Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NRA Gag Order Angers Membership

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by arcticap, Jun 29, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. arcticap

    arcticap Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,185
    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: Jun 29, 2010
  2. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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
     
  3. Fremmer

    Fremmer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    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.
     
  4. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,299
    Location:
    TN
    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.
     
  5. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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?
     
  7. Lovesbeer99

    Lovesbeer99 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,413
    So where did this "News" come from? Is this a hoax or is this just a very big twist on a smaller story?
     
  8. Fremmer

    Fremmer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    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.
     
  9. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,931
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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: Jun 29, 2010
  11. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    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
     
  12. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    Some of you need to do a little more research on how the world works before freaking out.


    much wisdom there
     
  13. dc.fireman

    dc.fireman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Manassas, Va.
  14. Robert

    Robert Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    10,059
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    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!
     
  15. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    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?
     
  16. kingpin008

    kingpin008 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,435
    Location:
    Howard County, Merry Land
    But..but...I GOT IT IN AN EMAIL, IT MUST BE TRUE!

    Why you gotta go and spoil their fun, Rifleman?
     
  17. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,356
    Location:
    TX
    Here's a take on it.

     
  18. killchain

    killchain Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    780
    Location:
    Washington State
    The Second Amendment Foundation.
     
  19. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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: Jun 29, 2010
  20. killchain

    killchain Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    780
    Location:
    Washington State
    http://www.saf.org/

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

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    I don't see anything there showing SAF was the major funding for the case.
     
  22. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
  23. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,617
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    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 did when Harriet Miers was nominated during the previous administration, but it was other issues about qualifications that caused her to withdraw.
     
  24. killchain

    killchain Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    780
    Location:
    Washington State
    So prove me wrong.
     
  25. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page