http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3658
NRA Management's Support for “Assault Weapons†Banners
by Angel Shamaya
[email protected]
March 9, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com — With all of the recent rumors going around about the NRA Management having possibly cut a deal to allow the renewal of the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle and magazine ban, perhaps it's time to take a look at NRA management's Congressional strategy back when the original ban was signed into law in 1994. Maybe we should carefully consider NRA management's other shows of support for the banners of “assault weapons,†too. After all, there must be some logical reason a dozen or more non-NRA grassroots groups don't trust the “800 pound gorilla†when it comes to this particular federal gun ban, right?
The following sections are covered in this report, which you can read in less than five minutes:
• How NRA Management's Strategy Helped the 1994 Gun Ban Pass
• Return of the “Fix it in Committee†Strategy
• NRA Director Awarded After Voting for 1994 Ban
• Who Else Was Rewarded for Supporting Rifle Bans?
• NRA's “Second Amendment Champion†Voted to Renew Ban
• Current NRA Director Working Against Us
• Why Don't People Trust the NRA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW NRA MANAGEMENT'S STRATEGY HELPED THE 1994 GUN BAN PASS
According to three U.S. Senate staffers — who worked on The Hill during the original 1993/94 semi-auto rifle and magazine ban and still work as Senate staffers today — in November of 1993 the NRA asked their bosses not to object to a unanimous consent agreement on the crime bill. (The unanimous consent agreement happened on November 19, 1993. The bill had had the Feinstein semi-auto ban amendment attached to it two days earlier, by a vote of 56 to 43.) No objection meant that no filibuster would be possible. An objection to the unanimous consent agreement would have delayed the crime bill at least through the holidays and into the next year, giving the grassroots critical time to mobilize against the bill.
According to these Senate staffers, the NRA explained that they did not mind the gun ban passing the Senate and going to a conference committee — where NRA officials felt the gun ban could be killed. (Of course, this strategy failed.) NRA officials' strategy was to keep the legislative process moving so they could get to the Brady Bill and make sure the instant background check was nailed down in it.
The House Committee assigned to “clean†the bill had an NRA Director on it back then — and it clearly did not get “cleaned†of the gun ban. In fact, when the bill left that committee, that same NRA Director even voted for the final passage of the gun ban, too. More on that below.
RETURN OF THE “FIX IT IN COMMITTEE†STRATEGY
This pattern — “we'll fix it in a conference committee or kill it afterwards†— was repeated in the recent Senate shootout over the effort to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits brought by gun banners trying to put the gun industry in financial ruin.
Neal Knox (former Executive Director of NRA-ILA, former Vice President of NRA for three years) published a strong defense of the NRA strategy of using the House to clean up the mess the Senate was certain to make. In his March 1, 2004 report, Knox said,
“The only way to get the [lawsuit protection] bill passed is to get it back to the House where it can be cleaned up or killed.â€
He even belittled gun rights activists who didn't want to trust NRA's managers to such a gamble and said that even if the renewal of the gun ban was attached, “I want the Senate to hold their noses and send it back to the House.†The next day, after the bill had been killed due to floods of calls from irate gun owners, Knox wrote that:
“NRA had hoped to clean up the bill in the joint House/Senate Conference Committee.â€
That same NRA strategy failed in 1993 and 1994 because NRA officials had no ability to control the outcome of the conference committee. NRA officials hoped to strip out the gun ban in conference, but it remained in the bill as it came out of conference, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by President Clinton. In 2004, the NRA had more strength in the Congress, but NRA officials did not take into account a different set of obstacles with the “clean it up in the House or conference committee†approach.
Gun Owners of America, in a press release (March 4, 2004), spelled out the limitations of the failed strategy demanded by Senate Majority Leader Frist. GOA said, in part:
“Democrats would not have allowed a conference unless the survival of the gun ban was preordained. f House Majority Leader Tom Delay had tried to strip the bill of Senate amendments without a conference, it would have come back to the Senate as a fully amendable bill.â€
In other words, there was no chance that the NRA's “top legislative priority†was going to the President's desk without gun control attached to it. NRA and CCRKBA even finally got on board — last on board — to kill the bill. Apparently, NRA and CCRKBA leaders had joined the coalition of “Nervous Nellies†Knox had chastised a day earlier.
GOA further revealed on Friday (March 5) that:
“As far back as six months ago, Gun Owners of America had been warning Senate personnel that what happened this week in the U.S. Senate could easily happen, and we had laid out the necessary steps to make sure it didn't happen.â€
NRA management's legislative powerteam either didn't know how to play hardball or just didn't want to. If it's the latter — a lack of desire to flat out block any gun control amendments — one might reasonably wonder if the entire Senate show last week was a doomed-from-the-start dog and pony show designed to dupe the folks back home into thinking NRA saved them from the monster their own bill became, when according to GOA the monster could have been headed off at the gate. If it's the former — if NRA's lobbyists are just ignorant of Senate rules and procedures — why should anyone trust them to clean up a bill in a conference committee when they failed to do so before even though their own Director was on that “clean-up†committee?
Since I will not be exposing the Senate staffers who clearly recall what happened back in '93 and '94 — a likely excuse for ad hominem attack by people who believe that NRA-sponsored gun control should be given a free pass — let's look at some evidence you can independently verify for yourself.
NRA DIRECTOR AWARDED AFTER VOTING FOR 1994 BAN
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) was an NRA Director in 1993 and '94. He voted for the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle and magazine ban, as an NRA Director. He left his NRA post after helping pass the gun ban — after the damage was done. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action — NRA's legislative strategists — later gave Dingell their most prestigious award, shocking grassroots gun rights activists who remembered his betrayal.
“But that was seven years later that he got the award,†you say? “He must have changed his ways to be given 'the highest honor bestowed' by NRA's mighty legislative force.â€
Dingell may have been on the NRA's Board of Directors when he voted for the gun ban, but people make mistakes. Right? Let's look elsewhere then. But before we do, let's do remember historical facts:
NRA's leaders said leading up to the recent vote to renew the ban that they could “clean†the bill after it left the Senate and kill it in the House if they had to. Neal Knox even called gun rights activists names for opposing what he himself called NRA's “dangerous†strategy of hopefully cleaning the bill in the House. But in 1994, Rep. John Dingell was on the conference committee assigned to “clean†the bill. And even as an NRA Director on that conference committee, he then voted for the final package that came out of the conference committee — and he was later rewarded by the NRA.
Four days after Dingell's anti-Second Amendment vote, the Senate agreed to the gun control sent their way by Dingell and passed it by a vote of 61 to 38. A little over two weeks later, Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law at a big press conference while talking about how many lives he was saving with his pen.
WHO ELSE WAS REWARDED FOR SUPPORTING RIFLE BANS?
Dingell wasn't the only gun banner awarded after supporting the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein gun ban. Some gun banners in Congress got their rewards much sooner, too.
One such example involves California Congressman Elton Gallegly. Gallegly voted for the ban, but NRA's graders then gave him an “A-â€, endorsed him in his next race and even gave him money — leaving gun rights activists in California furious and very disillusioned. Gallegly later voted for the requirement to register private sales at gun shows to help further the gun registration agenda. Gallegly even has the hunters ticked off and labeling him as “anti-hunting.â€
In a very thorough analysis of NRA management's habit of giving undeserved “A†grades to gun grabbers, we find the following:
“In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). 1994, Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.â€
In the same report we see that Joan Milke Flores was also given a post-ban boost from NRA's managers. Flores voted for the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. The result, in her NRA grade? Need you ask?
“Aâ€.
And how was NRA rewarded by Flores for the phony grade she received?
“Soon after that, Flores was back in the press loudly announcing that she still supports the assault weapon ban.â€
Source: Sleeping With The Enemy: No More “A†Grades for Gun Grabbers
Other documented cases of NRA's managers giving “assault weapons†banners “A†grades include:
Tricia Hunter's bid to retain office as a California state senator was based on high-profile attacks on “killer assault rifles.†Her NRA grade was “A-â€.
“In North Carolina, the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, NRA-ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to “A†(one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with NRA-ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.â€
“In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). [In] 1994, Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.â€
“In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating. The same A+ sellout rammed through ILA's infamous Act 17 betrayal of PA gun owners. Activists have had to waste years of hard work trying to fix Act 17, but the damage may never be fully repaired.â€
Source: Sleeping With The Enemy: No More “A†Grades for Gun Grabbers
There are other such cases, of course. But the point is made: even after praising, supporting, endorsing and even voting for and INTRODUCING gun bans, politicians still get “A†grades from the National Rifle Association. Included in that list are those who specifically supported the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal ban. Perhaps that explains at least some of the mistrust of NRA's management and their strategies.
NRA'S “SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION†VOTES TO RENEW 1994 BAN
In the NRA's “America's First Freedom†magazine (October 2002), Sen. Gordon Smith's (R-OR) candidacy was promoted by the NRA. As I reported that same month,
“The interview is actually a series of softball questions designed to let Smith promote his candidacy without actually challenging him on any gun-related positions or issues. In the interview, Smith is pictured gazing skyward, heroically, and is quoted about his position on gun rights.â€
When NRA glorified Smith in their magazine, he had already: voted Yes on a mandatory gun lock bill; sponsored an amendment to further restrict gun shows just like Sen. McCain wants to do and nearly succeeded in doing; supported limits on magazine capacity; and sponsored an amendment “to require that a kid who comes to school with his hunting rifle in his car must be imprisoned for 24 hours.â€
Rather than expose him as the gun controller he is, NRA distributed an endorsement calling Smith “A SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION.†Click here to see it for yourself. GOA tried to get Smith to go on record about his positions on gun rights-related issues, but he refused. In spite of his record, NRA wooed and cuddled the anti-gunner anyway and called him “A SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION.†They raised money for his campaign and urged people to volunteer time to help him win — and even used the gun bans in Britain and the “don't say it can't happen here†fundraising pitch, too. (See NRA's fundraising letter for Smith's campaign: Page 1, Page 2.)
Surely there should be some kind of payoff for turning a blind eye to the gun control efforts of an elected official, right? Surely NRA managers going out of their way to support someone who had already supported gun control should mean he'll vote against a rifle and magazine ban... right?
Wrong. Senator Gordon Smith just voted to renew the Feinstein rifle and magazine ban when it came to a vote on Tuesday, March 2, 2004. NRA endorsed Smith even while Oregon Firearms Federation was exposing his support as a gun controller. OFF was labeled as “an NRA basher†for telling the truth about Smith and objecting to NRA's support for him. OFF president Kevin Starrett knew Smith would vote for the gun ban, because he paid attention to the man's record — while NRA was busy blowing cover, in their own magazine, and raising money, for yet another in a long, disturbing line of NRA-supported gun controllers.
“But Smith just screwed NRA on this vote,†you say. “That was nearly a year and a half ago when they supported him,†you complain. “NRA wouldn't support Smith again after he just voted for the gun ban!â€
We shall see. To cover their obvious miscalculation, NRA's officials are suddenly telling people that Smith is now an “Fâ€, but if they are true to form, they will suck up to him again come election time — even if one of their own members runs against him. Be patient and watch. NRA Management gives “A†grades to gun grabbers, and they've been doing so for a long time. They already knew Smith was a fan of gun control — they knew it when they called him “A SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION†and urged people to fund him, vote for him and work for his campaign. That is how the NRA does business. If you don't like that fact, you're not alone.
CURRENT NRA DIRECTOR WORKING AGAINST US
Some gun owners are candy-coating the fact that NRA's current Director Sen. Larry Craig supports gun controls. Craig just introduced, co-sponsored and endorsed a law designed to demonize one kind of ammunition over another. Craig co-sponsored and just voted Yes on a law to make police officers super-citizens in direct opposition to the equal protection doctrine and states' rights no matter how damaging it would be to gun rights — no matter how many gun rights organizations oppose such a travesty. He's been giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as an NRA Director — being a Dingell Lite. Craig even co-sponsored the gun show restriction amendment alongside Sen. McCain in 1999.
Because Craig is so much better on guns than most Senators — no doubt about that — some people ignore his transgressions. But uncompromising gun rights activists prefer substance over style, they know gun control when they see it, and they expect “no gun control†from an NRA Director. Is that really too much to ask? Is it?
WHY DON'T PEOPLE TRUST THE NRA?
There are lots of documented reasons savvy gun owners do not trust the managers of the National Rifle Association to do their bidding faithfully. NRA management has a long — very long — history of supporting gun control. From an historical perspective, NRA's managers helped get the first gun laws on the books in D.C., Pennsylvania and “other states†and supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 — the first major federal gun law. NRA's President was too busy proudly passing gun control legislation to stop and consider the Second Amendment. That is a documented fact. The NRA supported the Federal Firearms Act and the Dodd Bill to amend it many years later. NRA-supported gun control also led up to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, too.
Too far in the past? Not Relevant Anymore? Let's fast forward. In 1997, NRA had a President who called one kind of rifle “inappropriate for private ownership†— a rifle so suited to militia use it's used worldwide. Five years later, the same formerly NRA-labeled “anti-gun die-hard†was still NRA's president and was still saying that guns “made him nervous.†Later that same year, NRA's “good friend of the Second Amendment†called for a .50 caliber rifle ban — yet another indication that an NRA endorsement does not necessarily inspire well-educated gun owners.
Last year, NRA's “chief attorney†told a U.S. Circuit Court that you don't have standing to bring a lawsuit unless you are arrested and prosecuted. He did so in an attempt to try to prevent a Second Amendment case from being heard on Second Amendment grounds.
Less than a year ago, NRA once again endorsed a gun controller over a superior candidate. NRA vigorously supports gun registration. Just a few months ago, a key attorney on the NRA's team even admitted in open court that they want to register handguns — while making a Second Amendment argument, no less. NRA officials even work directly with law enforcement agencies to enforce gun registration edicts under threat of felony prosecution, and to “help†gun owners register their weapons. NRA's lobbyist in California wants to help hide police corruption. A leader of the NRA affiliate in another state opposes letting you protect yourself in your own vehicle unless the government gives you permission to do so — permission to protect your own sacred existence.
NRA management gives money and lots of support to the federal prosecution of gun laws that need to be repealed. Mayb that explains why their spokesperson runs from a question about repealing gun laws that are getting good, decent, innocent people killed. Who needs to repeal gun laws, right? Let's give the feds hundreds of millions of dollars to enforce them harshly and put people in prison for exercising their Second Amendment rights, say the NRA's leaders.
Maybe people have good reason to withhold their trust from this “National Rifle Association.†The above is just a small sample of the available intel on NRA Management's Gun Control Agenda.
NRA Management's Support for “Assault Weapons†Banners
by Angel Shamaya
[email protected]
March 9, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com — With all of the recent rumors going around about the NRA Management having possibly cut a deal to allow the renewal of the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle and magazine ban, perhaps it's time to take a look at NRA management's Congressional strategy back when the original ban was signed into law in 1994. Maybe we should carefully consider NRA management's other shows of support for the banners of “assault weapons,†too. After all, there must be some logical reason a dozen or more non-NRA grassroots groups don't trust the “800 pound gorilla†when it comes to this particular federal gun ban, right?
The following sections are covered in this report, which you can read in less than five minutes:
• How NRA Management's Strategy Helped the 1994 Gun Ban Pass
• Return of the “Fix it in Committee†Strategy
• NRA Director Awarded After Voting for 1994 Ban
• Who Else Was Rewarded for Supporting Rifle Bans?
• NRA's “Second Amendment Champion†Voted to Renew Ban
• Current NRA Director Working Against Us
• Why Don't People Trust the NRA?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW NRA MANAGEMENT'S STRATEGY HELPED THE 1994 GUN BAN PASS
According to three U.S. Senate staffers — who worked on The Hill during the original 1993/94 semi-auto rifle and magazine ban and still work as Senate staffers today — in November of 1993 the NRA asked their bosses not to object to a unanimous consent agreement on the crime bill. (The unanimous consent agreement happened on November 19, 1993. The bill had had the Feinstein semi-auto ban amendment attached to it two days earlier, by a vote of 56 to 43.) No objection meant that no filibuster would be possible. An objection to the unanimous consent agreement would have delayed the crime bill at least through the holidays and into the next year, giving the grassroots critical time to mobilize against the bill.
According to these Senate staffers, the NRA explained that they did not mind the gun ban passing the Senate and going to a conference committee — where NRA officials felt the gun ban could be killed. (Of course, this strategy failed.) NRA officials' strategy was to keep the legislative process moving so they could get to the Brady Bill and make sure the instant background check was nailed down in it.
The House Committee assigned to “clean†the bill had an NRA Director on it back then — and it clearly did not get “cleaned†of the gun ban. In fact, when the bill left that committee, that same NRA Director even voted for the final passage of the gun ban, too. More on that below.
RETURN OF THE “FIX IT IN COMMITTEE†STRATEGY
This pattern — “we'll fix it in a conference committee or kill it afterwards†— was repeated in the recent Senate shootout over the effort to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits brought by gun banners trying to put the gun industry in financial ruin.
Neal Knox (former Executive Director of NRA-ILA, former Vice President of NRA for three years) published a strong defense of the NRA strategy of using the House to clean up the mess the Senate was certain to make. In his March 1, 2004 report, Knox said,
“The only way to get the [lawsuit protection] bill passed is to get it back to the House where it can be cleaned up or killed.â€
He even belittled gun rights activists who didn't want to trust NRA's managers to such a gamble and said that even if the renewal of the gun ban was attached, “I want the Senate to hold their noses and send it back to the House.†The next day, after the bill had been killed due to floods of calls from irate gun owners, Knox wrote that:
“NRA had hoped to clean up the bill in the joint House/Senate Conference Committee.â€
That same NRA strategy failed in 1993 and 1994 because NRA officials had no ability to control the outcome of the conference committee. NRA officials hoped to strip out the gun ban in conference, but it remained in the bill as it came out of conference, passed both houses of Congress and was signed by President Clinton. In 2004, the NRA had more strength in the Congress, but NRA officials did not take into account a different set of obstacles with the “clean it up in the House or conference committee†approach.
Gun Owners of America, in a press release (March 4, 2004), spelled out the limitations of the failed strategy demanded by Senate Majority Leader Frist. GOA said, in part:
“Democrats would not have allowed a conference unless the survival of the gun ban was preordained. f House Majority Leader Tom Delay had tried to strip the bill of Senate amendments without a conference, it would have come back to the Senate as a fully amendable bill.â€
In other words, there was no chance that the NRA's “top legislative priority†was going to the President's desk without gun control attached to it. NRA and CCRKBA even finally got on board — last on board — to kill the bill. Apparently, NRA and CCRKBA leaders had joined the coalition of “Nervous Nellies†Knox had chastised a day earlier.
GOA further revealed on Friday (March 5) that:
“As far back as six months ago, Gun Owners of America had been warning Senate personnel that what happened this week in the U.S. Senate could easily happen, and we had laid out the necessary steps to make sure it didn't happen.â€
NRA management's legislative powerteam either didn't know how to play hardball or just didn't want to. If it's the latter — a lack of desire to flat out block any gun control amendments — one might reasonably wonder if the entire Senate show last week was a doomed-from-the-start dog and pony show designed to dupe the folks back home into thinking NRA saved them from the monster their own bill became, when according to GOA the monster could have been headed off at the gate. If it's the former — if NRA's lobbyists are just ignorant of Senate rules and procedures — why should anyone trust them to clean up a bill in a conference committee when they failed to do so before even though their own Director was on that “clean-up†committee?
Since I will not be exposing the Senate staffers who clearly recall what happened back in '93 and '94 — a likely excuse for ad hominem attack by people who believe that NRA-sponsored gun control should be given a free pass — let's look at some evidence you can independently verify for yourself.
NRA DIRECTOR AWARDED AFTER VOTING FOR 1994 BAN
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) was an NRA Director in 1993 and '94. He voted for the Clinton/Feinstein semi-auto rifle and magazine ban, as an NRA Director. He left his NRA post after helping pass the gun ban — after the damage was done. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action — NRA's legislative strategists — later gave Dingell their most prestigious award, shocking grassroots gun rights activists who remembered his betrayal.
“But that was seven years later that he got the award,†you say? “He must have changed his ways to be given 'the highest honor bestowed' by NRA's mighty legislative force.â€
Dingell may have been on the NRA's Board of Directors when he voted for the gun ban, but people make mistakes. Right? Let's look elsewhere then. But before we do, let's do remember historical facts:
NRA's leaders said leading up to the recent vote to renew the ban that they could “clean†the bill after it left the Senate and kill it in the House if they had to. Neal Knox even called gun rights activists names for opposing what he himself called NRA's “dangerous†strategy of hopefully cleaning the bill in the House. But in 1994, Rep. John Dingell was on the conference committee assigned to “clean†the bill. And even as an NRA Director on that conference committee, he then voted for the final package that came out of the conference committee — and he was later rewarded by the NRA.
Four days after Dingell's anti-Second Amendment vote, the Senate agreed to the gun control sent their way by Dingell and passed it by a vote of 61 to 38. A little over two weeks later, Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law at a big press conference while talking about how many lives he was saving with his pen.
WHO ELSE WAS REWARDED FOR SUPPORTING RIFLE BANS?
Dingell wasn't the only gun banner awarded after supporting the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein gun ban. Some gun banners in Congress got their rewards much sooner, too.
One such example involves California Congressman Elton Gallegly. Gallegly voted for the ban, but NRA's graders then gave him an “A-â€, endorsed him in his next race and even gave him money — leaving gun rights activists in California furious and very disillusioned. Gallegly later voted for the requirement to register private sales at gun shows to help further the gun registration agenda. Gallegly even has the hunters ticked off and labeling him as “anti-hunting.â€
In a very thorough analysis of NRA management's habit of giving undeserved “A†grades to gun grabbers, we find the following:
“In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). 1994, Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.â€
In the same report we see that Joan Milke Flores was also given a post-ban boost from NRA's managers. Flores voted for the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. The result, in her NRA grade? Need you ask?
“Aâ€.
And how was NRA rewarded by Flores for the phony grade she received?
“Soon after that, Flores was back in the press loudly announcing that she still supports the assault weapon ban.â€
Source: Sleeping With The Enemy: No More “A†Grades for Gun Grabbers
Other documented cases of NRA's managers giving “assault weapons†banners “A†grades include:
Tricia Hunter's bid to retain office as a California state senator was based on high-profile attacks on “killer assault rifles.†Her NRA grade was “A-â€.
“In North Carolina, the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, NRA-ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to “A†(one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with NRA-ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.â€
“In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). [In] 1994, Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.â€
“In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating. The same A+ sellout rammed through ILA's infamous Act 17 betrayal of PA gun owners. Activists have had to waste years of hard work trying to fix Act 17, but the damage may never be fully repaired.â€
Source: Sleeping With The Enemy: No More “A†Grades for Gun Grabbers
There are other such cases, of course. But the point is made: even after praising, supporting, endorsing and even voting for and INTRODUCING gun bans, politicians still get “A†grades from the National Rifle Association. Included in that list are those who specifically supported the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal ban. Perhaps that explains at least some of the mistrust of NRA's management and their strategies.
NRA'S “SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION†VOTES TO RENEW 1994 BAN
In the NRA's “America's First Freedom†magazine (October 2002), Sen. Gordon Smith's (R-OR) candidacy was promoted by the NRA. As I reported that same month,
“The interview is actually a series of softball questions designed to let Smith promote his candidacy without actually challenging him on any gun-related positions or issues. In the interview, Smith is pictured gazing skyward, heroically, and is quoted about his position on gun rights.â€
When NRA glorified Smith in their magazine, he had already: voted Yes on a mandatory gun lock bill; sponsored an amendment to further restrict gun shows just like Sen. McCain wants to do and nearly succeeded in doing; supported limits on magazine capacity; and sponsored an amendment “to require that a kid who comes to school with his hunting rifle in his car must be imprisoned for 24 hours.â€
Rather than expose him as the gun controller he is, NRA distributed an endorsement calling Smith “A SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION.†Click here to see it for yourself. GOA tried to get Smith to go on record about his positions on gun rights-related issues, but he refused. In spite of his record, NRA wooed and cuddled the anti-gunner anyway and called him “A SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION.†They raised money for his campaign and urged people to volunteer time to help him win — and even used the gun bans in Britain and the “don't say it can't happen here†fundraising pitch, too. (See NRA's fundraising letter for Smith's campaign: Page 1, Page 2.)
Surely there should be some kind of payoff for turning a blind eye to the gun control efforts of an elected official, right? Surely NRA managers going out of their way to support someone who had already supported gun control should mean he'll vote against a rifle and magazine ban... right?
Wrong. Senator Gordon Smith just voted to renew the Feinstein rifle and magazine ban when it came to a vote on Tuesday, March 2, 2004. NRA endorsed Smith even while Oregon Firearms Federation was exposing his support as a gun controller. OFF was labeled as “an NRA basher†for telling the truth about Smith and objecting to NRA's support for him. OFF president Kevin Starrett knew Smith would vote for the gun ban, because he paid attention to the man's record — while NRA was busy blowing cover, in their own magazine, and raising money, for yet another in a long, disturbing line of NRA-supported gun controllers.
“But Smith just screwed NRA on this vote,†you say. “That was nearly a year and a half ago when they supported him,†you complain. “NRA wouldn't support Smith again after he just voted for the gun ban!â€
We shall see. To cover their obvious miscalculation, NRA's officials are suddenly telling people that Smith is now an “Fâ€, but if they are true to form, they will suck up to him again come election time — even if one of their own members runs against him. Be patient and watch. NRA Management gives “A†grades to gun grabbers, and they've been doing so for a long time. They already knew Smith was a fan of gun control — they knew it when they called him “A SECOND AMENDMENT CHAMPION†and urged people to fund him, vote for him and work for his campaign. That is how the NRA does business. If you don't like that fact, you're not alone.
CURRENT NRA DIRECTOR WORKING AGAINST US
Some gun owners are candy-coating the fact that NRA's current Director Sen. Larry Craig supports gun controls. Craig just introduced, co-sponsored and endorsed a law designed to demonize one kind of ammunition over another. Craig co-sponsored and just voted Yes on a law to make police officers super-citizens in direct opposition to the equal protection doctrine and states' rights no matter how damaging it would be to gun rights — no matter how many gun rights organizations oppose such a travesty. He's been giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as an NRA Director — being a Dingell Lite. Craig even co-sponsored the gun show restriction amendment alongside Sen. McCain in 1999.
Because Craig is so much better on guns than most Senators — no doubt about that — some people ignore his transgressions. But uncompromising gun rights activists prefer substance over style, they know gun control when they see it, and they expect “no gun control†from an NRA Director. Is that really too much to ask? Is it?
WHY DON'T PEOPLE TRUST THE NRA?
There are lots of documented reasons savvy gun owners do not trust the managers of the National Rifle Association to do their bidding faithfully. NRA management has a long — very long — history of supporting gun control. From an historical perspective, NRA's managers helped get the first gun laws on the books in D.C., Pennsylvania and “other states†and supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 — the first major federal gun law. NRA's President was too busy proudly passing gun control legislation to stop and consider the Second Amendment. That is a documented fact. The NRA supported the Federal Firearms Act and the Dodd Bill to amend it many years later. NRA-supported gun control also led up to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, too.
Too far in the past? Not Relevant Anymore? Let's fast forward. In 1997, NRA had a President who called one kind of rifle “inappropriate for private ownership†— a rifle so suited to militia use it's used worldwide. Five years later, the same formerly NRA-labeled “anti-gun die-hard†was still NRA's president and was still saying that guns “made him nervous.†Later that same year, NRA's “good friend of the Second Amendment†called for a .50 caliber rifle ban — yet another indication that an NRA endorsement does not necessarily inspire well-educated gun owners.
Last year, NRA's “chief attorney†told a U.S. Circuit Court that you don't have standing to bring a lawsuit unless you are arrested and prosecuted. He did so in an attempt to try to prevent a Second Amendment case from being heard on Second Amendment grounds.
Less than a year ago, NRA once again endorsed a gun controller over a superior candidate. NRA vigorously supports gun registration. Just a few months ago, a key attorney on the NRA's team even admitted in open court that they want to register handguns — while making a Second Amendment argument, no less. NRA officials even work directly with law enforcement agencies to enforce gun registration edicts under threat of felony prosecution, and to “help†gun owners register their weapons. NRA's lobbyist in California wants to help hide police corruption. A leader of the NRA affiliate in another state opposes letting you protect yourself in your own vehicle unless the government gives you permission to do so — permission to protect your own sacred existence.
NRA management gives money and lots of support to the federal prosecution of gun laws that need to be repealed. Mayb that explains why their spokesperson runs from a question about repealing gun laws that are getting good, decent, innocent people killed. Who needs to repeal gun laws, right? Let's give the feds hundreds of millions of dollars to enforce them harshly and put people in prison for exercising their Second Amendment rights, say the NRA's leaders.
Maybe people have good reason to withhold their trust from this “National Rifle Association.†The above is just a small sample of the available intel on NRA Management's Gun Control Agenda.
