Why does Paul have an A rating from the NRA?

[Autolycus]

I've found that Paul has an A rating from the NRA, but I can't find why...He opposed the assault weapons ban, and supports the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The Major postive is the 2nd Amendment Protection Act?

So why the A?

 

[riverdog]

Is this a trick question? Paul is about as solidly Pro-Gun, Pro 2nd Amendment and Pro Constitution as a politician can get -- of course he'd get an A from the NRA.

 

[kurtmax]

He has an A! I thought the NRA gave him a C or something..... Never made any sense to me.

Project vote smart says he has a B. I can't find an official NRA page...

 

[buzz_knox]

He got downchecked for voting against the restrictions on lawsuits against firearms manufacturers.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

He has an A! I thought the NRA gave him a C or something..... Never made any sense to me.

Project vote smart says he has a B. I can't find an official NRA page...

I'm not sure if the NRA has issued new grades since the 'B' they gave Ron Paul a year or two ago. The 'B' was indeed a result of his opposition to the bill protecting the gun industry from lawsuits -- I believe his objection was that it strengthened the interstate commerce meddling powers of the federal government.

Anyway, the NRA has never favored a full-on anti-gun-control approach such as Ron Paul's. Their strategy has always been about careful compromise, even if that compromise sometimes results in legislation that a lot of gun owners view as not very friendly to gun owners. I find myself ambivalent about whether to embrace the incremental approach like the NRA, or to side with people like Ron Paul who aren't shy about wanting to restore our rights IMMEDIATELY GOSH DARN IT!!. I mean, say what you want about Ron Paul being an inflexible idealist, but I have a lot of respect for a man who authors a bill eliminating all federal firearms laws.

 

[ilbob]

The NRA likes being a power broker in the ebb and flow of politics in DC. IMO, they are focused as much on winning anything as they are on gun rights. I am not suggesting this is all bad, but it makes for some strange bedfellow situations now and then. it also means they agree to some things the rest of us are not overjoyed with.

They also focus exclusively on gun issues, which IMO is how they got sideswiped by McCain-Feingold. I think they thought it was so brazenly unconstitutional that there was no chance in hell any court would ever sustain it, plus it was not real gun legislation, so it was not in the forefront of their thinking at the time.

Ron Paul is not just focused on guns. He is interested in increasing personal liberty, and that means the size, scope, and power of government at all levels, and in all facets has to be trimmed.

That means sometimes he is not on the same side as the NRA.

Personally, I think he was wrong about the gun liability issue. Very clearly there is a strong element of interstate commerce there. OTOH, I am not a fan of this type of narrow legislation. If it is good for guns, why is it not good for every other legal product?

 

[riverdog]

What to not like. GOA's analysis

 

[buzz_knox]

OTOH, I am not a fan of this type of narrow legislation. If it is good for guns, why is it not good for every other legal product?

Because in no other industry has there been the effort of suing a manfacturer who is in compliance with some of the most rigid regulatory requirements for negligent/intentional acts committed by third parties wholly unrelated to the manufacturer.

The effort was to curtail the use of "socially-minded" judges (who wouldn't allow suits against Ford for crimes committed with a Ford car) to shut down manufacturers.

I'd say that's as worthwhile a goal as (pardon the pun) robbing from Peter to give Paul some earmarks.

 

[Rocketman56]

Live_Free_Or_Die: I have a lot of respect for a man who authors a bill eliminating all federal firearms laws.

Do you happen to have a pointer to this bill??

I also respect representatives who write SHORT bills.. Simple and to the point!

Makes it easy to determine if it's worthwhile, unlike the typical 2000+ page budget bill delivered "37 minutes" before a vote.. Grr...

THANKS!
Steve

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Do you happen to have a pointer to this bill??

Sure: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1096

Just click on "Summaries" or "Full Text" to read what it's about. This is taken from the summary:

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007 - Repeals the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993. Restores and revives any provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts had not been enacted.
Repeals provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the federal criminal code distinguishing firearms used or suitable for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes from firearms used generally.
Repeals the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 and other provisions of the federal criminal code relating to gun storage and gun safety devices.

If you scroll down on the main page, you'll see that he's introduced this bill or something very similar for 7 straight terms in congress. It may have been a bit of hyperbole on my part to say that this bill removes all federal gun laws. However, it's a good start -- better than anyone else in congress has attempted AFAIK.

 

[Rocketman56]

HR1096.. referred to committee...

Thanks for the pointer..

Looks like it has effectively been "pigeonholed" in committee..

Have to do a little research on how it can get out of the committee.. Of course,
that means getting some representatives on the committee to agree.. That may
be difficult in an election year!

Steve

 

[average_shooter]

Sorry, but didn't the OP just answer their own question?

Question:

I've found that Paul has an A rating from the NRA, but I can't find why...

Answer:

He opposed the assault weapons ban, and supports the 2nd amendment as an individual right.