# URGENT ALERT: NRA cuts deals to limit free speech



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

What is the NRA people thinking! :eyeroll:

http://paracom.paramountcommunicati...445469039&ch=C1245F597B007610264B377705D1845F


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

NAGR????? Who are they???


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

They are a group similar to what the NRA used to be. They work for the 2nd admendment as written. The Gun Owners of America (GOA) is another good group that is strictly 2nd admendment focused. :beer:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

This is a scary statement from the NRA and the Democrats in the House.

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.

uke:

Selling out for a free pass!!!!


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

This is the email from NRA!!

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---


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Guys...take a pill. The NRA dropped their objection to the bill when it no longer affected them or the second amendment. I'm curious why you've bought into the rhetoric of that being synonymous with "making a deal with the devil"? I would argue that it was Pelosi and Reid who made a deal with the "devil" by exempting the NRA from their bill :wink:

The NRA has to draw a line somewhere or our money won't last long. Blasting the NRA for not helping on a specific issue is certainly nothing new, but be very cautious when another group claiming to be 2nd amendment friendly disses the NRA to the extent we're seeing now from the NAGR.

I'm skeptical of the NAGR. The liberal press will run with this, and rest assured they will make it as visible as possible. And I believe the NAGR is knowingly helping to further the spin of the NRA "selling out". I doubt any group, who's primary goal is protecting the 2nd amendment, would even silently sit by as the NRA was smeared, much less be an active participant in the smearing. Keep an open mind but don't jump to conclusions...about the NRA OR the NAGR, but don't forget that effective, negative PR by the NAGR could substantially add to their bottom line..... at the NRA's expense.

Let's be sure it's justified before we mutiny!


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Here is a good article that may shed a little more light on this issue. As one of the commenters said the NRA may have to look this over and reissue it's stance. :beer:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/16/the-national-rifle-associations-excuse-holds-no-water/


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Csquared said:


> Guys...take a pill. The NRA dropped their objection to the bill when it no longer affected them or the second amendment. I'm curious why you've bought into the rhetoric of that being synonymous with "making a deal with the devil"? I would argue that it was Pelosi and Reid who made a deal with the "devil" by exempting the NRA from their bill :wink:
> 
> The NRA has to draw a line somewhere or our money won't last long. Blasting the NRA for not helping on a specific issue is certainly nothing new, but be very cautious when another group claiming to be 2nd amendment friendly disses the NRA to the extent we're seeing now from the NAGR.
> 
> ...


Would you "take a pill" if the bill included an exemption of NRA gun owners when Legislation is passed to prohibit semiautomatic weapons?

Any organization that supports a bill that deprives some of the citizens their constitutional rights should see the consequences from their members.


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm with Csquared on this guys. From what I read in the email I got from the NRA yesterday, they're being falsely accused by this other group. I'm skeptical of both groups to be honest. NRA has always seemed a bit nutty to me, but I'm a member b/c I don't know of any other group that does as much as they do to protect the rights that mean the most to me. Either way, is there a more credible source for us to find out where the NRA really stands, other than the NRA? That is, is there a way to know for sure who is telling the truth on where they stand?


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Here is a quote from the NRA Director



> "[T]he NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for 'neutrality' from the legislation's requirements."
> 
> -- NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010


Thursday, June 17, 2010

The above quote -- part of an editorial authored by NRA Director Cleta Mitchell -- ran in The Washington Post today.

Like Mitchell, bloggers and editorial writers around the country have lit up the Internet with the story that we have been alerting you to over the past 48 hours. Here are just some of the headlines:

* "The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment," The Wall Street Journal

* "Conservatives take on the NRA over deal on disclosure bill," The Washington Post

* "The National Rifle Association's Excuse Holds No Water," RedState.org

The conservative movement (and to be honest, many liberal organizations as well) are coming together to loudly protest the DISCLOSE Act -- legislation that threatens to gag our ability to effectively hold individual congressmen accountable in the days and weeks leading up to an election.

It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. But rather than cry "uncle," liberal Democrats are now trying to buy off more groups with an exemption for those that have at least 500,000 members (rather than the higher threshold of one million, which would have applied to few groups other than the NRA).

Of course, how is the government going to know how many members an organization has? According to the legislation, each organization will have to certify to a government commission how many members they have. But what if the commission wants documentation; will the organization have to "disclose" the names of their members?

GOA, of course, will never do this. Furthermore, you should know that your Gun Owners of America can NOT be bought off. We will continue opposing this bill on principle, urging all gun groups to stick together in this fight. As we stated yesterday, we realize that: "We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately."

GOA applauds NRA Director Cleta Mitchell for the courageous stand she took today. (You can read her editorial here.) We hope that the NRA leadership will heed her wisdom and take a stand against this bill. If they don't, we wouldn't be surprised if NRA members start demanding a change in their leadership. After all, the NRA has engaged in many good fights over the years, and it would be a shame to lose this VERY IMPORTANT battle because high-ranking staff led the NRA down the wrong path.

Here is the web site for Gun Owners of America. If you haven't already done so, please check them out! http://gunowners.com


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Bowstring wrote:


> Any organization that supports a bill that deprives some of the citizens their constitutional rights should see the consequences from their members.


Bowstring, I would love to jump into this just as deeply as you would like, but before I roll up my sleeves please answer me (us) two questions:

1) What, in your opinion, has the NRA done that in any way shows _*support*_ for the Disclose Act?

2) Are you an NRA member?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Csquared said:


> Bowstring wrote:
> 
> 
> > Any organization that supports a bill that deprives some of the citizens their constitutional rights should see the consequences from their members.
> ...


csquared,
No need to roll up sleeves or jump in just curious if you would favor an organizations disregard of one article of the constitution because they were exempt. Do you feel that congress can exempt some corporations, organizations or individuals while restricting others of their constitutional rights?

I don't have any information on the NRA's showing support for the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, however any exemption is just an attempt to gain votes. Also the proposed law would ban some corporations from funding campaign ads. It should ban all corporations from funding campaign ads in my opinion, cutting deals is one thing that got us in this mess.

Yes, up for renewal in February 2011. I'll see what NRA Director Cleta Mitchell does.

NAGR, I have no idea who they are.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

The following two quotes explain NRA's position, purpose and their intentions when soliciting money from members and/or potential members. To do anything contrary to those intentions would not only undermine their integrity and effectiveness, but I believe would constitute fraud...



> Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


.



> While NRA is a single-issue organization, the Institute is involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness and wildlife conservation, civilian marksmanship training and ranges for public use, law enforcement-related issues, product liability, trapping, crime victim rights and criminal justice reform.


 Chris Cox explains this much better than I ever could...



> NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Message on H.R. 5175
> 
> I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding the NRA's position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act". Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.
> 
> ...


c


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Bowstring, I doubt you and I differ on many issues, but I'm almost as sure we will not agree on this one, but I'll try to answer all your questions individually and directly.



> csquared,
> No need to roll up sleeves or jump in just curious if you would favor an organizations disregard of one article of the constitution because they were exempt.


Depends. But the point is moot since the NRA isn't disregarding anything. Their decision to drop their objection infers about as much support for the bill as my decision not to protest in a Planned Parenthood parking lot infers my support for killing a fetus.



> Do you feel that congress can exempt some corporations, organizations or individuals while restricting others of their constitutional rights?


I believe _THIS_ Congress can (and will) do almost anything it wants, but it sickens me that the populace would let them get away with it. But the NRA isn't the guardian of the Constitution. They ask for money to defend only the second amendment and to fight anything that would limit their ability to do so.



> I don't have any information on the NRA's showing support for the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act,


I didn't think so, but wish you wouldn't have said this earlier...



> Any organization that supports a bill that deprives some of the citizens their constitutional rights should see the consequences from their members


Glad you're a member, Bowstring. Hopefully you'll decide to re-up and continue to do your part to support OUR second amendment.

:beer:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Csquared said:


> Bowstring, I doubt you and I differ on many issues, but I'm almost as sure we will not agree on this one, but I'll try to answer all your questions individually and directly.
> 
> *You may be right on both accounts.
> *
> ...


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Bowstring, you're morphing 2 cases into one, and that confusion is what's causing you to wrongly blame the NRA for talking out of both sides of their mouths. The following is the case the NRA suported...



> Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act.[2]
> 
> The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]


What follows here is the case in question. The one the NRA has NOT supported...EVER...



> The DISCLOSE Act is the proposed legislative response to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. If passed the DISCLOSE Act would silence the voices of millions of American's whose speech was recently restored by the Supreme Court.


I'm not going to post his entire letter, but NRA VP David Keene sums it up very well.

.....


> Perry is a military base, public monies go into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.
> 
> In other words, this act as originally written by anti-gun legislators like New York Senator Chuck Schumer would have silenced the NRA &#8230;which would have been the death knell for the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

ShineRunner, I should apologize for getting sidetracked with Bowstring and not commenting directly to you, and thanking you for pointing out the efforts of the NAGR.

I've initiated contact with them directly, so we'll see what they have to say for themselves, and I'll keep you informed.

You probably noticed I take issues concerning the NRA pretty seriously. Let me start by saying I have not always agreed with everything the NRA has done. They have soft-peddled some issues over the years when I would have preferred (at the time) they played hardball, but one thing we need to try to remember is they have VERY smart people on their side, and those people have info and direct access to the real players in Washington, so it's easier for them to see the big picture than most of the rest of us, and I believe their record warrants them the benefit of any doubt. We can debate till the cows come home whether the other second amendment groups have influenced the powers that be, but no one can argue that the NRA isn't THE single most influential voice defending what most of us here hold near and dear to our hearts, so I shouldn't be the only one who's hackles get a bit raised when any group or individual tries to question their intentions.

But it's deeper than that. My biggest fear is that I know there are a LOT...WAY TOO MANY...people out there who do not support the NRA, but they enjoy the same protection of their second amendment rights as those of us who are paying for that protection. And many of those people are looking for excuses, whether consciously or subconsciously, for not doing their part. They want to believe the NRA is not deserving of their donation so they don't feel guilty about not sending it. And anyone who wants can hate me as much as they want for saying so, but anyone who cares about gun ownership and their second amendment rights, but is not an NRA member, is not doing their part.....PERIOD!

As we get older we learn to read between the lines, and all we need to hear to confirm the validity of the NRA is how much people like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein HATE the NRA.

Really, nothing more than their words needs to be said. :wink:


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Thanks Csquared. No apology necessary. We all have issues that are close to us.

I wasn't putting the NRA down, they have and still are doing good things. But it makes one think that when an organization gets to big it could also do harm. I also thought about these new organizations getting started, this bill would have totally killed them.

You are also absolutely right that the NRA has a front row seat to Washingtons crazy doings. And it appears what they did caused the right kind of uproar to kill the bill, at least for now. I don't understand the mentality that these law makers have to keep messing with something that is working.

again thanks :beer:


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Just got this from a NAGR Gun Rights Report email:



> Nancy Pelosi postpone the vote on the DISCLOSE Act, she's now scheduled a vote for this Wednesday.
> They are only attempting to divide the gun community (which the NRA exemption deal does) in order to conquer us.
> The enemies of freedom will kill off, one by one, every pro-freedom group in America, until there is only one.... and then they'll kill them off, with no one left to defend the Second Amendment.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Dudley and I could become pen pals over this, ShineRunner 

Dudley Brown_ seems_ to be on our side, but I still gotta laugh when he mentioned above that Pelosi is trying to divide the gun community, because when I read the NAGR's public statements slamming the NRA I can't help but wonder why Pelosi even feels the need to do anything other than sit back and watch Mr. Brown do much of that division for her!


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Yeah, he is a little over the top with dissing the NRA but he is quick getting the issues out. I guess with a name like Dudley he has to keep up appearances like the original Dudley Doright. :rollin:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

:beer:

He actually seems like his heart is in the right place. I don't agree with some of his tactics much like he doesn't agree with some of the NRA's. It's just so darn hard to know who's on our side anymore that I can't imagine it's ever been more important for all of us to stick together, and remember it's the ones in the middle who don't participate in these discussions that will probably be the deciding votes.


----------

