http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00249.html
March 4 Neal Knox Update - President Clinton has called a meeting for Tuesday with Congressional leaders to demand passage of his package of gun laws.
On Wednesday, he was on the NBC Today show and CBS Dan Rather declaring that NRA has a stranglehold on Congress and is opposed to all gun laws.
On Thursday, NRA E.V.P. Wayne LaPierre was on NBC Today detailing what all new gun proposals NRA supported. He listed last June's House-approved gun package which included a requirement that dealers sell trigger locks with each handgun, requiring NICS checks on pawn shop redemption's, banning importation of over-10-round magazines not included in the 1994 ban, prohibiting "unsupervised" access by juveniles to "assault weapons" and high-cap magazines, a lifetime ban on gun ownership for juveniles convicted of violent offenses, and mandatory background checks on buyers from gun shows table operators.
While show host Katie Couric wasn't impressed by the list of gun laws NRA supports, NRA members lit up NRA's phones and the Internet, insisting that many of those provisions violated the Second Amendment.
LaPierre informed Couric that it was the House Democrats, with White House backing, who killed the entire gun package because it didn't have Sen. Lautenberg's draconian gun show background check bill -- which could kill gun shows due to its almost impossible-to-meet requirements on show sponsors.
Sen. Lautenberg, during a press conferences with Sens. Richard Durbin and Charles Schumer this week, stated that his intent was to eliminate gun shows entirely. His amendment would go a long ways toward that goal.
With Clinton declaring that his trigger lock package would have saved the First Grader killed in Michigan -- which is patently ludicrous since the murder gun was stolen and found in a crack house -- most of the focus of Tuesday's meeting is likely to be directed toward trigger locks.
Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, chairman of the Republican House reelection effort, sponsored the amendment requiring handguns to be sold with trigger locks or other security devices last June. With NRA's blessing, it passed 311-115.
Gov. George Bush said Wednesday that if such a bill came to his desk he would sign it, but he felt use of such devices should be up to the homeowner. He asked if advocates of requiring trigger locks to be kept installed wanted Federal "trigger lock police" to assure compliance.
The sticking point in Clinton's package is, as it was last June, the NRA-backed gun show amendment by Rep. John Dingell, which would impose workable requirements on gun show promoters and allow an "Instant Check" to take no more than 24 hours instead of Lautenberg's five business days.
Clinton is again unlikely to allow the NRA-backed package to pass unless it has the NRA-opposed Lautenberg's gun show amendment, for he wants to keep the gun issue alive, particularly "trigger locks."
However, if the press begins to report the political game- playing over trigger locks, Clinton and the Republican leadership, at least Speaker Dennis Hastert and Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde -- might yet agree to pass the trigger lock bill and the other NRA-backed provisions.
The reaction of other House Republicans, led by Majority Leader Dick Armey and Whip Tom Delay, and the 40 or so pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Dingell, is a bigger question.
Clinton may well figure that he has more than enough other pending gun law demands to take nine-tenths of a loaf now, but I don't expect that to happen until he's had a few more months to wring the maximum crocodile political tears out of trigger locks.
Isn't it amazing that a reportedly recent Houston sharpened screwdriver murder of one grade school kid by another has had no national publicity? And that this week's killing of two women by three American kids who heaved large rocks off a highway overpass in Germany, has gone almost unnoticed? -------
FPRICE---Many apparently dont view these as essential liberties so maybe I dont have an answer for that question and maybe I am truly confused about these in anyway being infringements on our rights but instead these are just more apples and organges.
(Ive been wondering why Ive been avoiding fruit lately.)
STRIDER-- thats like saying your going to vote for a different liberal to make change.
Name more than one NRA BOD member who even thinks they need to change???Go ahead take your time in the mean time maybe you should send some of these people some money.
SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY?
NO MORE "A" GRADES FOR GUN GRABBERS
By Russ Howard, (former) NRA Board Member
(Reprinted from Pennsylvania Sportsmen's News, special edition for
1997 NRA annual meeting. Permission to reprint granted if the
following is included: Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Assn, PO Box 1225,
Hermitage PA 16148. Membership: $15; subscription-only: $10.)
In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's
penchant for giving undeserved grades to politicians who trample
on the 2nd Amendment. My first experiences with this were in
California in 1992:
CASE 1. JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who, as an LA City Councilwoman,
voted for the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti-
gun Democrat. When I heard that Flores was getting an "A" rating,
I called NRA staffer Terry O'Grady (now Terry Smith) to express
my concern. O'Grady said she'd met with Flores and that Flores
"gave us assurances" that "she's on our side". O'Grady said the
only problem was that "nobody had educated her."
I told O'Grady that giving Flores an "A" was a breech of trust
with the membership, a deliberate misrepresentation to manipulate
NRA members, that Flores had no right to an "A" until she earned
it. That got me a hefty ration of beltway contempt.
O'Grady snapped "then why don't you just vote for Jane Harman."
Shocked, I said that wasn't the issue: If we wanted members to
vote against Harman, we could give Harman an F, but give Flores a
"D" and an explicit "lesser-of-two-evils" endorsement. O'Grady
said members are too unsophisticated to vote for a lesser-of-two
evils candidate. In other words, ILA was deliberately lying to and manipulating NRA members. She said she'd taken it up with
the PAC board, they agreed with her, and I could speak with them
about it. I didn't. I'd heard enough.
Our reward? After getting the "A" rating, Flores sneaked out of
a city council vote where we lost a measure forcing all new gun
stores to go through a conditional use permit system, making it
possible to effectively ban new gun stores. Soon after that,
Flores was back in the press loudly announcing that she still
supports the assault weapon ban.
CASE 2: CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican HCI member who had been
mayor of Santa Monica (a city notorious for its control by the
Tom Hayden / Jane Fonda crowd). Freidman was an F-rated
incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills too radical
to be enacted. In that sense, he was less dangerous than Reed,
whose predictable "moderate" gun bills were more likely to
go somewhere.
Californians Against Corruption almost made the mistake of
attacking Friedman in his assembly race against Reed with a
50,000-piece re-mail through the activist network. It would've
used up all of our money and manpower for the season. Volunteers
would've spent up to $15,000 in stamps alone. We'd been led to
believe by ILA that Reed was "not that great on guns", but
"wasn't that bad either." After all, she had a "C" rating. In
my book, "C" is a passing grade. I was told that Reed was just
"ignorant on our issue" and could be "brought over".
Then we heard Reed was a member of Handgun Control Inc. I
called around to confirm this and got a copy of her
questionnaire. From her answers, she was a clear "F". In
addition, she'd openly admitted her HCI membership! So we
switched to the McClintock/Beilenson congressional race, barely
in time to get out a 62,000-piece mailer out to swing-voter
households.
When HCI heard Reed had "courted" NRA, they threatened to expose her. Reed panicked, told them she was lying to us, and groveled
to get back in bed with them. I made a stink about the Reed case
and later brought it to Tanya Metaksa's attention. Her response
was to prohibit access to candidate questionnaires by NRA members
so it'd be harder for members to figure out what's being done to
them.
CASE 3. TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to
retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer
assault rifles". She was rated "A-".
When NRA gives a misleading rating, it...
1. Confuses the membership...Does Flores deserve the same grade as
those legislators who never betray us and go out of their way to
carry our water?
2. Demoralizes members...Would Flores have gotten an "A" had she
banned "sporting" guns instead of "assault rifles"?
3. Demoralizes pro-gun legislators...Imagine you're a legislator
who often takes abuse for standing firm with the NRA, and the
sellout next door gets an "A".
4. Sends signals to politicians...Tells them we're fools and it's
safe to sell us out.
5. Corrodes member trust...Can we trust information from people
who tell us that HCI members are "C"s and people who support gun
bans are "A"s?
6. Corrupts the integrity and informational utility of the rating
process.
7. Wastes resources (e.g., our near-mailing against Freidman).
I understand that ratings may be used to bring people around,
and that in some cases candidates given an A may try to earn
it later. But we can have a ratings system that "brings people
around" without misleading members. For example, we could have
conditional ratings. Each candidate would have an honest rating
based on PAST history. In addition, they could have a Conditional
A rating if we think we turned them around based on an A
questionnaire. The conditional A would become unqualified
after a certain number of years of supporting us on every issue.
If they ever betrayed us again, they'd be prohibited from the
"A" category for life.
When I brought this up to Tanya Metaksa, I was told it wouldn't
work because members couldn't be motivated to support a
Conditional A candidate. I disagree. But even if I'm wrong,
it doesn't justify lying to NRA members for candidates who
betrayed us in the past. That will demoralize NRA's most
active members.
I've often supported the lesser of two evils when the need to do
so was properly explained and there was no "A" that needed my
help more. ILA should give us the facts and let us make up our
own minds. We may volunteer for a conditional A for many reasons:
Loathing of the opponent, the tightness of the race, or the
balance of power in a legislature, for example. Or we may
instead donate our time to a real A who deserves support.
In any case, the longer NRA pretends activists are too
"unsophisticated" for to handle the truth, the less they will
trust NRA and the less effective they'll be. We can't develop
grassroots without giving them the bottom line. And they'll
appreciate being credited with some sophistication and
intelligence.
At the '94 NRA Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, I asked Tanya
Metaksa about incidents where candidates were given ratings
they clearly did not deserve. She said that there's a new
sheriff in town and such things won't be tolerated anymore.
Fact is, she never stopped giving undeserved grades to gun
grabbers; if anything, the practice has increased and worsened
under her watch. Examples:
· Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted for the Brady bill and the
assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement!
Steve Coombs, Founding President of the Santa Barbara/Ventura NRA
Members' Council, put it to me this way:
"I met with Gallegly after he'd turned on us, and he said, 'You
should support me. I've always voted with you in the past.'
"Since then, I've called Terry O'Grady, leaving message after
message over a two-month period, trying to find out what we're
going to do about Gallegly. He should be a D at best. I think
this month's Guns & Ammo even has him taking money from HCI.
O'Grady (now Terry Smith and still working for ILA) finally
called back yesterday (10/12/94) and left this message on my
phone mail:
'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's
always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him
an A- and endorse him.'
The members here are outraged"...
· In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they
voted for both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban.
41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings.
7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
· In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In 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, 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 ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
· In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment
by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come
over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed
it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory
training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move
unpermitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with
any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial
institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for
each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption
was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed
us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park".
Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training
section to allow NRA instructors to do the training.
In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an
orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members,
"Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to
self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain
Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights.
Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to
family, friends, and fellow gun owners...
Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa."
Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW
liability law.
· In Virginia in 1996, extreme F rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced A rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American
Rifleman carried the following message:
"THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT:
VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS. NO ENDORSEMENT"
No endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F-
rated gun grabber! Like a District Attorney who plea bargains
every case, that's how Tanya Metaksa maintains an "82% success
rate": Abandoning pro-gun candidates, staying out of potentially
uphill races, supporting anti-gun incumbents. Legislatively, the
game's similar: To show more and more "victories" to NRA members,
amendments are tolerated which betray fundamental rights and
leave gun owners worse off than they were before the "victory".
Many CCW "victories" fit that description.
· 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.
· 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.
· In NC, some A rated incumbents hadn't cast a single vote in
favor of gun rights.
· Tanya Metaksa presented turncoat John Dingle with a surprise
award in front of the NRA Board of Directors after he betrayed
us.
The list goes on. Many of us had had enough. NRA Directors Rick
Carone, Prof. Joe Olson, Judge Paul Heath Till, and I authored a
resolution for the Sept. '96 NRA Board meeting to stop ILA from
giving A grades and awards to politicians who trample on gun
rights:
RESOLUTION
Whereas, giving our highest ratings to political candidates who
have turned their backs on the people's right to keep and bear
arms is an insult to those candidates who steadfastly support
the 2nd Amendment; and
Whereas, giving our highest ratings to those who oppose the 2nd
Amendment, not only damages the credibility of the NRA's
leadership and betrays its members, but diminishes the influence
and effectiveness of the NRA; and
Whereas, the integrity and influence of NRA ratings are critical
to political candidates and to the NRA; and
Whereas, many groups both inside and outside the NRA use or depend
on NRA's ratings; and
Whereas, NRA Bylaw, Article X, Section 5 requires the Board of
Directors to set NRA-ILA policy and give NRA-ILA specific
directions as it deems advisable; and
Whereas, for fairness to all one must be able to know how ratings
are made; be it
Resolved, that effective January 1, 1997, for votes taken on or
after that date:
1. Any candidate for office who has voted contrary to an official
NRA position on any bill, regulation, rule, procedure, or motion
shall be ineligible to hold a rating of A+, A, or A-, or receive
awards given by NRA or ILA for a period of two election cycles.
Specific cases or terms of ineligibility may be waived or adjusted
by a committee of the President and Vice President(s). Any
adjustments or waivers sought shall be reported at the next
regular Board of Directors meeting, at which time any granted
shall be subject to Board approval. Should our rating system
change, ineligibility shall apply to the new top grade, inclusive
of augmentation or diminution (e.g., Strong 2nd Amendment + or -),
but no such change shall be made without prior advice and consent
by the Board of Directors.
2. Ineligibility shall not be waived by retroactive change or
withdrawal of NRA-ILA's position on a vote, or any later change in
NRA's position, without specific approval by a committee of the
President and Vice President(s). Such waivers sought shall be
reported at the next regular Board meeting, at which time ILA
shall report official positions on all votes since the prior
meeting and waivers granted shall be subject to Board approval.
3. Before rating congressional, state, or local candidates, NRA-
ILA shall in a timely fashion use best efforts to (a) consult
with appropriate local organizations, NRA Directors, and
activists after obtaining completed questionnaires, voting> records, prior ratings and other relevant information and
sharing that information with them, and
(b) keep a readily-accessible record of information gathered.
Be it further
Resolved, that no bestowal of any honor or award in the name of
the NRA shall be made by anyone without prior consent of the
Board of Directors, and be it further
Resolved, that by the January 1997 Board meeting, NRA-ILA shall
present to the Board for consideration options for improving the
objectivity, credibility, and understandability of the ratings
system, including adoption of the standards used by Unified
Sportsmen of Florida.
End Resolution
Without sacrificing significant flexibility, the resolution
injects credibility into the A grade, guaranteeing an extra
reward and a real honor for those who stand by us when it counts.
The waiver provides for special cases where, for example, a
pro-gun legislator opposes a compromise (or "mistake") proposed
by our side, or parts ways on an issue that is not directly 2nd-
Amendment-related; generally, it provides for any reasonable but
unforeseen exception. The resolution also provides for prior
consultation on ratings with local activists and others (local
consultation on legislation already became policy at the January,
'92 Board meeting, though that resolution has been largely
ignored. Our resolution extended that basic policy to cover
ratings.)
Wayne LaPierre, Tanya Metaksa, and Marion Hammer fought the
resolution every step of the way, keeping it from a floor vote
by deferring it to the Spring meeting, to be preceded by a
February 10th ratings conference. Each of them predicted
"dire consequences" should ILA lose any of its flexibility to
give A ratings to gun grabbers.
If you're concerned about the future of the NRA, go to the members
meeting in Seattle and demand that the Board of Directors take
immediate action to stop ILA from giving its top grades to anti-
gun politicians, from threatening and abandoning pro-gun
politicians, from publishing phony success percentages, and
from selling out your rights to show phony "successes".
- - End Article -
[Post-print note: The resolution above was written in 1996, a time
when it appeared that NRA was "directed" by a board whose majority
supported the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and might at
least conceivably stand up to staff, enforce its own policies,
obey its own bylaws, and fulfill its moral and fiduciary duties
to the membership. Unfortunately, none of that is any longer the
case, if it ever was. The board is now controlled by a group that
has publicly abandoned its commitment to the original intent of
the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America. Under the current board composition, for the resolution
to potentially serve any purpose at all - and it's now doubtful
that it could - it would have to be toughened up and re-written
as a member bylaw change. Among other things, it should,
· Require timely and full disclosure of waivers, waiver policy,
and ILA's positions on gun related bills and votes, such
disclosure to be published in the magazines.
· Provide for immediate and full member access to candidate
questionnaires.
· Require NRA policy to support the original intent of the 2nd
Amendment. - Russ Howard]>>>>>
FPRICE--Heres that united idealogical front you were looking for right??
Concrete gunownership policies you say.
Well GOA does that regulary but our feeble congress is not bold enough to pick up anthing the liberal media will bash them for.
But the NRA has presented them with some wonderful idea's that theyve used time and time again.Compromise,compromise compromise
and actually ENFORCE all these gunlaws weve told our members we were fighting all this time.
GOA does not regulary attack the NRA I do unless you mean the condemnation of project exile if so you need to rephrase that it was lead by KABA
www.keepandbeararms.org that so many TFL members seem to enjoy being a member of and supported by JPFO,COA yes GOA
and a host of state lobbies.
You say NRA never takes time to attack GOA to promote themselves your right number one they have nothing to attack GOA over my favorite lobby doesnt PLAY politics they fight guncontrol and the NRA doesnt need to do that to promote themselves they have the LIBERAL media doing that and lying the whole time as they do it 'the NRA refuses to compromise, the NRA opposes all these bills'
all a bunch of baloney to make the NRA appear 10 times better than they are to any real patriots.
SPARTACUS---Weve also seen polls that state that most americans want more guncontrol laws and at other times registration of all handguns too.You also beleive those polls?
Show me two things Spartacus and Ill beleive your point,1 where Ron Paul and REP Helen Chennoeth-hage have had trouble in their districts getting re-elected or bashed by their local electorate and 2.where theyve ever compromised on our gunrights after GOA helped get them elected.
YES I am having more fun this way and I will continue to ,you know why because Im not supporting an organization that would have given Comrade Clinton 90% percent of what he wanted and claimed would make us safer.
WE may argue as to whether their infringements or even liberties but I dought youll argue that Clinton wanted all of those measures.
