How powerful is the NRA politically?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A sure thing...

The NRA is negotiating a "sure thing" with the same people that had the IRS audit them throughout most of the 90s. The same people that gave us Brady, Lautenberg and the AWB. The same people that wanted to leave the trial lawyers the capacity to sue the gun industry out of existence.

The only "sure thing" here is that the NRA is doing what they accused the anti's of doing...picking and choosing which of the Bill of Rights they'll support. All that need be done here is to say, "no", and then have the membership lean on their representatives to vote "no".

And here's a question...would the Dems have offered this deal to the NRA if they thought they could have passed this latest abomination in the face of their opposition? No. This is classic "divide and conquer". The NRA is negotiating to be eaten last.

EDITED: And if campaign finance reform is the goal, why does the goverment always have to have MORE power? Here's some reform...any citizen or US corporation can donate as much as they want to whomever they want. But every dime has to be disclosed within 24 hours. Every. Dime. This, as opposed to yet another byzantine set of rules, limits, exceptions, etc. Freedom. How's that for a concept?
 
GOA mentions NRA at least 17 times in that article....too bad they can't stand on their own accomplishments.
Click to expand...


The little GOA has accomplished little in their short life span. What they have done is whine, caterwaul and lie about the NRA in an attempt to get folks to quit the NRA.
 
"GOA mentions NRA at least 17 times in that article....too bad they can't stand on their own accomplishments."

As far as I can tell, yelling about NRA and asking for money (to continue to yell about NRA?) are the only things GOA have ever accomplished.
 
H.r. 5175, the disclose act

Yea, I just found out about this "H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT"!!!!

It kind of makes me MAD!!! I just joined the NRA last November for a year!

Should I send them a nasty e-mail or just forgot it?
 
And here's a question...would the Dems have offered this deal to the NRA if they thought they could have passed this latest abomination in the face of their opposition? No. This is classic "divide and conquer". The NRA is negotiating to be eaten last.
Click to expand...

Considering that the sponsor of the bill to except the NRA isn't part of the Dem leadership, I'd say a more likely explanation is the Democratic leadership has let it be known that this bill will be a party discipline vote and the Blue Dog Dems are trying not to go into the November elections with a negative rating from the NRA.

IF it is a party discipline vote AND the Dems can hold that line, then there is no question that it is passing.

Should I send them a nasty e-mail or just forgot it?
Click to expand...

If you are a member of an organization and they aren't living up to what you expect out of them, you should absolutely let them know - whether that is a Congressman, Homeowners Association or the NRA.
 
I am a member,but this whole thing SMELLS real bad to me. Any deal with the libs aint worth a bucket of water. Memorys appear to be short in the organization to say the least.I have never seen the DNC do anything for the NRA over the yrs but fight it tooth and nail, inch by inch,and if they(the NRA) are not concerned with the first admendment as much as the 2nd,well, then why did they worry about a pass on it so much? Someone please answer that? IT STINKS to high heaven. They will lose members over this issue and when they need the backing of the RNC down the road,well,maybe they wont be so willing to jump in the fire.
 
Here is my risk/reward analysis:

Option One - NRA opposes the bill.
Reward: If they are successful and the bill goes down in flames, then everybody wins.
Risk: Whether they are successful or unsuccessful, the RKBA-friendly Democrats who helped the NRA will be the ones to pay the price at the polls in November. That is going to be something other politicians remember as well. In addition, if NRA is unsuccessful, they will have their ability to speak out limited and face the problems with membership lists.

Option Two: NRA neither supports nor opposes bill and accepts Shuler amendment
Reward: Pro-RKBA Dems owe the NRA for not making them choose between party and NRA. NRA is exempted from the law.
Risk: If the law is found to be constitutional and later gains traction, several years down the road, NRA may face challenges to its exemption if public sentiment regarding the desirability of campaign finance law remains unchanged.

So which one looks like the better choice to you?
 
It still SMELLS to high heaven.,it makes them look like caving in against (the NRA) one side entirely. To me it looks like throw everyone else overboard,as stated i belong but i also back other organizations. This whole thing is risky to say the least. Like a guy stated earlier, what they can give they can take away.This wasnt even an issue 40 yrs ago heck not even 10 yrs ago. I also find it funny there is no mention of it on their website that i could find,yet anyway with any explanation.
 
I also find it funny there is no mention of it on their website that i could find,yet anyway with any explanation.
Click to expand...
I'm signed up for NRA-ILA email alerts, and I received the following email yesterday, June 16th:
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---
Click to expand...
 
If this truly poses a possible restriction on the NRA in the future, then I believe the NRA needs to oppose it and make it's Democratic supporters understand why they oppose it. On the other side of the coin, why wouldn't the Democratic NRA supporters break with the party on this? There are those that don't always vote the party line. Where do the state rifle associations, like the TSRA, stand on this? Would it not affect them also? Would it be possible for the state rifle associations to band together and apply the pressure, allowing the NRA to take a pass on the issue?
 
I expect the NRA to make the most effective fight for 2A rights possible. I expect them to also fight to ensure legislation is not passed which interferes with the 2A goal. That is the end of their job.
 
A narrow, dangerous path to tread, with slippery slopes

And, upon reflection, this might be the best position for the NRA to take, although at first glance it seems to go against the grain, quite badly.

We all benefit from the political power of the NRA. And that power comes from the millions of members who actually do something, rather than just pay dues.

NRA opposed McCain-Feingold, and it became law anyway. Now after years of fight, we got it killed. The Disclosure act is a way of getting the same (or maybe even greater) results stifling dissenting voices via onerous regulations.

And so we face the same fight again , against the same idea, just cloaked in a nice name, and a backdoor labyrinth of regulations to comply with instead of an up front "law".

If the legislators exempt the NRA (and as a result some of the other sides lobbying groups as well), then the NRA has little choice but to accept it.

Yes, it is "special treatment", and so, rightly we should refuse, demanding equal treatment for all under the law. That is the principle, and a good one.

BUT, if they exempt the NRA, etc. there is a possibility that the NRA will not be able to fight it, even if that is what we demand. Because, (and I'm no lawyer, so someone here correct me if I am wrong), but I think that the NRA would likely not be able to bring (or participate) in a lawsuit to overturn the Disclosure Act, because a court could rule they have no "standing". Because they are exempted, they are not an affected party, and therefore cannot participate.

That would nullify a lot of the resources and political power the NRA can bring to bear.

SO, what it looks like to me, is the NRA leadership has decided that if they write the exemption into the law, they will not fight it. They must, in this instance, pass the torch so to speak to other groups for this fight. That doesn't mean they have to like it, and I understand the decision within the NRA leadership was not unanimous.

They are within their charter and their responsibility to do so, as by being expempted, then it is no longer an issue of them not being able to speak for 2nd Amendment rights, and therefore doing their best for their membership.

I think this can be looked at quite differently than is being reported at present, and also, as far as I know right now, it's also not a done deal. We still have to see what the legislators actually write to vote on.
 
Because, (and I'm no lawyer, so someone here correct me if I am wrong), but I think that the NRA would likely not be able to bring (or participate) in a lawsuit to overturn the Disclosure Act, because a court could rule they have no "standing". Because they are exempted, they are not an affected party, and therefore cannot participate.
Click to expand...

Correct, although the NRA can still file an amicus brief in support of organizations challenging the law if they wish.

and I understand the decision within the NRA leadership was not unanimous.
Click to expand...

Also true, at least one of the current NRA Board of Directors has written an op-ed denouncing the DISCLOSURE Act and while she went easy on the NRA, it is clear she was not happy with the decision.
 
From The Washington Post, there is this:
One of President Obama's top legislative priorities is in serious doubt after top House Democrats' attempt to satisfy the National Rifle Association backfired badly.

Top Democrats abandoned plans for a Friday vote in the House on the legislation, known as the Disclose Act, after liberal groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus rose up against the deal with the NRA. A lobbying blitz by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups also undermined support for the legislation, aides said.
Click to expand...

There is much more about this from Politico.com this morning:
Hatched over the last few weeks by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) with backing from House Democratic leaders and the White House, it was a legislative maneuver rich with the kind of irony that often goes unremarked in Washington - a classic back-room special interest deal to help pass a bill that would require heightened disclosure of special interest spending on campaign ads.

The idea was to neutralize opposition to tough new campaign spending rules from one particularly powerful special interest group, the National Rifle Association, by exempting it as well as the left-leaning Sierra Club and the ecumenical Humane Society and AARP from certain disclosure requirements in the bill. But while the maneuver was effective in getting the NRA to back down, the deal sparked a backlash that pitted big-money special interest groups, including some traditional allies, against each other, and turned fence-sitters and even some supporters of the bill into opponents.

Short of the votes needed for passage in the House, the bill was pulled Thursday night by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

....

Still, he said his team “tried to talk to them (the NRA) at some length about this,” but was told the group had determined its position based on an assessment of its members’ interest and wasn’t open to changing it.

“I would suggest to you that they have decided that protecting the Second Amendment right is their mission and cutting a deal on the First Amendment to ensure their capacity to protect the Second Amendment was more important to them, the result of which was to toss overboard roughly 100,000 other associations,” asserted Josten.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the criticism his group has received from the right – including being blasted as hypocritical, “arrogant and elitist” by the Wall Street Journal editorial board – hasn’t changed the group’s commitment to its neutrality to the bill – provided the carve out remains intact.

“We did what was in the best interests for the NRA and the Second Amendment and we would do it again,” he said. “We do not take positions on bills that do not affect us.”

Josten asserted the NRA’s neutrality “strengthened the unions” and “undercut” the business community headed into the 2010 midterm elections.
Click to expand...

Politics is a very dirty game. A game the NRA-ILA is good at. We may never know if this was the exact outcome that the NRA wanted. Regardless, the bill now appears to be dead.
 
Now the next question for debate is did the NRA intend for this to happen? Reading the Politico article, it looks like there were a bunch of "traditionally Democratic supporting" interest groups that had decided to remain neutral on the DISCLOSE Act legislation; but changed their position once the NRA got a special carve out.

In fact, it looks like they lowered the membership number to 500,000 (only the NRA met the million mark) in order to include the Sierra Club, AARP, the Humane Society and a few others; but the Sierra Club went from their neutral status to "opposed" solely because of the NRA carve-out (and to their credit, they maintained the opposed status even after the membership number was lowered). It also looks like the unions and NAACP started grumbling mightily when they heard about the NRA carve out.

So now it looks like the bill is completely dead; but the NRA is exempt even if it isn't AND the Dems owe them whether the bill passes or not. Not a bad day's work, intentional or not.
 
Does anyone on this forum play chess? :rolleyes:

I have not been particularly kind to Chris Cox, since he finagled time from Gura at the McDonald orals. I find I now owe him a "Thank You" for this particular maneuver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top