NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes

Status
Not open for further replies.
I, for one, question this decision. The left/Democrats are already characterizing the NRA as a branch of the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Ah Gary, the left already despises the NRA and can't demonize them enough. I just read that the Zimmerman-Martin incident was the NRA's fault for supporting the "Stand Your Ground Law" even though it it grants no right to chase after a suspect and try to detain him.

Don't know if it's a good idea or not, but how the left feels about it shouldn't be of the slightest concern.
 
Anyone who has done any lobbying realizes lobbyists, for the most part, are mercenaries. They go wherever the paycheck is and if they have ten minutes of free time they fill in with another client. MOST work for dozens of organizations. They peddle connections, not ideology. A paid career working for the NRA and another conservative group is not at all surprising. It also isn't anything at all new.

I think the NRA has generally been lopsided in supporting Republicans, but they have also supported a few Democrats who supported gun rights and infuriated paying members. Everyone forget the last election cycle?

I'm no fan of the NRA as a defender as the 2A, as my sig indicates, but I saw this article and laughed.
 
This is for those who can't read past the topic header. There is no proof that the NRA is promoting anything other than gun related positions. A lobbyist they use also lobbies for another organization which sometimes cooperates with the NRA on gun related issues like the "stand your ground" laws. CNN is using half-truths and innuendo to damage the NRA and those of us who love firearms.
 
As KyJim pointed out, there is nothing to this story. It is little more than an attempt to divide gun owners. The NRA has a 76-member Board of Directors, and not suprisingly given the conservative support for the Second Amendment, some of them are conservative.

However, by no means all of those members are... you may remember past NRA Board of Directors such as Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) (who would later throw us under the bus for the AWB and thus become unpopular with the NRA). Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) was a member of the NRA Board of Directors until his death in 2011. Roy Innis is no longer a Democrat, having switched to the Libertarian Party after unsuccessful primary runs against Mario Cuomo and David Dinkins; but he is not exactly a conservative.

You can bet that current sitting Board of Directors members, like Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) (who I might note addressed the NRA Annual Meeting in 2008 AND 2010 for those who were complaining about the current lineup), would be screaming bloody murder if the NRA was using member funds to promote the Republican party.

It is the height of irony that as recently as 2010, this board was alight with irate conservatives complaining about the NRA taking an exemption on the DISCLOSE Act and giving favorable press to Sen. Harry Reid and now here we are in 2012 and people are complaining that the NRA is too conservative and linked to other conservative causes. That right there is fairly solid proof that the NRA is about the Second Amendment - both sides are mad at it because it won't identify more closely with their causes.
 
This is for those who can't read past the topic header. There is no proof that the NRA is promoting anything other than gun related positions. A lobbyist they use also lobbies for another organization which sometimes cooperates with the NRA on gun related issues like the "stand your ground" laws. CNN is using half-truths and innuendo to damage the NRA and those of us who love firearms.
Click to expand...

Just to repeat for the reading impaired and knee-jerk reactionaries. If you rely on CNN, or scanning headlines in general, for your 2A information then you might want to rethink that.
 
4. The AWB passed the US house by one vote: 38 "conservatives", including the house minority leader, voted in favor of the AWB. 76 "liberals" voted against the AWB.
Click to expand...
Senate votes:

Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295
H.R. 3355. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. August 25, 1994

Passed by a vote of 61-38

Republicans vote for/against: 7/36; 16% FOR
Democrats vote for/against: 54/2; 96% FOR

89% of the FOR votes were cast by the Democrats.


Brady Bill
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/...te_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00394
H.R. 1025. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993. November 20, 1993

Passed by a vote of 63-36

Republicans vote for/against: 16/28; 36% FOR
Democrats vote for/against: 47/8; 85% FOR

75% of the FOR votes were cast by the Democrats.


Commerce in Arms
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/...te_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00206
S.397. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. July 26, 2005

Passed by a vote of 66-32

Republicans vote for/against: 53/1; 98% FOR
Democrats vote for/against: 13/30; 30% FOR

97% of the AGAINST votes were cast by the Democrats.

This last vote data and calculations do not include the one senator who voted as Independent.

Some of the Democrats voting No on this issue are the headlining members of the Gun Control Hall of Shame: Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer.
 
Last edited:
1. "Conservatives" did a net nothing for US gunowners when they ruled the white house and both houses of congress. They could have rolled back the Hughes Amendment, the bans on importation of fireams by previous presidents, the ban on concealed carry in national parks and parts of the GCA 1968. Instead they did nothing.
Click to expand...

Which, if true, would still be a reason to vote for them as opposed to the liberals who have done a net negative for us.

Not quite true, though: the conservatives in the previous administration passed the Commerce in Arms act (see previous post) to prevent gun manufacturers and gun shops from being sued into oblivion with frivolous lawsuits.
 
Bush also signed a law saying it was illegal to confiscate firearms during times of emergency.

Has any other president signed anything pro gun in his presidency ?
 
OK, fans - here we go. We discuss anti and progun issues. If you want to confound liberal and conservative with that - we get nowhere.

Bush said he would sign the AWB, IIRC.

So, this is very near a shut down.

Stay on the NRA or bye bye.
 
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is one of the most under-rated pro-gun peices of legislation ever.

I think gun owners under estimate it's importance because it doesn't seem to have an immediate and direct impact on them like mag cap laws, a state-approved list of weapons, flat out bans like in Chicago & DC - things like that.

But the anti-gunners rightly understood that litigation was an extremely powerful tool for accomplishing their goals.
 
Okay, over-arching confusing here.

If none of my money, well my father's money, that is paid in NRA dues is used for legal issues, then where is the money necessary for the NRA to branch out thier lobbyinh coming from?

The SAF is looking better all the time. All I got from the NRA was a hat.
 
If none of my money, well my father's money, that is paid in NRA dues is used for legal issues, then where is the money necessary for the NRA to branch out thier lobbyinh coming from?
Click to expand...
The ILA gets their money through donations, collected through those mailers almost everybody throws out and those phone calls almost everyone hangs up on.
 
On the one hand - I want to say that the SAF has done more for me in Illinois than the NRA has, looking at the McDonald case.

Looking at Sheperd v Madigan and Moore v Madigan, while the results were the same in the lower courts, I think the NRA lawyers could have done a better job with Sheperd - especially forgetting to site Woolard as authority.

But on the other hand - the NRA has done a ton of stuff on the legislative front for me in Illinois.

We have an NRA lobbyist who is right there in the halls with the Illinois State representatives and Senators.

My NRA lobbyist posts of a forum to give us the inside info on the legislative process, the back door deals, the political manuvering, the strategy and tactics. It can get very confusing and this NRA guy works tirelessly to break it down for us.

I do think that the NRA should stick to gun issues (I don't think the posted story makes a case that they are branching out).

One of the problems I do have with the NRA though, at least in Illinois, is that new candidates don't get a grade. But in Illinois we have "The Machine", the "Democratic Machine" The power epicenter for the machine is Chicago. Even if there is a pro-gun democrat in Illinois, they are going to have to play by rules, tow the party line and vote anti-gun.

So the NRA's position of only grading politicians based on their voting record or how they answer a question - has not helped in Illinois.

I would think at some point the ISRA & NRA would just start giving these new candidates a failing grade based on their membership in an organization that has proven to be anti-gun.
 
Tom Servo said:
The ILA gets their money through donations, collected through those mailers almost everybody throws out and those phone calls almost everyone hangs up on.
Click to expand...

So in addition to Pop's shelling out whatever our yearly fees are, I would have to donate to the ILA to ensure legal action?
 
I would have to donate to the ILA to ensure legal action?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can ensure legal action by simply donating to the NRA-ILA. Your donation goes into the ILA pot as it were to help fund all the NRA-ILA activities. That may or may not include every issue you are personally interested in. Remember, the NRA is a national organization.
 
So in addition to Pop's shelling out whatever our yearly fees are, I would have to donate to the ILA to ensure legal action?
Click to expand...

Here is how it works:

NRA - they promote education regarding firearms, ranges and competition. They run the Eddie Eagle program, teach firearms safety to children and adults, provide advice and grants to range owners, organize and run various firearms competitions, and promote academic research etc.

NRA-ILA - Lobbies Congress in favor of specific legislation, works with state groups to pass legislation at the state level when that is more appropriate.

NRA-PVF - Works to get pro-NRA candidates re-elected and donates to their campaigns.

NRA Civil Defense Fund - Pursues Second Amendment litigation as well as helping ranges being threatened with civil suits and occasionally assisting in defense of gun owners who have used their firearms in justifiable self-defense but got caught in the legal system.

NRA Foundation - a 501(c)(3) non-profit that is basically the NRA's answer to the Joyce Foundation. Donations here are tax-deductible.

Your NRA member dues go towards the NRA only. The other organizations are supported by donations and other fundraising events.

And while the NRA Civil Defense Fund is a worthy cause that does a lot of good and is deserving of your money, if your thing is that you want to support top quality Second Amendment litigation, my personal opinion is that the Second Amendment Foundation has been more successful on that front.
 
^ It's harder for me to see exactly what my donations to the NRA do for me specifically in Illinois. It's easy for me to see exactly what my donations to the Illinois State Rifle Association do, their website is keeping tabs on all Illinois gun legislation pro & con, they flag every article in every newspaper, every poll that get published and they're on top of every Illinois political and legal development as it pertains to gun rights in Illinois.

And I know there is this idea that we all need to stand together to accomplish things, but Illinois is the last state to have a flat on ban on carrying. I know that in New Jersey and parts of California they have what amounts to a ban, but technically, Illinois is the last state.

The elections are coming up and I think that is where I am hoping the NRA will bring more resources to bear on Illinois. Campaign contibutions and media spots could make a huge difference in this election and we really only need to change out 3 or 4 anti-gun politicians.

But the way it looks, the NRA seems to be focusing more on the national level. I know the presidency is important - especially considering that the Supreme Court is THE court for the 2nd Amendment, it's the court of first resort and last resort - it's the only court.

Our NRA lobbyist is a great guy, and he does represent the NRA, but besides him, I'm not sure how much help he's getting from the national organization.
 
There are ties between the right and the NRA that are disturbing to me,...
Click to expand...

I have to wonder about attitudes like this one. The NRA is not an organization who discriminates about its members. Anyone and everyone who pays the dues is a member. Right, Left, UP, Down, all shapes, sizes, and political flavors are welcome as members. Your politics, outside gun issues is of complete indifference.

CNN does good work. Just don't confuse their work with the truth, ever.
Their lies, half truths and innuendo accomplish exactly what they want them to do. Just look at all the posters who threatened to leave the NRA and take their money with them, simply because of an article by a known, tainted, source!

SO what if a large number of the "right" are NRA members? (and just who is the "right", and why are they a bad thing?...no, don't answer that here, that a retorical question:D)

To those who claim loudly that the NRA doesn't do enough, or is wrong, etc. and are leaving because of that, I ask, "What have you done?" Rather than take your toys and go home, why not work in the NRA to make it what you (obviously) feel it ought to be, and isn't?

They may not be doing all you think they should, or may be going in what you feel is the wrong direction, but bashing the NRA and going away does NOTHING positive, either way. You aren't getting the NRA to change, and you aren't getting what you say you want. Some might say that's a whining loser's actions.

While there are other pro gun organizations that work hard, and do good things, the NRA is the only one recognised by the anti's as dangerous to their agendas. Even though they deride the NRA as fringe nuts, they privately admit it is much more mainstream and powerful than all the other pro gun groups combined. And more to the point, its true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top