This was sent to an NRA mailing list by Mike Haas, President of the West Contra Costa NRA Member's Council:
---------------
If you've heard of the controvery on the Hostettler amendments, this will be
more than interesting. I find it curious that the Board has been deluged
with mail about a "controversy" that hasn't been mentioned on MC or any
familiar forum. Methinks Mr. Baker's suspicions below are well-founded.
Mike Haas
Ps. As I believe this was originally for BoD only, I've x'ed out Mr.
Baker's personal contact info. If you think you have important info
regarding such orchestration, send to me and I will forward. Thanks.
> "Michael P. Baker" wrote:
>
> > Hi, folks-- Regarding the sudden spate of angry e-mail posts which a number
> > of NRA BOD members have gotten recently regarding our position on the
> > Hostettler amendments, I believe I smell a rat.
> >
> > Every major NRA involvement either pro or con supporting an amendment or
> > bill always results in a few (or a bunch) of e-mail. However, what arrived
> > recently regarding the Hostettler amendments was more than a "bunch"--
> > it was a deluge; an unprecedented flood of angry "NRA-has-stabbed-gun-
> > owners-in-the-back" flood of posts. This is a put-up job, I believe.
> > Someone, somewhere has orchestrated this flood of e-mail.
> >
> > Here is the response I have been sending out to all the incoming posts
> > I have received on the subject:
> >
> > Mike Baker
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > TO:
> >
> > FROM: Michael P. Baker REPLY TO:
> > Micanopy, Florida
> > Member, Board of Directors 24-HR FAX (352) xxx-xxxx
> > National Rifle Association RES (352) xxx-xxxx
> >
> > NOTE!! My full-time job plus my involvement in RKBA grassroots activism
> > occasionally produces over 100 E-mail posts daily from across the nation.
> > I really DO welcome your input, but the fact is that sometimes I have no
> > time to deal with anything other than official material or posts of a
> > personal concern. Job, family, NRA business (& sometimes, a "real-life")
> > force ruthless deletion of many non-critical and/or non-personal posts
> > whose addresses are not outstandingly familiar.
> >
> > For personal response, put "ATTN: MIKE BAKER" in the subject line.
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> > Dear - - - -,
> >
> > This is in response to your post to me regarding NRA's position on the
> > Hostettler amendments.
> >
> > The problem with only hearing ONE side of the story (from Mr. Knox's
> > or GOA's perspective) is is just that-- You only have ONE side of the
> > story. The internet is rife with uninformed, childish chatter from
> > folks who may mean well, but are quite uninformed about the details
> > surrounding legislative activity. Such uninformed chatter is frequently
> > both unreliable and misleading. Even certain pro-gun organizations
> > and well known pro-gun people (see above) sometimes have personal agendas
> > that color their "reporting." I suspect the latter to be the cause for
> > your concern.
> >
> > On occasion, even *pro-gun* legislation is poorly thought out or will
> > likely result in creating other problems. The Hostettler amendments, in
> > NRA's opinion, clearly fell into that category. I can give you several
> > pages of valid reasons why NRA did not support the Hostettler amendments,
> > but in the interests of brevity I will limit this to a few paragraphs.
> >
> > Please investigate a bit deeper and I believe you will understand that
> > NRA has done the right thing. NRA HAS NOT COMPROMISED! It carefully
> > examined the proposed amendments and made the right choices.
> >
> > In the last few days, based on some one-sided and poorly informed reporting
> > circulating on the Hostettler amendments, there has been a bit of an uproar
> > within the ranks of the pro-gun-rights community regarding NRA's position
> > on Rep. Hostettler's series of amendments.
> >
> > After reading the pronouncements on the situation distributed by Mr. Knox
> > and others, I now understand what has generated the well intentioned (but
> > mis-informed) protests to me and other NRA BOD members. Some of the
> > statements by Mr. Knox and others did not tell you the whole story. After
> > looking into the situation and communicating with both Rep. Virgil Goode
> > and the NRA staff at Fairfax, I have some insight on the situation.
> >
> > In preliminary strategy meetings, NRA met with Rep. Hostettler and agreed
> > that his goal of putting a stop to Cuomo's anti-gun efforts was much
> > appreciated, but there were substantial differences of opinion as to how
> > best to proceed.
> >
> > In a nutshell, the most basic point is that Hostettler's amendments were all
> > designed EXCLUSIVELY to save S&W from themselves, while our Goode amendment
> > is designed to save the rest of us from S&W as well as to put a stop to other
> > games being played by Cuomo and his ilk. The following is the perspective
> > on the situation from NRA's point-of-view.
> >
> > Mike Baker
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Hostettler's recent series of amendments posed two problems. First, drafting
> > limitations forced the Congressman to put forward language that was, and is,
> > very limited in scope. NRA's opinion was that these amendments would not
> > achieve their intended goal of blocking Cuomo, as their very limited language
> > focused simply on preventing enforcement of, and further participation in,
> > the Smith & Wesson Sellout.
> >
> > The net effect would have been to give S&W a "free ride" to get out of the
> > agreement it intentionally brokered with Cuomo and the Clinton-Gore
> > Administration, but the amendments would have done nothing to keep the
> > Administration from harassing or enticing other gun companies into signing a
> > similar agreement. In particular, Hostettler's amendments did nothing to
> > preclude the type of financial extortion Cuomo has sought to deploy by
> > encouraging "purchase preferences" for S&W firearms.
> >
> > NRA's primary goal, by contrast, has been to ensure that no other gun makers
> > are driven into surrendering to the anti-gun extremists. As such, our
> > effort has focused on prohibiting the Clinton-Gore Administration from using
> > lucrative government firearms contracts to coerce other gun makers into
> > following S&W and surrendering our rights. Therefore, NRA worked with U.S.
> > Representative Virgil Goode (I-Va.) to introduce language that would prohibit
> > establishing politically-motivated purchase preferences for government
> > firearms contracts -- thus eliminating the "hammer" of Cuomo's effort, and
> > removing the threat that gun makers could expect to be financially rewarded
> > for agreeing to craven capitulations.
> >
> > The Goode amendment is similar to an amendment Hostettler offered several
> > weeks back, which NRA also supported, that sought to prohibit purchase
> > preferences for government firearms contracts originating with the
> > Department of Defense. However, as noted above, Rep. Hostettler's recent
> > amendments have diverted from this strategy.
> >
> > NRA is pleased to report that the Goode amendment was made part of the
> > Treasury / Postal Appropriations bill in the House with bipartisan support.
> > Opponents of the Goode amendment withdrew a threat to challenge it on the
> > floor, and similar language was introduced in the Senate Appropriations
> > Committee by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and accepted with strong support
> > from committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Rest assured NRA will
> > strongly defend the Goode / Shelby language from any effort to remove it
> > as the process nears completion.
> >
> > Again, NRA appreciates your concerns regarding recent activities in Congress,
> > and we hope that this detailed discussion of legislative strategy addresses
> > your query. NRA hopes that you will agree that it is extremely important
> > to keep other gun makers from being enticed into caving in to the Cuomo-
> > Clinton-Gore team with the lure of lucrative government contracts. NRA also
> > hopes that you will agree that such efforts are far more strategically sound
> > than focussing exclusively on saving S&W from the consequences of the
> > groundbreaking surrender that the company brought upon itself.
---------------
If you've heard of the controvery on the Hostettler amendments, this will be
more than interesting. I find it curious that the Board has been deluged
with mail about a "controversy" that hasn't been mentioned on MC or any
familiar forum. Methinks Mr. Baker's suspicions below are well-founded.
Mike Haas
Ps. As I believe this was originally for BoD only, I've x'ed out Mr.
Baker's personal contact info. If you think you have important info
regarding such orchestration, send to me and I will forward. Thanks.
> "Michael P. Baker" wrote:
>
> > Hi, folks-- Regarding the sudden spate of angry e-mail posts which a number
> > of NRA BOD members have gotten recently regarding our position on the
> > Hostettler amendments, I believe I smell a rat.
> >
> > Every major NRA involvement either pro or con supporting an amendment or
> > bill always results in a few (or a bunch) of e-mail. However, what arrived
> > recently regarding the Hostettler amendments was more than a "bunch"--
> > it was a deluge; an unprecedented flood of angry "NRA-has-stabbed-gun-
> > owners-in-the-back" flood of posts. This is a put-up job, I believe.
> > Someone, somewhere has orchestrated this flood of e-mail.
> >
> > Here is the response I have been sending out to all the incoming posts
> > I have received on the subject:
> >
> > Mike Baker
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > TO:
> >
> > FROM: Michael P. Baker REPLY TO:
> > Micanopy, Florida
> > Member, Board of Directors 24-HR FAX (352) xxx-xxxx
> > National Rifle Association RES (352) xxx-xxxx
> >
> > NOTE!! My full-time job plus my involvement in RKBA grassroots activism
> > occasionally produces over 100 E-mail posts daily from across the nation.
> > I really DO welcome your input, but the fact is that sometimes I have no
> > time to deal with anything other than official material or posts of a
> > personal concern. Job, family, NRA business (& sometimes, a "real-life")
> > force ruthless deletion of many non-critical and/or non-personal posts
> > whose addresses are not outstandingly familiar.
> >
> > For personal response, put "ATTN: MIKE BAKER" in the subject line.
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> > Dear - - - -,
> >
> > This is in response to your post to me regarding NRA's position on the
> > Hostettler amendments.
> >
> > The problem with only hearing ONE side of the story (from Mr. Knox's
> > or GOA's perspective) is is just that-- You only have ONE side of the
> > story. The internet is rife with uninformed, childish chatter from
> > folks who may mean well, but are quite uninformed about the details
> > surrounding legislative activity. Such uninformed chatter is frequently
> > both unreliable and misleading. Even certain pro-gun organizations
> > and well known pro-gun people (see above) sometimes have personal agendas
> > that color their "reporting." I suspect the latter to be the cause for
> > your concern.
> >
> > On occasion, even *pro-gun* legislation is poorly thought out or will
> > likely result in creating other problems. The Hostettler amendments, in
> > NRA's opinion, clearly fell into that category. I can give you several
> > pages of valid reasons why NRA did not support the Hostettler amendments,
> > but in the interests of brevity I will limit this to a few paragraphs.
> >
> > Please investigate a bit deeper and I believe you will understand that
> > NRA has done the right thing. NRA HAS NOT COMPROMISED! It carefully
> > examined the proposed amendments and made the right choices.
> >
> > In the last few days, based on some one-sided and poorly informed reporting
> > circulating on the Hostettler amendments, there has been a bit of an uproar
> > within the ranks of the pro-gun-rights community regarding NRA's position
> > on Rep. Hostettler's series of amendments.
> >
> > After reading the pronouncements on the situation distributed by Mr. Knox
> > and others, I now understand what has generated the well intentioned (but
> > mis-informed) protests to me and other NRA BOD members. Some of the
> > statements by Mr. Knox and others did not tell you the whole story. After
> > looking into the situation and communicating with both Rep. Virgil Goode
> > and the NRA staff at Fairfax, I have some insight on the situation.
> >
> > In preliminary strategy meetings, NRA met with Rep. Hostettler and agreed
> > that his goal of putting a stop to Cuomo's anti-gun efforts was much
> > appreciated, but there were substantial differences of opinion as to how
> > best to proceed.
> >
> > In a nutshell, the most basic point is that Hostettler's amendments were all
> > designed EXCLUSIVELY to save S&W from themselves, while our Goode amendment
> > is designed to save the rest of us from S&W as well as to put a stop to other
> > games being played by Cuomo and his ilk. The following is the perspective
> > on the situation from NRA's point-of-view.
> >
> > Mike Baker
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Hostettler's recent series of amendments posed two problems. First, drafting
> > limitations forced the Congressman to put forward language that was, and is,
> > very limited in scope. NRA's opinion was that these amendments would not
> > achieve their intended goal of blocking Cuomo, as their very limited language
> > focused simply on preventing enforcement of, and further participation in,
> > the Smith & Wesson Sellout.
> >
> > The net effect would have been to give S&W a "free ride" to get out of the
> > agreement it intentionally brokered with Cuomo and the Clinton-Gore
> > Administration, but the amendments would have done nothing to keep the
> > Administration from harassing or enticing other gun companies into signing a
> > similar agreement. In particular, Hostettler's amendments did nothing to
> > preclude the type of financial extortion Cuomo has sought to deploy by
> > encouraging "purchase preferences" for S&W firearms.
> >
> > NRA's primary goal, by contrast, has been to ensure that no other gun makers
> > are driven into surrendering to the anti-gun extremists. As such, our
> > effort has focused on prohibiting the Clinton-Gore Administration from using
> > lucrative government firearms contracts to coerce other gun makers into
> > following S&W and surrendering our rights. Therefore, NRA worked with U.S.
> > Representative Virgil Goode (I-Va.) to introduce language that would prohibit
> > establishing politically-motivated purchase preferences for government
> > firearms contracts -- thus eliminating the "hammer" of Cuomo's effort, and
> > removing the threat that gun makers could expect to be financially rewarded
> > for agreeing to craven capitulations.
> >
> > The Goode amendment is similar to an amendment Hostettler offered several
> > weeks back, which NRA also supported, that sought to prohibit purchase
> > preferences for government firearms contracts originating with the
> > Department of Defense. However, as noted above, Rep. Hostettler's recent
> > amendments have diverted from this strategy.
> >
> > NRA is pleased to report that the Goode amendment was made part of the
> > Treasury / Postal Appropriations bill in the House with bipartisan support.
> > Opponents of the Goode amendment withdrew a threat to challenge it on the
> > floor, and similar language was introduced in the Senate Appropriations
> > Committee by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and accepted with strong support
> > from committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Rest assured NRA will
> > strongly defend the Goode / Shelby language from any effort to remove it
> > as the process nears completion.
> >
> > Again, NRA appreciates your concerns regarding recent activities in Congress,
> > and we hope that this detailed discussion of legislative strategy addresses
> > your query. NRA hopes that you will agree that it is extremely important
> > to keep other gun makers from being enticed into caving in to the Cuomo-
> > Clinton-Gore team with the lure of lucrative government contracts. NRA also
> > hopes that you will agree that such efforts are far more strategically sound
> > than focussing exclusively on saving S&W from the consequences of the
> > groundbreaking surrender that the company brought upon itself.