Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

If you are a NRA member, please voice your concern by phone and in writing with the NRA regarding a possible NRA endorsement of Harry Reid. Don't let the NRA's ILA take over the NRA. Let the NRA leadership know that a leadership change within the NRA is quite possible along with a change in Congress.

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/0 ... arry-reid/

I always wondered how much it would take to buy the NRA. It seems that the answer to that question is $61 million.

Wow you moved fast on that one Chasbo00. I just saw this over on opencarry.org and was on my way back to post links LOL.

You really have to wonder what the heck got thrown into the punch over at the ILA. You had the carve out exemption in the campaign finance bill. You had them gag their leaders on the SCOTUS appointment hearings. And now this they plan to endorse Harry Reid, who has shown time and time again that he is opposed to our gun rights.

The only thing I can figure is that Chris Cox wants to completely alienate the NRA membership so he looses his job and he gets to apply for jobless benefits.

totes6 wrote:Wow you moved fast on that one Chasbo00. I just saw this over on opencarry.org and was on my way back to post links LOL.

You really have to wonder what the heck got thrown into the punch over at the ILA. You had the carve out exemption in the campaign finance bill. You had them gag their leaders on the SCOTUS appointment hearings. And now this they plan to endorse Harry Reid, who has shown time and time again that he is opposed to our gun rights.

The only thing I can figure is that Chris Cox wants to completely alienate the NRA membership so he looses his job and he gets to apply for jobless benefits.

More than likely they are playing tit for tat. We hammered them on the campaign finance bill.

Considering the political climate as it is now I would venture that most NRA members in Nevada couldn't give a flying &%$# about their endorsment and will follow their own good sense and dump Reid like the load of Hot Crappola he is...His hot and then cold support for the NRA just don;t cut it in my eyes.. Sort of like the traitor turncoat Arlen Spector changing ships to gain favor politically,,,Bit him in the ass royally and coundn;t happen to a nicer guy , HMM unless it was Chuckie Schumer,, or Nancy ,or Barbara, or Kerry,.. damn a lot of em to throw to the wolves this year...

totes6 wrote:The only thing I can figure is that Chris Cox wants to completely alienate the NRA membership so he looses his job and he gets to apply for jobless benefits.

I'm doing what I can to see that this Cox sucker becomes unemployed.

As far as I know, Harry Reid has had a really good voting record with gun rights for years. And he has been the one who has stopped many anti-gun bills from coming to the floor of the Senate since 2006. When it comes to gun rights, he's been very good. And so the NRA is following its policy of endorsing gun-friendly incumbents.

Remember, its not the National Republican Association... its the National Rifle Association.

And don't get me started on OCDO. They endorsed Brian Moran for VA Gov last year... at the same time Moran was actively running anti-gun campaign ads. Brian Moran is the brother of anti-gun, close-the-gun-show-loophole Jim Moran, btw. It doesn't take a real genius to figure out what Brian Moran would do once in office.

Gun Owners of America gives Harry Reid an F rating.

Here's a listing of Harry Reid's anti-gun voting record during the last 20 years:

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

The GOA isn't giving all the details here. Many of these are situations where Reid voted against the insertion of anti-gun language and amendments into much, much larger muss-past bills, such as budgets and crime bills. Also the GOA gives A-ratings to many Senators with the exact same votes. What's going on here? Is the GOA engaging in friendly fire at another gun rights organization?

More info on the distortion of Reid's record:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/07 ... dorsement/

There is also another big issue here. How do you like the sound of "Senate Majority Leader Schumer"? It is unlikely the GOP will retake the Senate this year because not enough of the vulnerable ones are up for re-election. If Schumer becomes the leader of the Senate, we'll be seeing tons of MAIG initiated legislation. And with a RHINO house, such things have a good chance of passing into law.

Also, the GOP may be better on gun rights than the Dems overall, but it isn't one of their issues. I have a neighbor who is well connected with the Republican party, and he keeps telling me that the GOP has no interest in gun rights. Afterall, the GOP didn't lift a finger to repeal the Assault Weapons Ban when they had the chance. Carry in National Parks? Didn't come from the GOP. National reciprocity for carrying firearms... never considered by the GOP. Forcing Amtrak to allow passengers to transport firearms... not from the GOP.

@LFS,

I believe Harry Reid is a pro-gun poser at best the last couple years. His voting record during the past two decades speaks for itself and it reveals his true colors. Why would a pro-gun person vote to to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program? Why would a pro-gun person vote for the Brady Bill and the "Assault Weapons"ban?

Guns Owners of America got it right -- Harry Reid is an anti-gun legislator.

@Chasbo00, That's certainly your opinion. But other Senators for whom the GOA has given A ratings voted for all the things you just mentioned.

I'm not a big fan of Harry Reid, not at all. But I don't think it is wise to try to unseat him from a gun rights point of view. He's bad, but we are likely to get stuck with much, much worse if he is unseated. I don't like it, but there it is.

@LFS, my concern really lies with a possible NRA endorsement of Harry Reid. Whether Reid returns to the Senate next year or not will be determined by Nevada voters. However, regardless of Reid's victory or defeat in the November election. If the NRA endorses him, it's going to be a bad move and it will hurt the NRA as an organization.

I note you are an IDPA member. I was reading the IDPA rule book recently and noted the "Failure To Do Right" (FTDR) penalty. FTDR, I like the term -- it's refreshingly descriptive and clear. The NRA's recent sellout regarding the Disclose Act, their frequent timid and weak engagement with respect to relevant legislation and issues, and now an apparent willingness to endorse Harry Reid all collectively sum up my (and I think many others' too) concerns with the NRA. The last few years or so, the NRA has had too many FTDRs. I think it's time for some leadership changes, especially within the NRA's ILA.

Here is perhaps a more balanced listing of Reid's gun ratings:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_c ... ategory=37

@Chasbo00, if the NRA doesn't endorse Reid it could seriously impact their ability to lobby Congress. Think about it... Reid has been carrying their water and doing their bidding for years, especially the last 4 (despite what you may think, he's stopped a lot of awful bills from making it to the floor of the Senate on behalf of the NRA.). If the NRA were to say, "Thanks, but we're breaking our promise to endorse you." that would send a horrible message to every other politician on the hill. There would be no reason for politicians to care about NRA scoring or helping the NRA with legislative items.

And I want to bring your attention back to the prospect of Chuck Schumer becoming the Majority Leader in the Senate. That could be an outright disaster for gun rights. Should that happen, Schumer and his buddy Bloomberg will be ramming tons of MAIG written legislation down our throat. And don't count on the Republicans to stop them... after all, a good many mayors that are part of MAIG are Republicans.

LFS, I think you and I are going to just have to agree to disagree on Reid. That's OK. Reasonable people can disagree, especially on matters of politics and opinion.

It's my opinion that the NRA has become too political. The NRA's cozying up to Washington politics and its willingness to avoid issues and compromise on values has made the organization less effective than it could or should be. The NRA's potential endorsing of Reid will have little if any effect on Reid's being, or not being, elected. But, I'm pretty sure an NRA Reid endorsement would have a significant negative effect on the NRA's membership numbers -- it would be yet another reason why many current members abandon the NRA and lots of potential new members fail to join. I don't think Reid is the Anti-Christ of gun rights; but, I don't think he's a gun-rights supporter either. I could live with the NRA not endorsing either Reid or his opponent. That may well be what NRA ends up doing stating that both candidates are pro-gun and endorsing one over the other would be inappropriate.

Despite our differing views, I've enjoyed the debate. Thanks, and perhaps we go shooting together sometime. I'd like to give IDPA a try.

When next year it's "Senate Majority Leader Durbin" or "Senate Majority Leader Schumer", I wonder how many will rethink their positions on this.

It's a real long shot that the Republicans will retake the Senate this year. If Reid is voted out, it is going to be really, really rough couple of years. Don't count on the House putting the brakes on all anti-gun bills and amendments, and they'll have nothing at all to do to stop judicial nominees or treaties.

What I'm saying is, be prepared to live with the results of what you're advocating.

Diomed wrote:When next year it's "Senate Majority Leader Durbin" or "Senate Majority Leader Schumer", I wonder how many will rethink their positions on this.

It's a real long shot that the Republicans will retake the Senate this year. If Reid is voted out, it is going to be really, really rough couple of years. Don't count on the House putting the brakes on all anti-gun bills and amendments, and they'll have nothing at all to do to stop judicial nominees or treaties.

What I'm saying is, be prepared to live with the results of what you're advocating.

What I'm advocating is that the NRA not endorse Harry Reid. Why? Because if it does, NRA membership will suffer. The only real power the NRA has is its four million member base. Do you think the NRA's endorsement of Harry Reid will materially affect whether or not he is re-elected? I don't. If we end up with Durbin, Schumer or someone else as the Senate Majority Leader, it won't be because the NRA failed to endorse Harry Reid.

@Chasbo00, I agree that this will hurt NRA membership. And the NRA endorsement won't be nearly as useful as it would have been in past years. However, I do not think it is wise for NRA members to quit over this issue or DISCLOSE. Doing so means they take their voice out of the process. The NRA is the go-to group for gun rights in Washington DC. The other gun-rights lobbying outfits in DC don't have anywhere near the clout of the NRA on the hill. The NRA is the second most powerful lobby in DC, and political pollsters say the NRA directly influences the votes of 33 million Americans. By contrast, most gun owners have never even heard of the GOA.

It is also my experience that many gun owners will find any excuse to not join the NRA. Nearly half of all homes in this country have a firearm, and there are 40 million active firearms users (hunting, competition, carry, etc...), yet only 4 million have joined the NRA. The fact is that you and I are the exception, not the rule.

I do think the NRA needs to rethink its scoring and endorsement policies. Perhaps they need to be modernized or something, but they don't feel right. And the NRA does need to explain its maneuvering more to its membership.

As for the IDPA, it is a blast! I hope to see you out there. A couple of us on this forum hit the matches at Blue Ridge Arsenal and Silver Eagle. That's enough to keep you busy a couple of nights a month.

@LFS, I agree with all your last post. Hopefully, the NRA's ILA will get in better touch with its membership base at large.

I'm a member of BRA and hope to make an IDPA match there soon. I'll look forward to meeting you.

I am an NRA member who is now rethinking his membership. The leadership's position on the DISCLOSE bill really ticked me off. No need to go into that further. The NRA needs to earn my membership, year after year, by not committing FTDR violations. They have failed to do right recently.

And as for Sen. Reid....

Reid is a rotten turncoat in a lot of ways. About the only thing he's been halfway decent on (recently, now that he's up for election in a royally pissed-off Nevada) is gun rights. That gun range in Nevada was featured in "America's 1st Freedom" with the NRA-ILA leadership fawning all over Reid.

Mark my words. If he does get re-elected, he'll go right back to his anti-gunner ways.

CowboyT wrote:Mark my words. If he does get re-elected, he'll go right back to his anti-gunner ways.

There is no going back...he never was. These politicians tells us what we want to hear, but do the opposite. How many times are we going to be fooled?