NRA shoots gun owners in the back

[gunderwood]

Chance! You going to leave your house up to CHANCE? With the carve out the NRA has 100% assurance that their house will not burn. While you may not agree with it you can not fault them for taking such a deal. Its called politics.

I don't agree with it and I have written to my representatives asking them not to support this bill. You can be angry and not support the NRA but if you step back and look at it logically they had no choice but to take the deal.

It's putting the foot in the door for more bills like it. It may leave the NRA scotch-free now but who knows what lies ahead. They have a opportunity to stop it and they're letting the houses burn. To go along with a analogy house fires jump from house to house. They'll get to the NRA just as soon as they get their foot in the door.

+1

[viiiball]

No, they would get a .45 in the face because the only way for them to guarantee my house would not be set on fire is because they are in cahoots/are the arsonist.

And this is why we are sometimes referred to as gun nuts.

[Jakeiscrazy]

No, they would get a .45 in the face because the only way for them to guarantee my house would not be set on fire is because they are in cahoots/are the arsonist.

[LFS]

No, they would get a .45 in the face because the only way for them to guarantee my house would not be set on fire is because they are in cahoots/are the arsonist.

And this is why we are sometimes referred to as gun nuts.

+1

[gunderwood]

No, they would get a .45 in the face because the only way for them to guarantee my house would not be set on fire is because they are in cahoots/are the arsonist.

And this is why we are sometimes referred to as gun nuts.

I was somewhat joking, but you have to admit, sticking with your analogy, the shoe fits. The politicians who are trying to pass this are the arsonists!

Edit: If someone came to your door with a torch and threaten to burn your house down with your family still inside, what would you do?

[Jakeiscrazy]

As has been said many times, "If your not with us, your against us!" and the NRA, right now, ain't with us.

[Diomed]

NRA is a single issue organization and is looking out for number one. If they were a for-profit corporation with shareholders, the shareholders wouldn't be complaining about it. If you don't like what they did, you can either take your toys and go home, or you can work to change the organization to your liking. They elect a Board of Directors annually. The number of actual voters is tiny in comparison with the overall number of members - around 90k vote out of 1.5 million eligible, and winners and losers are usually separated by less than a thousand votes. Form a voting bloc and get your people elected to change house. If the morons at arfcom can do it, anyone can - but no one else does.

The bill is disgusting, the same as pretty much everything else Congress vomits forth.

[OakRidgeStars]

This is the VCDL's position on the NRA's sellout of our freedoms. If you are a NRA member, contact them and let them know how you feel.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ACTION ITEM: NRA sells out grassroots to Congressional antis


**********************************************************
1. ACTION ITEM: NRA sells out grassroots to Congressional anti-gunners
**********************************************************

The NRA is fully prepared to sell out grassroots gun organizations across the nation, including VCDL, to the anti-gun Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives by not fighting a bill that will gag the free speech of those who criticize members of Congress.

The NRA, in a news release included below, has said it will turn a blind eye to H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, since it exempts the NRA. Bottom line: the NRA has been bought off.

Here is the criteria in the bill for an exemption:

* More than 1 million members
* Has been in existence for more than 10 years
* Has members in all 50 states
* Raises 15 percent or less of their income from corporations

It appears the ONLY gun organization to meet that set of criteria would be the NRA - not GOA or SAF or CCRKBA, much less VCDL.

VCDL rarely criticizes another gun organization, but on this issue we cannot, and must not, hold our tongues.

Let me not mince words - this appears to be an unholy alliance between Nancy Pelosi and the NRA, which would wipe out the NRA's competition.

If you snuggle up with a rattlesnake you are going to get bit. The NRA is playing a fool's game if they think they will survive this unscathed. Nancy Pelosi is not their friend now, nor will she ever be.

For their own self-interest, the NRA is apparently choosing to drive, or at least ride in, the bus that is going to run over the rest of us.

The NRA must NOT turn a blind eye to this scheme and MUST fight it to the bitter end. Either all gun-rights organizations are protected or none are protected. We hang together or we will surely hang separately.

The irony of the NRA's position is that if they anger enough gun owners, they could fall below the magic one million member mark and then they would lose their exemption and end up being crushed under the same bus that they threw us under.

----

ACTION ITEM:

1. Call the NRA at (800) 392-8683 and demand that they ACTIVELY OPPOSE HR 5175, S 3295, or any other bill that politically silences the voices of gun owners!

2. Contact your Congressperson and tell them to vote against HR 5175 (thanks to GOA for the prewritten message/delivery system):

http://tinyurl.com/263j4rn


----

Here is the NRA's position on H.R. 5175:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=13902


STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

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.

--------

Article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://tinyurl.com/25kkbbf



Guns and Free Speech
16 June 2010
The Wall Street Journal

The National Rifle Association is suffering a sudden onset of amnesia this week, as the gun lobby cuts a deal to exempt itself from the latest Congressional attempt to repeal the First Amendment. NRA members may soon regret the organization's bid to ingratiate itself with Democrats at the expense of its longtime free-speech allies.

The campaign finance bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen, is the Democratic response to the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which restored the First Amendment right of corporations, unions and nonprofits to make independent campaign expenditures. At the time, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre called Citizens United "a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us."

Look who's arrogant and elitist now. Under the Schumer-Van Hollen bill, political speech would be bound up with new restrictions, including special burdens on government contractors and corporations that have a certain level of foreign ownership or received TARP funds. The bill also includes disclosure rules designed to hit corporations, requiring CEOs to appear to "approve this message" the way politicians do, and for groups to identify their donors. Except for the NRA.

Under the NRA carve-out in the House bill, the new rules won't apply to any organizations that have been around for more than 10 years, have more than a million members and receive less than 15% of their funding from corporate donors. That fits the NRA nicely, though as best we can figure, everyone else, from the Sierra Club to Planned Parenthood, fails to qualify. So much for defending the little guy against the fat cats.

This backroom deal came at the behest of Democrats from conservative states, for whom the NRA's scorecard of their legislative record can be a major boost or obstacle to election. Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats "good grades" on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else's problem.

By erecting what amounts to a grandfather clause of First Amendment rights, the bill creates a sort of interest-group incumbency, concentrating the power to speak freely among a handful of large and longstanding groups. Established organizations like the NRA provide important representation for their members, but their lobbying cause is specific and limited.

Left vulnerable by the special treatment are the smaller grassroots outfits that often pop up in response to new and immediate policy challenges. The ability of these groups to count on the full protection of the First Amendment is critical to diverse and responsive political debate.

The NRA may swing a big lobbying stick by virtue of the breadth and voting power of its members, but it draws its legitimacy from the Constitution and it has drawn support on gun rights from those who care about the entire Bill of Rights. Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run.

[wylde007]

Chance! You going to leave your house up to CHANCE? With the carve out the NRA has 100% assurance that their house will not burn. While you may not agree with it you can not fault them for taking such a deal. Its called politics.

It's called extortion.

As has been said many times, "If you're not with us, you're against us!" and the NRA ain't with us.

They are an elitist, single-issue sportsman's club. They are not a gun-rights advocacy group.

[BluemontGlock]

Confirmation:
Your e-mail message was sent to:
Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA 10th)

[CowboyT]

No, they would get a .45 in the face because the only way for them to guarantee my house would not be set on fire is because they are in cahoots/are the arsonist.

And this is why we are sometimes referred to as gun nuts.

True, but remember the context. Gunderwood was referring to the situation of his house burning. The only possible situation in which someone could conceivably "protect" his house from burning when all the other ones are going to burn, is if one can selectively set only certain houses on fire. Forest fires and similar things don't discriminate. Only people can.

Therefore, the only applicable situation that I can see here is the arsonist situation. And in that case, the .45 ain't good enough; I'll call for the 12-gauge w/ the mag extender.

In the case of the NRA's sellout of us, the "12-gauge" is withholding of funds for membership renewal. Let them dip below the 1 million member mark and see how they feel then. I'm now seriously questioning renewing my membership this year. In the case of the legislative attack on free speech (in this case, by the Democrats), the "12-gauge" is the vote. Get out there and vote! Don't just sit on your butt and complain. Vote.

[06bolton5pt3]

Well i believe i will be canceling my membership. I think i only have two years left anyway, but im tired of their comprising BS and now this. Im done with them. I will be joining the VCDL asap. Along with the VCDL (after canceling with NRA, VCDL will be my only group) are their any other strong grassroot groups to join? GOA?

[CowboyT]

Here's my letter to Wayne LaPierre. I have written a similar one to Chris Cox. We all should do something similar.

I know time's always precious, but folks, freedom isn't free. Make the time.

June 17, 2010

Mr. Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
11250 Waples Mill Rd.
Fairfax, VA 22030

Dear Wayne:

I'm writing to you today regarding HR 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. Specifically, I'm writing to you in strenuous opposition to our leadership's (including, apparently your) current position on the bill.

I agree that the bill is an attack on our First Amendment rights. However, for the NRA leadership to have a specific exemption carved out for just our organization totally flies in the face of American principles. Come on, Wayne! I thought we were supposed to be about principles and freedom!

As our most visible leader, you celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. I have the June 2010 copy of "America's First Freedom" sitting in front of me. On Page 8, you wrote a piece called "Silencing the First Amendment", and the cover story was "Will Congress Roll Over Citizens?". Yet in the case of HR 5175, you are now just standing by and letting Congress do just that...oh, except for the NRA. But forget about the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). Forget about Maryland Shall Issue (MSI). Forget about CalGuns, in a state where an organization like CalGuns is desperately needed. Forget about Gun Owners of America (GOA). Forget about Dick Heller! As long as you, the NRA leadership, are "protected", then to heck with such sister organizations, right?

This buy-off of the NRA's silence is as un-American as the bill itself.

We, as an Association, need to be fighting this bill tooth and nail. I don't want the VCDL, CalGuns, MSI, or GOA silenced by this bill any more than I want the NRA silenced by it. We need everyone we can get on this.

Change your position. Oppose this bill in any form, whether there's an exemption for the NRA or not. If the NRA leadership does not do so...then that's why I'm not a life member. Our Association still has to earn my membership dues, every year. Right now, you're not doing a good job of that.

Sincerely,

[gunderwood]

No, they would get a .45 in the face because the only way for them to guarantee my house would not be set on fire is because they are in cahoots/are the arsonist.

And this is why we are sometimes referred to as gun nuts.

True, but remember the context. Gunderwood was referring to the situation of his house burning. The only possible situation in which someone could conceivably "protect" his house from burning when all the other ones are going to burn, is if one can selectively set only certain houses on fire. Forest fires and similar things don't discriminate. Only people can.

Therefore, the only applicable situation that I can see here is the arsonist situation. And in that case, the .45 ain't good enough; I'll call for the 12-gauge w/ the mag extender.

In the case of the NRA's sellout of us, the "12-gauge" is withholding of funds for membership renewal. Let them dip below the 1 million member mark and see how they feel then. I'm now seriously questioning renewing my membership this year. In the case of the legislative attack on free speech (in this case, by the Democrats), the "12-gauge" is the vote. Get out there and vote! Don't just sit on your butt and complain. Vote.

Exactly.

The NRA should be fighting this just like you would if your neighbors house was being torched or looted or anything...instead of grabing the chips and dip to watch the show.

[Jakeiscrazy]

Therefore, the only applicable situation that I can see here is the arsonist situation. And in that case, the .45 ain't good enough; I'll call for the 12-gauge w/ the mag extender.

Well, he does own an M99.

[TheGodfather]

I sent the NRA an email this morning telling them to cancel my membership due to their recent actions. Haven't heard back from them yet...

[OakRidgeStars]

Today's latest press release from the NRA on H.R. 5175. Sounds to me like they are still trying to play both sides to cover their backsides.

--

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?id=13913

Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

Thursday, June 17, 2010

We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle – unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

[Jakeiscrazy]

oday's latest press release from the NRA on H.R. 5175. Sounds to me like they are still trying to play both sides to cover their backsides.

Yep, that is exactly what it sounds like.

[VBshooter]

A major bad thing about this bill is it will quiet Tea PArty activities if less than a million members and various other gun, political and reform groups just when they need to be the most vocal ,,prior to the election this But it will allow unions and other large pro democrat groups to act as they please.. Not Good in any light... Contact your Congressman and give them the word,NO on this unconstitutional legislation sponsored by Chuck Schumer(D New York) the original 2 face liar.

[totes6]

Confirmation
Your e-mail message was sent to:
Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA 10th)



Fill up those mail boxes and flood the phones. Make it clear that we are not sitting down and taking it anymore.

We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!