During an attempted armed robbery on the streets of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania State Rep. Marty Flynn apparently pulled out his own gun and fired at the criminals.
Interestingly, Rep. Flynn refused to return an NRA questionnaire in 2012, so he was rated ?. On the only votes we’ve had recently, he did vote for strengthening preemption in HB 1243. He also voted against the private sale on long guns amendment.
I wish the NRA would do away with survey based ratings. Actions speak louder than words and they count for a whole lot more. How many surveys have been filled out and then positions suddenly changed? Bob Casey?
They make it clear when a grade is based on a questionnaire. Your method would mean that no pro-gun candidates could try to earn pro-gun votes by completing & signing a questionnaire. By that argument, an NRA EVC who won elected office in another state shouldn’t have had the chance to publicize his views by way of a graded questionnaire just because, even though he had been an activist for the Second Amendment, he’d never actually voted for it in public office.
Every method is imperfect, but the ability to make an informed choice understanding that a questionnaire isn’t perfect, but a guide, is helpful.
The highest a candidate can be rated who doesn’t have a voting record is AQ, assuming they answer pro-gun on the survey. With the NRA voting records rule, and emphasis given to incumbents regardless of party affiliation. For example, an incumbent Dem rated A+ can be endorsed over a newcomer Tea Party challenger rated AQ. The NRA wants to go to bat for longstanding allies.
To be honest, I’m pretty content with the rating system. The problem comes when you have NRA members (even we have LIVs) who get pissed at the organization because an otherwise pro-gun politician is either a Dem or has voting records in other issues that don’t fall in line with a cookie-cutter conservative.
Taking support from where ever you can get it is most likely the reason that the gun rights movement has been so successful. If that means supporting a democrat who might not be conservative or libertarian then so be it. The individuals who have a problem with this need to look at the bigger picture.
Point taken. One caveat is when that pro-gun Democrat puts his party in the majority and then his majority leader or committee chairmen bury pro-gun (or any pro-liberty) legislation and judicial nominees which then never come to the floor for a vote. In that circumstance (and it’s a likelihood in this close election), I would almost invariably vote for an AQ to obtain the Republican majority. It’s as you said: the bigger picture.
Respectfully,
Arnie
That’s the situation here in Alaska Between Sen. Begich and Dan Sullivan. Begich is pretty solid on gun rights, regardless of motivation, but reelecting him means, for example, his bipartisan Reciprocity bill sits in committee because Reid is majority leader and won’t allow a vote.
That majority effect, and his votes to approve SCOTUS picks that have been anti-gun, mean he needs to go.
No matter how we feel about the rating system this is another “Good Guy With a Gun” story the antis will ignore
3 shots fired, no one of the three people hit. I think he needs more range time.
Too bad he missed the scum ball.