Category: Gun Rights Organizations

Looks like NRA is running an ad on the Kagan issue (warning, ad will auto play on that link):

This would seem to refute those who claimed their opposition to her would be half-hearted or insincere. Producing and running ads isn’t a cheap business.

I really have to wonder if Washington Whispers, a feature of US News & World Report, got their information for this article from an NRA fundraising letter. The “NRA hit list” they cite are the kinds of things I’d expect NRA to scare me with if they wanted me to send them money.

There are an awful lot of folks out there questioning NRA’s position on the Kagan nomination, believing that they need to be up front and aggressive in going after her. I agree with them that Kagan is going to be a disaster for gun rights, and for the Constitution in general. I also don’t find the position to be implausible or irrational. I won’t tell you there haven’t been moves by NRA that haven’t puzzled me, and I disagreed with, but I have very seldom second guessed their strategy in public. Why? Because I am not about to second guess professional lobbyists, any more than I would call up my insurance company, and offer them actuarial advise, or call up an orthopedic surgeon and suggest he’s been doing knee replacements wrong all these years.

I would not go so far as to say Chris Cox is a Vulcan chess master, but I understand what the author is trying to convey here, and agree with it. All of us, with the exception of my readers who are professional lobbyists (you know who you are), are operating at a very significant information deficit relative to the people who spend a large amount of time on the Hill communicating with lawmakers and congressional staff. Even though many more of us know the basic rules of this game, and have a pretty good idea how it is played, without that full time engagement we simply do not have enough information.

So how do we know the professionals can be trusted? Well, you can’t. All you can really go by is track record. But if there’s an interest group who has a better track record on their issue than NRA, especially in this Congress, I’d really like to know who they are. Do they make mistakes? Sure. This is a game such that no one has perfect information, so outcomes can never be completely deterministic. But the people who are playing the game are in a far better position to be able to call the right moves than those outside of it observing. That’s largely why you’ll hardly ever hear me say NRA should zig when it looks like they are getting ready to zag. What I typically do is try to explain plausible rational for a zag based on what I know about the game, or what information I might have on the move. And there has been a few times I’ve thought they should zig, thought they would zag, explained that rationale, and they ended up zigging. None of us are working with perfect information, especially commentators like me.

That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with armchair lobbying. Many of us watch this because, like some people love football, we enjoy the game. Even if, like football, we don’t always enjoy the results. But it is difficult for me to understand how folks can believe, often with what seems like a burning passion, that NRA is certainly wrong, and is making a move that is sure to destroy our gun rights. I don’t think there’s one single reason that explains it. But I do notice that some have a tendency to believe that NRA’s role is to affirm their core beliefs. They would be up shouting before Congress if they had the opportunity, so they expect NRA to do the same on their behalf, since NRA does have the opportunity. They are not people who enjoy the game, and may even resent the game. They probably don’t even want to accept that it is a game. But that’s what politics is — because it’s the art of people getting along with each other and running a society without resorting to another, more serious variant of the game, which I think we all can agree is least desirable (though we certainly have an element who fantasize about it, in my opinion without a serious consideration of its horrors or consequences). I can understand completely why people hate politics, and don’t like having their lives screwed with. But that’s, for better or worse, the system we have, and it’s better than the alternatives. If you get frustrated, throw your hands up, and stop playing, you lose — the other team won’t give up.

I can see the point of those who say NRA needs to be more aggressive. But I’m going to trust the people who are regularly on the Hill and have a lot more information than we do about the best way to proceed. If they advise patience, I’m going to be patient. Truth is, I don’t think there’s any way we’re derailing Kagan, regardless of how NRA moves. Nominees are very seldom rejected, and nominees getting derailed by the President’s own party when that party had an overwhelming majority in Congress is absolutely unheard of. Elections have consequences folks, and for the people who said John McCain wasn’t good enough, and sat out 2008, I really don’t want to hear any complaints.

Just in from NRA:

The NRA has received a number of questions about blog posts that claim I issued a “gag order” to NRA board members on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is absurd and wrong.

This claim shows complete ignorance of how the NRA operates. NRA staff, including everyone (myself included) at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, work for the NRA Executive Vice President, who in turn works for the NRA board, which in turn is elected by NRA’s voting members.

Under the NRA by-laws, NRA-ILA has “sole responsibility to administer the legislative, legal, informational and fund raising activities of the Association relating to the defense or furtherance of the right to keep and bear arms, in accordance with the objectives and policies established by the Board of Directors.” To carry out that mission, NRA-ILA strives to ensure that the NRA’s positions are clear and based on the most accurate information possible.

The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is not to be taken lightly. That’s why, when Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement in April, I sent an e-mail to NRA board members and staff stating that with the critical case of McDonald v. Chicago still pending before the Court, “it is very important that NRA not comment on Justice Stevens nor engage in speculation on potential successors.”

Similarly, when the President nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Court in May, I sent a message to the NRA Board pointing out her lack of a judicial record; noting that NRA-ILA was reviewing all available information; and stating that “it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.” Again, I referenced the fact that NRA has a case pending before the Court.

When Ms. Kagan was nominated, little information on her record was available. More recently, the William J. Clinton Presidential Library has released an enormous volume of documents from her time in the White House. NRA-ILA staff has reviewed these carefully and they raise serious concerns. As we said last week: What we’ve seen to date shows a hostility towards our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, such as her role in developing the Clinton Administration’s 1998 ban on importation of many models of semi-automatic rifles; her note mentioning the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan as “bad guy” organizations; and her comment to Justice Marshall that she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

Respect for the Senate confirmation process requires that a nominee be given the opportunity to explain his or her position on critical issues affecting gun owners. That’s why the NRA has been working with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure she is thoroughly questioned on these issues. Once the hearings are complete, the NRA will announce its position on her confirmation.

This is exactly the approach the NRA took last year when we opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Early in the process, we expressed our serious concerns about her record. We announced our opposition after her confirmation hearings ended without evidence that she would properly respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and apply it to the states. Her dissenting vote in McDonald v. Chicago confirmed that our position was correct.

Unfortunately, false Internet rumors are far too often repeated as fact. Rest assured, however, that the NRA is fully committed to representing the interests of our members and all gun owners in this process and defending the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as we do in all legislative, legal and political arenas.

I would also note the Hill is reporting NRA is likely to score the vote. This comes from an anonymous source, supposedly within NRA, so who knows… but time will tell whether it’s true, or another Internet rumor.

For folks who don’t know much about how NRA works internally, I can probably explain this Politics Daily article, and also what’s appearing over at Bucks Right. NRA’s internal board rules (which are set by the Board itself, as an elected body) prevent Board members from speaking on behalf of the organization. This is longstanding practice by the Board, and not something new. This rule exists because everyone recognizes that NRA must be able to speak with a single voice on issues. NRA would not be able to function if each individual Board member could speak out on positions on behalf of the organization as a whole. One can imagine what that would be like, if, say, Joaquin Jackson thought it was OK to speak on NRA’s behalf.

During the Sotomayor hearings, there was confusion among Senators about NRA’s position, despite efforts by Board members speaking out against Sotomayor that they spoke for themselves and not in any official capacity with NRA. I am not privy to what goes on in executive session during committee meetings, so I really don’t know what happened. I am sure, just like with any family dispute, there were issues and sore feelings over how the Sotomayor thing went down. But I am also sure there were no gag orders. The Board does not take orders from staff. Things just don’t work that way.

Glad to hear Dave will be up on the Hill before the Judiciary Committee. Dave is not a Board member, but is friendly among NRA circles. Tomorrow on Red State: “Chris Cox seen boarding a flight to Denver with leg irons and a roll of duct tape.”

Chris Cox made an appearance on NRA News about an hour ago where he talked about the rumors that NRA issued a gag order against it’s Board members. I pointed out yesterday, due to the structure of NRA, this is not really possible, but held out the possibility staff may have asked the Board not to get involved with the Kagan hearings. After doing all the research, I have concluded that they have not even done this. First, let’s see what Chris had to say:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VHHpEplIvQ[/youtube]

Now, I figured some people reluctant to take Chris at his word, because no doubt many know he’s been secretly keeping the NRA Board members in the dungeon at HQ (it’s located in the space right next to the NRA range, for those who don’t know). So today I had Bitter digging around, and talking to Board members. Scott Bach was willing to go on the record and say there’s been no “gag” order, or even a polite request. Tom King you’ve already heard from. Joe DeBergalis is saying the same story over at AR-15.com. If there’s been a gag order, it would seem none of the NRA Board members got the memo! Perhaps Chris Cox’s e-mail was broken that day. Or perhaps they were afraid to talk with the .45 ACP held to their heads. Who knows!

The accusations that I’m a shill, brown nose, and suck up are going to keep on coming in. The truth is that none of these folks have even a vague idea of what NRA’s real problems are. To be blunt, most of them don’t even know or care how NRA functions. So yes, I will keep defending the organization against half-baked criticisms and false rumors, spread by people who are far better at tearing down than building up, and I will do it without apology.

This is an update from the post from yesterday about an alleged “gag order” from NRA to its Board of Directors, as reported by Red State. From Tom King, President of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and also a member of the NRA Board.

NRA Members of New York,

There are a myriad of rumors regarding the NRA cluttering the internet but one in particular is causing me personal anguish. That rumor reports that the NRA staff has issued a gag order to the NRA Board of Directors regarding comments on the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court. Let me explain something about the structure of the NRA; authority to do anything within the NRA comes from you the members of the NRA. That authority is delegated to your elected Board of Directors who in turn elects officers and formulate policy that is then issued to the Executive Vice President/CEO who then turns that policy into action through the professional staff. Gag orders for the Board of Directors do not exist.

Friends; those of you close to me should know by now that telling me I can’t speak up on an issue of vital importance to the 2nd Amendment is going to get you into a war. I spoke vociferously regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; in fact I joined a number of national 2nd Amendment leaders protesting the appointment and urging through a nationally published letter she not be confirmed. I did that because of her ties to New York State and the position she took, on then recent, anti 2nd Amendment decisions. I have not taken a position on Elena Kagen’s nomination to the Supreme Court because I find it absurd that anyone with no judicial experience would be nominated to the Supreme Court and fervently hope the Republican Senators will block this nomination.

The 2nd Amendment protects all the rest. Why would the NRA, the protector of the 2nd Amendment, attempt to limit the 1st Amendment rights of its’ own Board of Directors? It does not but if you think the Board members you voted for could be gagged then you voted for the wrong guys.

Tom King
NRA Board of Directors
President
NYS Rifle & Pistol Association
Μολὼν λαßέ

So I think it’s safe to say that no such gag order exists. Like I said, really, the best NRA staff can do is ask. They’re not really in any position to demand. NRA has stated its position on this nomination, and we’re still going through the confirmation hearings currently.