Category: Gun Rights Organizations

They work slower than Internet speed, but here it is:

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.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this really addresses much of the criticism of this move. But standing up for their point of view in the court of public opinion has never been one of NRA’s strong suits.

Continuing some discussion from the main thread today. I think probably the best argument people have for being pissed at NRA was they stopped opposing the bill after they were no longer affected by it, but left other groups to fend for themselves. This is part of why I would like to see this bill go down to defeat. But suppose NRA did not have the muscle to stop this bill entirely, but only to get itself exempted from it? I’m not saying that was definitely the case, but you can’t really predict legislative outcomes until you actually hold a vote, and see how the cards fall. You can have an idea of where people stand, and how they are going to vote, but you really don’t know until you tally up.

Maybe if NRA had continued opposition they would have defeated the bill. But maybe they wouldn’t have. So put yourself in NRA’s shoes for a moment. Pretend for the sake of argument you’re Chris Cox. The Dems seem intent on ramming an onerous campaign finance law down your throat, which affects your ability to execute on your core mission. So you decide to step outside your core issue and send a letter opposing DISCLOSE, and threatening to to grade on it. Then the Dems dangle an deal in front of you. Do you take it? Keep in mind if you don’t, and continue to oppose the bill, you’re rolling the dice on having the votes to stop it. Maybe you have them, and maybe you don’t. Keep in mind also if you’re offered a deal, and you extend the proverbial middle finger, you’re probably going to lose a lot of votes you might have had in the absence of the offer, complicating whether you’ll eventually be able to defeat it in entirety.

I don’t think the right answer here is easy. If you go for the big win and fail, you’re stuck with a hampering campaign finance law that might require you to disclose your membership list. How many members are you going to lose over that? Who else is going to be able to find out who NRA members are? Are people going to be retaliated against for NRA membership? If you’re Chris Cox, do you want to risk finding out the answers to these questions?

As for the other groups, the biggest of which is SAF, is a 501(3)(c). As a non-profit organized under that tax status, SAF is not affected  by this campaign finance law at all. Same goes for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is Alan Gottlieb’s smaller and lesser known 501(c)(4) would be affected by this, but to the best of my knowledge, CCRKBA doesn’t have a huge federal electioneering operation that would be put in danger by DISCLOSE. GOA is a 501(c)(4), but nor do they do any extensive electioneering work. So let’s look at state groups. CalGuns Foundation is a 501(c)(3), and unaffected. PAFOA is a 501(c)(4), but does not involve itself in electioneering, and so remains unaffected. Most NRA state associations are unaffected because they don’t do much electioneering on the federal level. Those speaking about other groups being thrown under the bus need to identify what other gun rights group has an extensive electioneering apparatus that represents a core part of its mission. I would argue there wasn’t much here to throw under the bus.

So you’re Chris Cox. Do you make the decision to stand firm and risk the entire apparatus that’s been a key to your effectiveness? Or do you take the deal. If you say it’s an easy decision, you’re a lot more confident than I would be in the same position.

From the lefty blog Balloon Juice:

And not surprisingly, [Red State] have it completely bass-ackwards. The NRA hasn’t sold out to Democrats, Democrats have sold out to the NRA. Democrats so rarely stand up to the NRA anymore that it is astonishing news when they do, and even then by the slightest of margins.

Now just imagine if the Democrats felt the need to sell out to other groups that defended other parts of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution? Say what you will about how NRA does things, but it works.

NRA is a single issue organization. Let me repeat that, lest people in the conservative movement forget. NRA is a single issue organization. Red State lists it as selling out, and Instapundit joins in. National Review is echoing that language as well.

Campaign Finance and other such First Amendment issues are typically not the kind of things NRA involves itself in. It did in this case, because it directly affects their ability to communicate with members in order to coordinate to have an impact on the political process. That has been their soul concern. Their opposition to DISCLOSE was a real problem for the Democrats, so the Democrats exempted them from it. Whether that pleases the conservative movement or not, that eliminated NRA’s reason from diverting attention to their primary mission of focusing on Second Amendment issues. To further continue opposition here would move NRA into the realm of First Amendment advocacy, which is a distraction from their primary mission.

Now, that’s not to say I agree with exempting NRA from the bill in an attempt to ram this through Congress. It’s dirty. But this dirt firmly on the hands of the Democratic leadership, who did the carving. I am not agreeing with arguments, such as Erick Erickson from Red State who notes:

In fact, these days I cringe when I see good conservatives with their lifetime member sticker from the NRA on the back of their cars. I support Gun Owners of America, which is a consistent and uncompromising defender of the second amendment, not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus.

You have an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress here that’s so afraid to be on the wrong side of the “weak little girl of an organization” that it had to find some way, any way, to get them out of the issue. How many other right leaning groups can claim this kind of a track record for their issue? I’ll tell you — none.

With NRA out of the way, the “consistent and uncompromising defenders of the Second Amendment”, GOA, will be utterly powerless to stop this bill, or to get an exemption carved out for themselves. So, by the way, will be the Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, end Mayors Against Illegal Guns, who you can expect to hear much hewing and hawing from over the next few days. In fact, the Brady Campaign is already starting.

Granted, my solution to all this would be to simply not pass the DISCLOSE act entirely, and everyone could be happy, but that’s not what the Dems want. I get tired of people on the right, and particularly Republicans, thinking that NRA is a foil on their mantle to be used at will to spar with their opponents on pet issues. I get this in local politics too, with the GOP getting huffy when we won’t get in line, and get with the program. That’s not how we roll, and before people on the right criticize, I’d point to our success on the issue doing things this way. Every other right leaning group has gotten steam rolled by this Congress, then backed up over, and steam rolled again. Except NRA. They ought to be the model for issue advocacy, on things like taxes, smaller government, and sound fiscal policy. It’s a shame no one seems to be listening, or learning.

UPDATE: Over at RedState, from Moe Lane:

Yes.  You have heard this one before: it was a popular brag among the National Right To Life folks, too.  And look how that turned out for them.

Except that the pro-life issue held up the health care monstrosity for a long time and nearly derailed it. Yes, they got steamrolled in the end, but they put up a good fight on what was the top issue for the Democratic leadership. There are plenty of Democrats who both fear and court the pro-life lobby as well, especially in Pennsylvania. Dan Onorato, who is about as left as they come, has felt the need to at least pay lip service to pro-life concerns, and Bob Casey famously ran as a pro-life Democrat, much like his father. So I wouldn’t say that the pro-life advocacy groups have fared all that poorly in the 111th Congress. I think it’s unfair to suggest their bipartisan strategy has been unsuccessful.

Looks like the Dems didn’t want to get graded on the Campaign Finance issue by NRA:

After the NRA threatened to oppose the legislation, which would require companies, unions and other parties to disclose the donors behind political ads, House Democrats negotiated with the NRA to find common ground. Under the agreement, the bill would exempt from the disclosure requirements, non-profit organizations that have over one million members, that have been in existence for more than 10 years, that have members in all 50 states, and that raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. The NRA falls under that category.

I’m glad they got themselves an exemption, but by no means does that let the Democrats off the hook for trying to stifle free speech like this. Campaign Finance laws protect incumbents, which is why I’m sure the Democratic leadership in Congress is pushing this hard before November.

Uncle linked to a piece by David Codrea where there’s some dispute as to whether NRA’s case was combined with SAF/Gura’s case, and whether saying they are constitutes a misrepresentation of facts by NRA. The Court granted cert to McDonald, which was SAF’s case and which was brought by Alan Gura. NRA was made a party to the case — Respondants in Support of Petitioners — under rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. So it would definitely be correct to say NRA was a party to the case, but is it correct to say they were consolidated? I would also note this passage from Alan Gura’s Petitioner’s brief, in the section described as “Parties to the Proceedings”

The three cases were related, but not consolidated, in the District Court. Petitioners and the related case plantiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.

Emphasis is mine. I would say if the language is good enough to be put before the Court, NRA is free and clear in saying that. NRA has in the past, wrongly in my opinion, played up its role in certain cases and controversies at the expense of other involved parties. But this is not an example of that.

UPDATE: I should probably clarify that saying the cases were combined, rather than that the appeals were combined, is probably incorrect technically. More correct would be the appeals were combined, and NRA made a party (Respondent in Support of Petitioner) to the McDonald case. I’m pretty sure that is a correct statement.

If someone wants to flay Chris Cox, or whoever wrote that article for him on his behalf, they are free to nit pick. But it seems to me a nit pick. I don’t know how familiar Chris Cox is with the distinction between those two things, or whether anyone explained it to him in great legal detail.

I can’t recall NRA doing this in previous years, but maybe they did and I just didn’t notice. It’s a good idea to explain. A lot of people might question their incumbent friendly policy, but all you have to do is look at this to understand why that’s the case. That’s why John McCain gets an NRA endorsement over J.D. Hayworth. Endorsements and grades are political tools. They aren’t an affirmation of faith that many people would like them to be. If Hayworth wins, he’ll enjoy the same incumbent friendly policy that McCain currently enjoys.

Joe puts it very well, into a chess analogy:

I think the people that are upset with the NRA support of Harry Reid don’t really understand the trade-offs involved and what the NRA is trying to accomplish. To best support the members, the gun owning people of this country, they have to play a “chess game” where the can never take back a move, the pieces are clouding in smoke, the playing field is shifting, the rules are only partially known and subject to violation by the individual pieces at any time. Try thinking three or four moves ahead under those conditions and see how well you can do. The NRA plays that game very well. They are experts at it. Sometimes when an expert is at work you will be baffled at the moves they make.

Read the whole thing.