Category: Gun Rights Organizations

… what do you have to lose by bluffing?  Larry Pratt talks a great game, but it’s mostly talk:

Pratt said the NRA may not want go all out against Sotomayor because her confirmation seems assured.

At least three Senate Republicans have said they would vote for her: Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), Mel Martinez (Fla.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine). Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate and leading Republicans have promised not to filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination.

“I don’t think they want to be seen as having lost a battle,” Pratt said of the NRA.

“Their philosophy seems to be nothing ventured, nothing lost,” he said. “Normally, we can-do Americans say ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained.’

Remember a while back we examined the sources of NRA’s political power.  We also examined GOA’s fund raising.  Now can someone explain to me how an organization that has 20,000 to 40,000 members, and who’s PAC only spent $147,000 dollars in 2008, has anything at all they can use to threaten a Senator’s seat?

Once you start thinking about that, GOA can score the Sotomayor vote however they want because they have nothing they are putting at risk by doing so.  GOA only needs to be concerned about how they look to the people who send them money.  They have no concern about the relationships they have on Capitol Hill, because they don’t have much to be concerned about.

Is it really smart politics to tell a representative “You’ve been with us on most everything we’ve wanted for all these years you’ve been in the Senate.  And you’ve been with us on most of what we’re asking for this term, but if you vote to confirm Sotomayor, we’re going to flunk you.”  Because this is essentially what GOA is doing.  What incentive does the failing or low graded Senator have to care a whit about your agenda for the rest of his term?  And if you’re GOA, what grassroots army are you going to send to vote him out when he’s next up before the voters?  Where’s their electoral ground game?  Their network of volunteers?  Their well financed PAC?  These are important questions. Because if a Senator crosses you, and you can’t defeat him, you’re done.  He called your bluff.  Do that times twenty, and pretty soon, you’re up the creek without a paddle.  You will not have the votes to get the rest of your agenda, and you might end up weak enough for the opposition groups to run a bill against you.

The reason politicians pay attention to NRA is because they aren’t sure NRA can’t move enough votes and money to actually defeat them.  But that uncertainty cuts both ways.  Anyone who’s had any experience in working in or following electoral politics knows how many variables go into winning or losing an election.  It is the political equivalent of war.  Everything that happens between elections is diplomacy.  We engage in diplomacy because war is risky, and outcomes can be unpredictable.  It’s risky for both sides.  What GOA proposes is to declare war on the Democratic Congress.  A Democratic Congress that, so far, is willing to pass pro-gun measures, and is wary of running gun control.  This is foolish beyond belief.

NRA’s grading system is like an axe.  Every time you chop a piece of wood with it, it gets a little more dull.  So far, we’ve successfully split some pretty tough logs, but we’re only about halfway through this wood pile.  The only opportunity to sharpen the axe comes at election time, and we’re still more than a year away from that.  In the mean time, there are people demanding that we swing wildly at the marble pillars, in hopes that we’ll split them.  Well, maybe we will, and sometimes you do have to take a swing, and risk it all.  But you should understand what you’re risking.  We have to keep the axe sharp.  We still have ATF reform we’d like to move.  We have D.C. gun rights to restore.  We have National Reciprocity to try to pass.  There’s a lot on the agenda.  We may also face a situation where Obama replaces one of the Heller five, and in that instance, we will need to swing the axe at marble.  NRA would be irresponsible if they did not keep an eye on the overall agenda, and instead engaged in the kind of brash grandstanding that is a particular proclivity of Gun Owners of America.

It will count toward Senators’ grades.  I’ll be very surprised if this is enough to derail her confirmation.

NRA has come out against her confirmation.  I doubt this will be enough to stop her from getting on the Court, but it gives NRA something to use in 2010 and 2012 against this Administration.  If you want to know why I worked so hard for McCain back in the fall, Sonya Sotomayor is why.

UPDATE: Big question is whether NRA will grade the vote, meaning that Senators will have their vote on Sotomayor factored into their NRA grade when they are up for reelection.  I can agree with it going either way, but I tend to either not grading, or grading this one less strongly.

One the one hand, Sotomayor is replacing a liberal dissenter in Heller.  There’s no net change in the makeup of the court ideology wise.  She’s not likely to be an intellectual leader on the Court, even if she doesn’t believe in the same things we do.  Given that we are entirely dependent on support from Democrats to stop anti-gun bills and pass pro-gun bills.  Burning political capital grading Sotomayor’s confirmation vote might not be the best idea, and might rub some Dems the wrong way, who have been voting all the right ways on every other issue important to us.

On the other hand, Sotomayor seems to have views that are far outside the mainstream, even refusing to answer a question as simple as whether there’s a right to self-defense.  We can be almost certain she’ll vote against incorporation when it comes up, and will be hostile to any application of anything stronger than rational basis when it comes to the Second Amendment.  In the Senate we have many Democrats and Republicans who claim to be friends of the Second Amendment.  Why not hold their feet to the fire and tell them if they care about the Second Amendment, they’ll won’t show it by putting someone like Sotomayor on the Court?

But in these kinds of matters, you have to be careful not to let your ego write checks your grassroots electoral game can’t cash.  Ultimately what you’re threatning politicians with when you grade is losing their seats, and if you do that, you better be able to deliver.  If the decision were up to me, I don’t think I’d grade on Sotomayor. These confirmation hearings should show one thing; that we can make the Second Amemndment a major issue, and get a lot of media attention on it.  Given that more than 70% of Americans support the Second Amendment, it’s not an issue that Democrats want to be seen as being on the wrong side of.

If we let this fish go, Democrats should now understand that we have a very hot frying pan, ready go cook up the next nominee with a little sauteed Senator and olive oil, if they don’t believe in the Second Amendment as a fundamental right.  We’ll give you this one.   But you’re on notice for the next time, especially if it’s one of the Heller five we’re replacing.  Oh, and yeah, we’ll hold all Sotomayor’s votes on our issue against Obama in 2012.

It would seem that is on the table, at least.  Take a look at this release from them:

Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA has not announced an official position on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation. However, should her answers regarding the Second Amendment at the upcoming hearings be hostile or evasive, we will have no choice but to oppose her nomination to the Court.

This is going to be interesting, that is for sure.  More from the Washington Times here.

The story over on consumerist is up over 13,000 views, meaning 13,000 souls are now being told a story about NRA having unethical fund raising practices.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s over 25,000 by tomorrow.  That’s the circulation of major gun rag.  On top of that, I have a reader who mentions that this might be a violation of the United States Postal Code:

Furthermore, it is illegal for a company that sends you unordered merchandise to follow the mailing with a bill or dunning communication.

So it seems that this little scheme might be a violation of federal law.  The question is, what is NRA going to do to rectify the situation?  If any of you out there who have received one of these “dunning communications” and haven’t let NRA know your displeasure, you  might want to call.  You can find contact information in the back of your membership card.

The Consumerist is reporting that NRA trying to raise money by sending people unsolicited DVDs, then trying to convince them that they need to pay for them.  I’ve seen other interest groups do this scam as well, but I’ve never seen any go so far as to send follow up e-mails demanding payment, or demanding the DVD be sent back.

This is not in any way an acceptable method of fund raising, and now that they’ve been called out by Consumerist, a very well regarded blog with far more reach than any of the gun blogs, I sincerely hope they will resolve this to the satisfaction of its members in a timely manner.

Bitter tells me she’s talked to someone at NRA about this, and they are looking into it.  Every public advocacy group does fund raising, because the money they get from memberships isn’t enough to keep the organization going.  A lot of folks complain pretty heavily about NRA’s fundraising, and largely because they aren’t members of other public advocacy groups, they don’t realize it’s typical practice.  In fact, a lot of groups are worse — far worse.  Join the ACLU and they’ll sell your name to every other leftist cause out there, who will all then beg you regularly for money.

But there are ethical limits on the ways funds should be raised, and this crosses it.  Sending an unsolicited DVD out and asking someone to pay for it or send it back is bad enough.  Continuing to demand payment is unforgivable.  If NRA loses members over this, they will have deserved to lose them.  This needs to stop.  Now.

If you’re like me, you don’t have work today, since July 4th falls on a Saturday.  NRA has a pretty good Independence Day message from Charleton Heston.  It’s old, obviously, but few people could speak like he could.  It’s worth watching.

While I don’t always agree with the Knox clan on everything, their impact and contributions to the gun rights movement are undeniable.  Chris Knox has put out a book “Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War,” which cronicles Neal Knox’s history with the gun rights movement:

The Knox brothers expect controversy over the book, as it includes one section devoted to Neal Knox’s often-contentious relations with the NRA. “We’re not looking to stir controversy for its own sake,” said Chris. “The history is controversial, but it’s important, and a fair amount of it has been forgotten, glossed over, ignored, or even covered up.

As someone who has gobbled up nearly every bit of writing I’ve been able to find on the history of the gun rights movement, I will definitely be getting a copy of this.  I have no doubt there will be much I will disagree with, but having read and enjoyed Richard Feldman’s book, which comes from the opposide end of the pro-gun spectrum, I have no doubt I will enjoy this account as well.

This is a very cool thing for a state association to do.  As far as I know, PRPA doesn’t do anything like it.  Great way to keep people shooting in these times of short ammo supplies, assuming they can find a generious soul to sell them some primers!

Looks like blogs got a mention in the shooting wire, in an article about Cerberus in the gun industry:

That aversion was one that led gun bloggers, some of the new power-brokers in the gun world, to run an anti-campaign against a senior Cerberus member’s campaign for a position on the NRA board. After he failed to get elected, one blogger laughingly told me “maybe now they’ll realize if you don’t talk to us, we don’t have any use for you.”

I wouldn’t say we ran an anti-campaign against Kollitides, but we definitely aired concerns, and asked questions.  I agree with Jim that he needs to talk to people if he wants the grass roots support.  I’d be reluctant to suggest blogs are serious power brokers, but we definitely reach an audience, and in that sense can be a useful way for organizations and people to communicate with opinion leaders in the issue.  If George Kollitides ever wants to avail himself of that, he knows where to find us.  I think you’d find from talking to some of our other board candidates that we’ll be fair, and respectful of personal circumstances.

The goal in issuing endorsements isn’t really to broker power, so much as to make the board election process more transparent and available to members.  I think this is good for members, and good for NRA, as a whole.  Members benefit from the extra information, and NRA benefits from having a way to communicate with its membership in a more casual manner.  It helps both parties establish more credibility and trust with each other.