Category: Gun Rights Organizations

Kurt Hoffman has been among the bloggers doing an admirable job presenting the other side of the coin when it comes to political action against Holder.  Regarding NRA’s letter to Congress opposing the nomination, which mentioned Project Exile, he had this to say:

Every time the NRA advocates “enforcing existing gun laws,” they surrender the Constitutional high ground. How can they, with a straight face, argue that the Constitution prohibits all federal gun laws, except the ones that they endorse? How does that differ from rank hypocrisy? Finally, how dare they demand that the citizen disarmament advocates have any more respect for the Constitution than they do themselves?

If that’s an example of the (dare I say it?) pragmatic approach, I’ll stick to tilting at windmills.

I don’t think NRA has ever taken the position that every federal gun law is unconstitutional.  Even I don’t agree that every single one is unconstitutional on its face.  No constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights has ever been held to be absolute.  Even the First Amendment, which is fairly broadly protected, probably more broadly these days than the founders ever envisioned, has exceptions (not all of which I agree with).

Even if you argue that the commerce clause doesn’t give the federal government the power to regulate, say, possession of arms by convicted felons, which I would agree with, the commerce clause isn’t NRA’s issue, and do you really want NRA to come out and say that they support gun rights for felons?  I doubt even most NRA members would be happy with that.

There seems to be a constant desire among some in the movement, to continue using the belabored combat metaphors, to plan for the sack Rome when we haven’t even pushed Caesar out of Gaul yet.  With Ceasar’s legions regrouping to come at us yet again, I would rather focus on defending against the main attack, rather than getting distracted by diversions, or dreaming of sacking Rome.  Rome might be the prize we seek in the end, but for now there is a battle coming.

Jim Geraghty of The Campaign Spot has his take on the Holder deal which is pretty similar to mine:

The risk of defeat is high, and the rewards for victory are pretty small. And when you pick your hill to die on, you have to recognize that the consequence of failure is that you die.

Beyond differences on strategy and priorities, Erick’s characterization is irksome. Do Wayne LaPierre, John Sigler, Chris Cox, et al, really seem like the kinds of folks who change their minds because Reid and Leahy told them to? Do you really think that “pressure” from those two is all it takes to get the NRA leadership to change their minds? Come on.

Read the whole thing.  Jim isn’t an NRA insider or a real big gun guy, but he knows politics.  I’m not just parroting marching orders from Fairfax when I say this crap.

NRA is raising concerns about Holder to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  So NRA is not doing nothing in regards to Holder.  Leahy was D rated last time he ran into 2004.  No doubt some folks will say this is not enough.

Scott Bach was kind enough to offer us an invite to the President’s Reception, where one of the persons being honored by the National Rifle Association was Ugo Beretta.  A lot of folks know about the record of companies like Remington, and Barrett in support of the Second Amendment.  Not many know that the Beretta family has donated two million dollars to NRA programs, with his family’s latest gift of a million dollars being split evenly between NRA-ILA and the Civil Rights Defense Fund.  NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund is going to be critically important in shaping our court strategy so that Heller will only be the beginning, rather than the end.  CRDF is chronically underfunded.  This donation by the Beretta family will have a huge impact on the fight going forward.  For those of you who like to patronize firearms companies that support the Second Amendment, you won’t go wrong with Beretta.

Bitter and I are on our way back from Arlington, our business with NRA nearly concluded.  I say nearly, because I have considered many of the accusations of my half-hearted devotion to gun rights, and my cowardice in the face of the enemy.  I decided the time for talk was over, so we are traveling back to Pennsylvania with Chris Cox tied up in the back of the car.  It was a bold, but necessary move.

It wasn’t easy.  We tried to get Wayne too, but let me tell you, he might look like he’s getting old, but the guy can still move like the wind.  Bastard got a way.  I managed to take Chris by surprise, though.  Ollie North grabbed me from behind while I was hog tying Cox on the floor.  Ollie was giving me a good bit of trouble until I smashed him over the head with the tray of cucumber hors d’oeuvres that no one was eating.  With Ollie put into a pickle, we managed to get Chris out to the car, and hide him under our Friends of the NRA blanket.  So he wouldn’t make too much noise, we decided it would be best to knock him out cold with the handy NRA Custom Deer Lamp.

Once we get home, he will be held tied up in my basement, and fed on a diet of Old Milwaukee and our Banana Crap Pie, until he finally agrees to our condition that NRA fight the nomination of Eric Holder, no matter how slim the chances of victory, and no matter how great the damage to NRA’s political power.  If that doesn’t work, well, let’s see how you like Keystone Light my friend.  He’ll crack in no time.  This is the new face of the NRA/Blogger relationship.  Kidnappings and crappy beer.  Now they will hear our collective voice.  Let’s all celebrate this new era!

Continue reading “Time for Action!”

Sorry for the lack of posting, spent the morning in the NRA Public Affairs committee meeting.  Not much really to report, except what we largely already know here.  There’s great concern about the growing media story, particularly on assault weapons.  NRA is considering doing ad buys and “earned” media activity to try to counter a lot of the disinformation being propagated by the media.  More pressure ramping up on the international front, particularly from Mexico.  We all are aware of the stories being generated about all matter of weapons, assault rifles, grenades, and various other things that are largely illegal or tightly regulated in this country, being bought freely at gun shows and being smuggled over the border.  Now the Mexican government is putting pressure on us on the matter to do something about our gun laws.  Until Jan 20th, we have a President in the White House who is less likely to cave.  Will Obama tell the Mexican Government our gun laws are none of their business?

Got a presentation from Advancement, who are a division of NRA that solicits large donations to the NRA Foundation.  They have launched a Ring of Freedom initiative focusing on larger donations.  The idea of NRA Foundation is to raise money for an endowment that pays for much of the ongoing operations of NRA through grants from the foundation.  The foundation is considered a public charity for tax purposes, so donations are deductible.  This allows NRA to spend more of its income preserving the Second Amendment than running all the shooting sports programs and various other activities which are actually the NRA’s core mission.  The good news is, in 2008, despite a soft economy, they raised a record amount of money, and they are expecting 2009 to be challenging, but seem to be optimistic about it being a good year.  Apparently donations spiked in December.  Apparently this a normal pattern for charities, because of tax issues, but I have to wonder if a lot of that was the election.

BTW, Ken Blackwell spoke at the committee meeting about a few topics, because he’s on the Public Affairs Committee.  I was favorably impressed by him, so he ought to have our support for his bid for the GOP Chairmanship.

I would probably be remiss as a so called pragmatist if I didn’t explain my take on the political situation surrounding the Holder confirmation.  I should note that it is very important that folks contact their Senators and express their concerns about Holder, and ask them to oppose his nomination.  The reason it’s important is because it lets our representatives know we’re out here, and that we have a lot of concerns about the upcoming administration.  I also don’t think there’s any harm in NRA members calling NRA to tell them what they think.  I would welcome the NRA getting involved in trying to defeat the confirmation of Eric Holder for Attorney General, but I believe that involvement unlikely.  What I will try to explain is why this is unlikely, and why it’s not unreasonable, lazy, or cowardly for NRA to decide the upside to opposition might not be worth the downside.

It’s not unheard of for a nominee to be rejected by the Senate, but it’s rare.  Even rarer from The President’s own party.  If you look at how large the Democratic majority in The Senate is, it is extremely unlikely that Eric Holder will not be the next Attorney General, short of him being caught with a dead girl, or a live boy.  You can call me defeatist all you want, but that’s reality.  Republicans and the braver blue dogs can ask tough questions, hew and haw, and rake Holder over the coals, but they are not likely to have the votes to outright defeat his nomination.  Late in 2007, we had a similar issue with the Sullivan nomination, and I would note that the Bush Administration is now ending with Michael Sullivan still director of ATF.  He was never confirmed, because allies in the Senate put his nomination on hold, but he remains Acting Director of BATFE to this day.

The NRA is probably in the most precarious political situation it’s seen itself in since 1994.  We have the mother of all battles coming.  If you look at things from their point of view, you would look at the risk/reward equation in the following manner:

Rewards

1. Getting the grass roots fired up over Holder, who appropriately makes a good villian.
2. Letting politicians know NRA’s membership is not happy with Holder.
3. Letting Holder know NRA and their membership are unhappy with his record, and are skeptical of his appointment.
4. Pleasing membership who expects NRA to fight everything.
5. Very remote chance of defeating the confirmation.

Risks

1. Holder will try to get back at NRA for their public opposition to his confirmation.  NRA will be shut out from working with anyone, even friendly people who might be holdovers, in the Department of Justice for the next four years.
2. NRA throws its political weight behind defeating Holder, is ultimately unsuccessful, and signals the Obama Administration that NRA can’t oppose it.
3. Distracting membership from bigger fights looming on the horizon, like a new Assault Weapons Ban, Gun Show Loophole, and other gun control wish items, which might be winnable.
4. By not getting involved, upsetting membership who wants Holder defeated.
5. If against all odds, Holder is actually defeated, the strong likelihood Obama will nominate someone just as bad.

It’s perfectly reasonable to believe NRA should get involved with the fight against Holder, but it’s also perfectly reasonable for NRA to see a lot of risk for not much chance of benefit too.  When you and I act against Holder independently, it has no downside, because we are not creatures of DC, and don’t have to worry about perceptions of our political capital. The National Rifle Association does not have the same luxury.  They have to very carefully weigh which fights they need to wage.  There will be times when it is necessary to fight with no hope of victory, but members should ask themselves whether they’d rather have NRA go down swinging trying unsuccessfully to defeat Holder, enhancing the paper tiger meme, or whether they’d prefer NRA preserve its political capital to defeat gun control bills?

Before someone suggests, “But all we’re asking for is a membership alert,” the other things NRA doesn’t have the luxury of is half measures.  It will become known that NRA alerted its members, and NRA will incur many of the risks outlined above.  They either need to poop, or get off the pot.  This is actually an area where GOA, JPFO, Firearms Coalition, blogs, and forums can be of tremendous help, because they can speak on issues, like this, that are very risky for NRA.  Like I said, I would welcome NRA’s involvement, if they decide the risk is worth the reward, but I won’t blame them if they don’t see it that way.

Local NRA members are apparently teaming up with the U.S. Forest Service to clean up sections of National Forests which have been used for illegal dumps, in order to make room to shoot.