The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Sgt Z Squad on June 16, 2010, 07:45:59 AM
-
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.
My response to this just sent to NRA-ILA:
GUTLESS, SELF-SERVING! I cannot believe that you are turning into the beltway weenies that we have to vote out.
So if everyone but NRA members are prohibited from owning firearms, you will support this?
Your logic is disgustingly illogical..
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine - 1776
You have prostituted yourselves to the socialist elites. OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION, NO COMPROMISE! Grow some balls! >:(
-
Sorry, what is HR 5175 all about?
-
My snide remarks in red:
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
OK, I can back that.
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.
OK, good to go here too.
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.
HR 5175 would limit a lobbyist group, like the NRA, from being able to publicly attack certain political figures or state an opinion in print concerning political matters. Basically infringing on 1st Amendment rights. The NRA is against this. Still OK here.
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.
Still OK.
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.
I can buy that.
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.
OK.
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 HoR offered to 'amend' and 'exempt' the NRA from the crap legislation (to shut them up?) and the NRA refused to be a part of it. The NRA is basically saying that the 1st Amendment is an "all -inclusive" freedom, free from exemptions, and pertains to everyone. How is that bad?
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.
OK, still good.
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.
Still sounds OK.
Sounds like the NRA was simply refusing to be 'bought' (through exemption) by the HoR to shut the NRA up.
I'm having an off day....did I miss something here or read it wrong?
-
The way I read it it sounds like they are saying that as long as the NRA's right to speak is not affected they don't care if this bill goes through. Thats what I got out of it. Am I wrong?
-
Wow, I'm glad I'm not a member of the NRA. Sounds like they party too much with our domestic enemies.
-
Kind of vague....I know they have flipped and flopped on some issues of past....but the info above seems to be able to be interpreted several ways.
NRA'a original letter and stand:
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Letter to Members of Congress on H.R. 5175, the Disclose Act
Thursday, June 10, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/DiscloseAct52710.pdf
May 26, 2010
Dear Member of Congress:
I am writing to express the National Rifle Association's strong concerns with H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, as well as our opposition to this bill in its current form. It is our sincere hope that these concerns will be addressed as this legislation is considered by the full House.
Earlier this year, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on certain political speech by nonprofit membership associations such as the NRA. In an attempt to characterize that ruling as something other than a vindication of the free speech and associational rights of millions of individual American citizens, H.R. 5175 attempts to reverse that decision.
Under the First Amendment, as recognized in a long line of Supreme Court cases, citizens have the right to speak and associate privately and anonymously. H.R. 5175, however, would require the NRA to turn our membership and donor lists over to the government and to disclose top donors on political advertisements. The bill would empower the Federal Election Commission to require the NRA to reveal private, internal discussions with our four million members about political communications. This unnecessary and burdensome requirement would leave it in the hands of government officials to make a determination about the type and amount of speech that would trigger potential criminal penalties.
H.R. 5175 creates a series of byzantine disclosure requirements that have the obvious effect of intimidating speech. The bill, for example, requires "top-five funder" disclosures on TV ads that mention candidates for federal office from 90 days prior to a primary election through the general election; "top-two funder" disclosure on similar radio ads during that period; "significant funder" and "top-five funder" disclosures on similar mass mailings during that period; and "significant funder" disclosure for similar "robocalls" during that period. Internet communications are covered if placed for a fee on another website, such as the use of banner ads that mention candidates for federal office. Even worse, no exceptions are included for organizations communicating with their members. This is far worse than current law and would severely restrict the various ways that the NRA communicates with our members and like-minded individuals.
While there are some groups that have run ads and attempted to hide their identities, the NRA isn't one of them. The NRA has been in existence since 1871. Our four million members across the country contribute for the purpose of speaking during elections and participating in the political process. When the NRA runs ads, we clearly and proudly put our name on them. Indeed, that's what our members expect us to do. There is no reason to include the NRA in overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements that are supposedly aimed at so-called "shadow" groups.
On the issue of reporting requirements, the bill mandates that the NRA electronically file all reports with the FEC within 24 hours of each expenditure. Within 24 hours of FEC posting of the reports, the NRA would be required to put a hyperlink on our website to the exact page on which the reports appear on the FEC's website - and keep that link: active for at least one year following the date of the general election. Independent Expenditure reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $600 or more to the NRA during the reporting period and Electioneering Communication reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $1,000 or more to the NRA during the reporting period. There are literally thousands of NRA donors who would meet those thresholds, so these requirements would create a significant and unwarranted burden.
Some have argued that under the bill, all the NRA would have to do to avoid disclosing our $600 or $1,000 level donors is to create a "Campaign-Related Activity Account." Were we to set up such an account, however, we would be precluded from transferring more than $10,000 from our general treasury to the account; all individual donors to that account would have to specifically designate their contributions in that manner and would have to limit their contributions to $9,999; the burdensome disclosure requirements for ads, mailings and robocalls would still apply; and the NRA would be prohibited from spending money on election activity from any other source - including the NRA's Political Victory Fund (our PAC). In sum, this provision is completely unworkable.
Unfortunately, H.R. 5175 attacks nearly all of the NRA's political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented reporting and disclosure requirements. Under the bill, the NRA would have to track the political priorities of each of our individual members - all four million of them. The cost of complying with these requirements would be immense and significantly restrict our ability to speak.
As noted above, there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA in H.R. 5175's overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements. Therefore, we will continue to work with members from both parties to address these issues. Should our concerns not be resolved - and to date, they have not been - the NRA will have no choice but to oppose passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5888
-
Found more info here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
Seems the vague interpretation I was originally alluding to leans way, way over toward what the original poster, Sgt Z, was getting at.
I wish I'd found the info before posting as if I was staunchly defending the NRA....I try not to get hoof-in-mouth disease (or jump the gun) too often, but it does happen from time to time...my apologies to Sgt Z (as I was not taking a personal jab at him).
After further review, I retract my previous statements and can say I am somewhat pissed at the 'two-faced' political game being fostered by the NRA.......their hypocrisy seems to abound.
Submitted sincerely by Peg.....who will now go try to remove the shoe polish from his teeth.....
-
From the NRA's Michael Frazer via NRA's Official Facebook page 6 hours ago:
We don't support the bill.
We are simply trying to protect the ability of NRA to communicate with gun owners at election time and not be forced to disclose the names of our members and contributors to the federal government.
If you oppose the bill, you should call your member of Congress and tell him so.
We are not yet exempted, the legislation is still the same piece of legislation that we opposed. Our our concerns are addressed, we will continue to remain opposed.
I'm not sure how we haven't been clear on this issue.
We oppose the bill and will continue to oppose the bill unless our specific concerns are addressed. If our concerns are addressed, we will not take a position on the bill.
As the bill is currently written, it would silence NRA at election time. We're doing everything we can to ensure that NRA's ability to communicate at election time is protected.
What's not clear about that?
Here is our letter of opposition. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5888
I can't speak to TSRA but NAGR is an organization of 1 and isn't even a legitimate gun rights organization. They are headquartered in VA but aren't even registered to lobby Congress or in Richmond. One would think a powerful gun rights group might actually be registered to lobby Congress.
As for RedState, they are a partisan/conservative ... See Moreorganization, we are not. We have one issue and that issue is the Second Amendment. We get involved in First Amendment issues when they impact our ability to communicate with our members and the nation's gun owners.
We've not agreed to any "horsetrade" and we vigorously oppose any reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.
The fact of the matter is the only reason that issue hasn't been brought up is because of our ability to work with pro-gun Democrats in the House and Senate who are opposed to its renewal.
And here is the tell-tale statement that alludes to the potential to flip:
We are opposed. Whether we stay that way depends on Congress addressing our concerns with the bill.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=2246211058&v=wall&story_fbid=404329336058
>:( >:( >:(
-
Caught this on Red State this morning but did not have time to post it here.
It is rather "gray" in whether the NRA is fencewalking it's support or opposition.
Seems the devil is in the details:
On the issue of reporting requirements, the bill mandates that the NRA electronically file all reports with the FEC within 24 hours of each expenditure. Within 24 hours of FEC posting of the reports, the NRA would be required to put a hyperlink on our website to the exact page on which the reports appear on the FEC's website - and keep that link: active for at least one year following the date of the general election. Independent Expenditure reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $600 or more to the NRA during the reporting period and Electioneering Communication reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $1,000 or more to the NRA during the reporting period. There are literally thousands of NRA donors who would meet those thresholds, so these requirements would create a significant and unwarranted burden.
Some have argued that under the bill, all the NRA would have to do to avoid disclosing our $600 or $1,000 level donors is to create a "Campaign-Related Activity Account." Were we to set up such an account, however, we would be precluded from transferring more than $10,000 from our general treasury to the account; all individual donors to that account would have to specifically designate their contributions in that manner and would have to limit their contributions to $9,999; the burdensome disclosure requirements for ads, mailings and robocalls would still apply; and the NRA would be prohibited from spending money on election activity from any other source - including the NRA's Political Victory Fund (our PAC). In sum, this provision is completely unworkable.
Unfortunately, H.R. 5175 attacks nearly all of the NRA's political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented reporting and disclosure requirements. Under the bill, the NRA would have to track the political priorities of each of our individual members - all four million of them. The cost of complying with these requirements would be immense and significantly restrict our ability to speak.
It could be, the "legal lingo" is "the desired effect", force the NRA to disclose the names of all contributors, and post a link for a year. The current admin. could be doing this by design.
I don't know... :-\
-
Excellent thread, I will hide and watch, for those who have more experience and time to pursue the truth. Thanks in advance.
-
Pardon moi for butting in, but havent you bloody yanks learnt anything from Australia and its BS gun laws?
The slippery slope of doing deals and back yard politics is what set about us losing our auto and high calibre firearms and a set of draconian laws that we may never recover from.
Our equivalent (although I am loathed to say it) the SSAA done deals with Howard in 96 and again in 2003 because they only cared about "their" members and the disciplines that they supported and the rest basically was told Go #$# yaselfs.
They were in the best position to force the hand of the governement of the time to consider the implications of its actions yet they cowered in the corner like a pack of pussies, instead of standing up and uniting all firearm owners in one common goal.
Be warned if this occurs it will be the beginning of a long and hard fight to get back what is rightfully yours!
-
From reading other sources, and from trying to read the bill itself, this appears to be another one of those "selective anti-free speech" bill that have been popular with a certain political mind set over the last decade or so. They have tried it with religious, or should I say Christian, broadcasters and churches, and they just keep trying and trying with anyone they don't like. This one appears to read that it is gun "lobby" specific, and is designed to specifically shut the NRA out.
I'm sure someone much smarter than me will have insight, but that is what I understand as of this hour.
-
You are exactly right. Though those same "opressed" Christian broadcasters have gone after everything from Playboy to NPR. Its just another case of "free speech for me and not for thee". The NRA is trying to be part of the "Me" here. Honestly, I kind of admire them for it. They are sticking to their mission of defending the 2A, and understand that we aren't paying them to be martyrs to the 1A, just the 2A. That said, grow a pair and see the bigger picture. The good news is that this bill, even if passed, because every lobbying group across the spectrum hates it, will die an ugly death in the Courts. What the NRA, and doubtless the Brady bunch are doing is seeking political advantage. They are trying to hobble their enemies and remain free. The statists are laughing. They see the sheep seeking to negotiate a "seperate peace". They are playing a game of divide and conquer and doing it well. Thing is, the odds of this passing judicial scrutiny are slim. No justice but Alito will like this bill, and it wouldn't surprise me if even he said enough. Still it shouldn't pass.
FQ13
-
Damn ... I hate it when he agrees with me!
-
Damn ... I hate it when he agrees with me!
Sorry, it happens from time to time. But in Quaker's perfect world the NRA, the ACLU, the American Center for Law and Justice would all be fighting toghther (not seperately) against this thing. Unfortunately, the political system rewards short term thinking. Folks govern for the next election, not the next generation. So folks that should be natural allies on at least a few issues wind up being divided and weakened to the detriment of all. :'(
GQ13
-
I suggest the GOA, JPFO, SAF or CCRKBA. If only they had merged together as an unstoppable force for our rights. At this point, the NRA seems comprimised.
-
Sledge & Woody +1
It would appear the NRA would deal with the devil to protect it's interest (fundraising $$$) over the constitional rights of other groups to free speach.
Sad.
Gerry
-
Received this from the NRA-ILA Should clear things up.
NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 24 06/18/10
Statement From NRA-ILA Executive Director
Chris W. Cox On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"
Click here to vote in this week's poll.
I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.
The NRA has never supported -- nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.
The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.
We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say -- unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.
The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.
Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.
Statement From David Keene, NRA First
Vice-President On H.R. 5175, The "DISCLOSE Act"
I have been an NRA Board member for some years and currently serve as NRA's First Vice-President -- that you may know. What you may not know is that I have been in the forefront of the fight against liberal attempts to tilt the political playing field their way for decades through what they like to call campaign finance reform. This is a battle that began in the seventies when I put together the case that went to the United States Supreme Court known as Buckley v. Valeo. I was a vocal opponent of the so-called McCain-Feingold "reforms" that shackled groups like the NRA in recent years, and I have served as a First Amendment Fellow at Vanderbilt University's Freedom Forum.
I can assure you that I would never countenance a "deal" of the sort you think the NRA made with Congress to further Democratic attempts to restrict political speech. I consider such restrictions to be not only repugnant, but blatantly unconstitutional, an opinion shared by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris Cox.
The so-called "DISCLOSE ACT" is a horrible piece of legislation designed to do exactly what you suggest. It would require advocacy groups to run a regulatory gauntlet designed to make it very difficult for many of them to play the role for which they were formed and is both bad policy and flies in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions.
But I'm afraid there's more . particularly how it would affect the NRA. When you think of the NRA you no doubt think mostly about the NRA's advocacy on Second Amendment issues, but the NRA also provides training to its members, law enforcement and military personnel, works with states, counties and private organizations to build ranges and runs competitive events such as those at Camp Perry in Ohio. Since Camp Perry is a military base, public monies go into range development and federal funds go to training military and police personnel, the NRA would be classed with government contractors and TARP recipients under the DISCLOSE ACT as originally written and effectively prohibited from engaging in any meaningful political activity.
Last week Democratic leadership in the House capitulated by agreeing to exempt the NRA from the act -- not in return for NRA support, but to avoid a political war that might cost them even more seats this fall.
I have to tell you that I never thought the Democrats would agree to this -- not because they have much regard for constitutional rights -- because I didn't believe their left wing would allow it. The events since their capitulation convince me that their fear of NRA retaliation forced them to take steps that split their coalition and could easily doom the whole bill.
Consider this: on Thursday night, California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the most anti-Second Amendment members of the Senate, announced that she wouldn't support the DISCLOSE ACT if it exempted the NRA. By Friday some two-dozen left wing activist groups that had previously been pressing Congress to pass the bill announced that now they wanted it defeated.
The bottom line is that in refusing to risk its members' rights and the very survival of the Second Amendment, the NRA has also made it less rather than more likely that support for this terrible legislation will collapse and the free speech rights of every one of us will benefit.
*****
I think that should about clarify things, and those that rushed to judgement, well get all the facts before making a knee jerk reaction.
IMHO.
-
Thanks TW.
The way the OP article was written seemed vague, and even writings by NRA reps made it appear that they were poised on the fence. I'm glad that my first gut feeling was right. I wish the NRA-ILA had made this issue more clear in the beginning.
Now I feel like a dirty liberal flip-flopper................I should have stuck to my guns............ ;) ;D
-
Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle
June 21, 2010 Byline: Fredreka Schouten USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - A high-profile effort by President Obama and top Democrats to clamp down on special interest spending in elections has faltered, nearly six months after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for unlimited corporate and union spending on independent campaign ads.
Action on a bill in Congress that aims to shine more light on such spending stalled after top House Democrats agreed to exempt the powerful National Rifle Association and other large non-profits from new disclosure rules.
"All restriction on political speech is repugnant," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun owners' group, told USA TODAY.
"Am I happy that the NRA's tongue is not cut for the 2010 ... elections? Absolutely," he said. "Do we still think this bill is unconstitutional? Absolutely."
To read the full story click here (http://www.nranews.org/UM/T.asp?A2.62.8667.1.4338571)