Statement From The National Rifle on H.R. 5175 Sellout

[Sgt Z Squad]

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!

[Hazcat]

Sorry, what is HR 5175 all about?

[PegLeg45]

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?

[T.C. 21]

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?

[Woody]

 Wow, I'm glad I'm not a member of the NRA. Sounds like they party too much with our domestic enemies.

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

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

[PegLeg45]

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.....

[PegLeg45]

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

     

[twyacht]

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...

[m25operator]

Excellent thread, I will hide and watch, for those who have more experience and time to pursue the truth. Thanks in advance.