NRA bails on Constitution to pursue self-interest

[Guest trigem]

Friday, June 25, 2010

THE KNOX GUN-RIGHTS REPORT

Jeff Knox laments group's failure to defend free speech

Posted: June 25, 2010

12:40 am Eastern

By Jeff Knox

Editor's note: The DISCLOSE Act passed through the U.S. House shortly after this column was written. See Jeff Knox's additional comments at the end.

A firestorm was ignited this week when it was announced that House Democrats had carved out an exemption for the National Rifle Association in proposed new federal campaign legislation and that the NRA was no longer going to oppose the bill.

The new campaign legislation is a response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. In that case the Court held that groups like NRA could not be blocked from mentioning a candidate's name during the 60 days prior to an election.

The proposed legislation – which is still only available in synopsis form – would tightly regulate the political speech of any corporation (most nonprofits and political organizations are corporations) and require extensive recordkeeping and public disclosure of contributors' names. Such disclosure is particularly hard on gun-rights organizations as our members tend to be vehemently opposed to having their names put on lists – particularly lists identifying them as likely gun owners.

The NRA has long been a leader in defense of constitutionally protected political speech, and they had stepped up in opposition to this latest threat. Unfortunately, rather than stand strong on principle of liberty and the rule of the Constitution, NRA suggested to the bill's sponsors that as long as the proposed legislation did not apply to NRA, the association would withdraw their opposition. Good for NRA, but bad for every other group and the Constitution.

(Column continues below)

Detractors immediately accused leaders of the 4-million-member gun-owner group of betraying their principles, their state affiliates and all gun owners who support groups other than the NRA.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre strongly defended the association's actions during an interview with syndicated talk-show host Lars Larson. LaPierre declared that as CEO of NRA his first responsibility was to protect and defend the Second Amendment and NRA's ability to defend those rights via the First Amendment. LaPierre repeatedly stated strong personal and corporate repugnance to any attempt to abridge First Amendment rights, but made it clear that as long as the so-called "DISCLOSE Act" did not directly impact NRA, the association would not actively oppose the bill.

In LaPierre's words, "We're not in it."

In an ironic twist, it appears likely that the NRA deal has seriously diminished the chances the "DISCLOSE Act" had of passing. At least three Democrat senators have expressed their opposition to the bill; Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Dianne Feinstein of California object to the NRA being exempted from the speech-restriction bill, while Ben Nelson of Nebraska opposes the whole idea of restricting political speech. Their opposition places the Democrats' ability to break a filibuster in serious doubt.

Of course, a filibuster would only succeed if all Republicans in the Senate were to stick together – something they are not noted for.

House members are also balking at the bill as the outrage of the grass roots is beginning to burn up their telephone and Internet connections and more members of Congress learn the particulars of the bill and of the special treatment allotted to NRA.

Conservative and liberal groups alike are loudly objecting to the NRA exemption. This brings much-needed exposure to the speech-limitation legislation and is causing conflict among the supporters of the bill. Many oppose the NRA exception, but many more, who depend on GunVoter support for reelection, say they will not support the bill if the NRA or GunVoters oppose it.

Sponsors of the bill are in the difficult position of either staying the present course and muscling through the objections of their fellow Democrats, broadening definitions to exempt many more groups or removing the NRA exemption and having one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country once again fighting the bill with all of their resources.

The confusion and conflict among Democrats is good news for supporters of liberty and the Constitution.

Had the current political situation been created in any manner other than NRA placing self-interest above constitutional principles, I would be thrilled with the situation. Instead I am frustrated and disappointed. As a life member of NRA, I strongly support their political agenda as well as their shooting programs. In this instance I fear that Mr. LaPierre and NRA leadership have seriously shot themselves in the foot and their intransigent, unapologetic attitude is just adding insult to injury.

NRA's opposition to the rape of the First Amendment should not be based solely on how such rape will affect them directly, but also how it will affect the movement as a whole, their state affiliates and fellow rights organizations – and the integrity of the Constitution itself. When they accepted this deal, NRA abdicated the moral high ground in favor of wallowing in the mud with the swine.

In the wake of the bill's passage

The ill-named DISCLOSE Act was passed out of the U.S. House on June 24 by a vote of 219 to 206. The NRA did not oppose the bill. The proposal now goes to the Senate where free-speech advocates are hoping for a filibuster to block passage.

The prime sponsor in the Senate, however, is Chuck Schumer of New York, a consummate dealmaker, meaning even though there are Democrats upset about the NRA carve-out in the bill, Schumer has a good chance of pushing it through. It is quite possible that he will strip the NRA protections out of the bill before passage. That would leave NRA complicit in passing restrictions on themselves.

A last-minute amendment to the bill also excluded labor unions from the restrictions of the bill. Expect this whole mess to get messier in the coming days.

[leroy]

Check this out:

Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act”

Friday, June 18, 2010

We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We’d like to set the record straight.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position—including the Brady Campaign—have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.

Link here: NRA-ILA :: Setting The Record Straight On The

Be careful what you choose to believe. The NRA is the biggest friend that the Bill of Rights (...and us citizens who believe in them...) have in modern times. If there is no Second Amendment, there soon wont be any of the others. Polititians are afraid of the NRA. That's why they are seeking to exempt them from this legislation. It is always a good thing when polititians are afraid of the citizenry. Dont let the foolish and those with an adgenda (...read that as most news outlets, newspaper columnists and commentators...) drag you off into the bushes with this platitudinous baloney about sell outs. The First amendment will only be safe if the second amendment is firmly in place.

Kind regards,

Leroy

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Leroy, you placed these quotes in bold:

Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience.

The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility.

What do you think the NRA is saying here?

[leroy]

Hill:______________

Two things. NRA will not argue the "free speech" issue if they do not have to (...meaning no public argument from NRA if "exempt"(...that is, exempt as an organization from disclosing the names of donors...). If not "exempt"; then the NRA will actively fight the bill.

Secondly; the NRA is a "single issue" organization devoted to the defense if the Second Amendment. That means that they will not fight any fights other than second amendment fights [...excluding, I think, issues that affect the membership, like the disclosure of names and financial contributions from NRA members (...read that donors...)].

Remember, the bill calls for "disclosure" of donor names, which I think amounts to having the effect of silencing political "free speech" (...talking with your money...). The Supreme Court has already ruled on this once with "Campaign Finance Reform". It was struck down. Simply said, the government cannot tell you who to back (...with your dollars...) in a political election or try to silence you thru intimidation by "listing you"; thereby making your name public. It is my belief that the "Disclose Act" will be struck down anyway if it passes the Senate and is tried in court. It does exactly what 'Campaign Finance Reform" tried to do and failed; that is, to intimidate and silence support of candidates by individuals and organizations.

I also think it is important to remember that the NRA did not start this political dust up; the Demorats did. The reason the Demorats want to "exempt" the NRA is that they do not want to fight them. Most all polititians (...demorat and republican...) are afraid of the NRA; and i believe that is a good thing. Polititians should be afraid of the citizenry. Some folks are trying to beat up the NRA for something they didn't start in the first place.

Finally, I think it is important to read and understand another hilited section. Here it is:

...We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.†Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We’d like to set the record straight.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Remember, there will always be those who have agendas to pursue who will try to paint organizations like the NRA (...maybe even TGO too...) in a bad light to further their own agendas. I think that exactly what is going on here. Remember, the NRA did not start this dust up nor did they say they approved of the legislation in the first place. They were dragged into it and, I think, have been maligned by their detractors. I think that is a shame. The NRA is the best friend that the Bill of Rights has at this point in history. If there aint a Second Amendment, there soon wont be any of the others; especially the First.

Hope this helps.

kind regards,

Leroy

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Be careful what you choose to believe. The NRA is the biggest friend that the Bill of Rights (...and us citizens who believe in them...) have in modern times.

Secondly; the NRA is a "single issue" organization devoted to the defense if the Second Amendment. That means that they will not fight any fights other than second amendment fights

These two statements are in direct conflict. There is no "friend of the Bill of Rights" that will so easily forsake the First Amendment. If the NRA wishes to fancy themselves as being rigidly and exclusively a single-issue organization, then they are deluding themselves. You can't defend the Second Amendment without availing yourself of the First. There is no vacuum in which the Second exists. While they may not take up the work of FIRE or the ACLU, it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly of them to ignore their responsibilities to the Constitution in this particularly instance.

Two things. NRA will not argue the "free speech" issue if they do not have to (...meaning no public argument from NRA if "exempt"(...that is, exempt as an organization from disclosing the names of donors...). If not "exempt"; then the NRA will actively fight the bill.

I think you read this correctly. The NRA is saying this: "If we get ours, then we'll be happy. If you don't get yours, sucks to be you. That's your problem."

I disagree with their position, but that's nothing new for me.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[9teeneleven]

How do we have this so backwards? Citizens United was the attack on free speech. Jeez. The NRA is wrong not for opposing the Disclose act, but for defending citizens united. Simply put, money is not speech. Money is money; speech is speech.

Edited June 28, 2010 by 9teeneleven

[timcalhoun]

The NRA solicits donations and membership solely based on their promise to protect 2nd amendment issues only. Therefore, it would be unethical and immoral for them to be anything but a single issue organization. Once the legislation ceased to affect the NRA's mission it should be dropped as an issue for the NRA. Now if they were called the National Constitutional Original Intent Organization, you of course would be correct in your criticism.

[mikegideon]

The NRA solicits donations and membership solely based on their promise to protect 2nd amendment issues only. Therefore, it would be unethical and immoral for them to be anything but a single issue organization. Once the legislation ceased to affect the NRA's mission it should be dropped as an issue for the NRA. Now if they were called the National Constitutional Original Intent Organization, you of course would be correct in your criticism.

+1

[Guest GunTroll]

Mmmmmm.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

The NRA solicits donations and membership solely based on their promise to protect 2nd amendment issues only. Therefore, it would be unethical and immoral for them to be anything but a single issue organization. Once the legislation ceased to affect the NRA's mission it should be dropped as an issue for the NRA. Now if they were called the National Constitutional Original Intent Organization, you of course would be correct in your criticism.

It is never immoral or unethical to speak or act in defense of the Constitution.

Again, I'm not saying that they are a free speech organization or that they should devote tremendous resources to such work. What I'm saying is what I've said: the NRA is in a great position to recognize the importance of the First Amendment and to support free speech. In this particular instance. Right now. Just here and now. They could do so without much effort, too.

This is one of those situations where both sides of the argument have a good hold. I can see both sides, and neither is particularly unreasonable. The NRA is wrong in this instance, IMO. They are playing politics in the worst sort of way.

[MCSCOTT]

The NRA solicits donations and membership solely based on their promise to protect 2nd amendment issues only. Therefore, it would be unethical and immoral for them to be anything but a single issue organization. Once the legislation ceased to affect the NRA's mission it should be dropped as an issue for the NRA. Now if they were called the National Constitutional Original Intent Organization, you of course would be correct in your criticism.

This is exactly what I've been thinking ever since the first posts came up criticizing the NRA for their stand on this. The money taken in by the NRA is strictly for protecting our 2A rights. There are other organizations out there that people can donate to that protect other aspects of the Constitution.

Edited June 28, 2010 by MCSCOTT

[mikegideon]

It is never immoral or unethical to speak or act in defense of the Constitution.

Again, I'm not saying that they are a free speech organization or that they should devote tremendous resources to such work. What I'm saying is what I've said: the NRA is in a great position to recognize the importance of the First Amendment and to support free speech. In this particular instance. Right now. Just here and now. They could do so without much effort, too.

This is one of those situations where both sides of the argument have a good hold. I can see both sides, and neither is particularly unreasonable. The NRA is wrong in this instance, IMO. They are playing politics in the worst sort of way.

Playing politics is a lot of what they do, out of necessity. Taking up this issue WOULD sap resources. They are the ones with their ears to the ground in DC, and their explanation of their position satisfies me. Their job is 2A. That's why I send them money. If they become protectors of the constitution in general, I may stop sending them money. I'm not saying the Constitution doesn't need to be protected, just that my 2A specialists have a very important focus that doesn't need to be sidetracked.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

This is exactly what I've been thinking ever since the first posts came up criticizing the NRA for their stand on this. The money taken in by the NRA is strictly for protecting our 2A rights. There are other organizations out there that people can donate to that protect other aspects of the Constitution.

Playing politics is a lot of what they do, out of necessity. Taking up this issue WOULD sap resources. They are the ones with their ears to the ground in DC, and their explanation of their position satisfies me. Their job is 2A. That's why I send them money. If they become protectors of the constitution in general, I may stop sending them money. I'm not saying the Constitution doesn't need to be protected, just that my 2A specialists have a very important focus that doesn't need to be sidetracked.

Just remember that the First Amendment has to be used to protect the Second.

[MCSCOTT]

Just remember that the First Amendment has to be used to protect the Second.

I agree in a way, but that statement could also go the other direction in that we may have to some day use our 2A rights in order to protect the entire constitution. Every aspect of the Constitution is put there for a reason, and could be used to protect other aspects of it. Like Mike said, people send the NRA money so that they can stand up for 2A rights, and 2A rights alone. This is the part where it isn't morally right for them to take that funding and spend it on something else.

[leroy]

Hill:___________

These two statements are in direct conflict. There is no "friend of the Bill of Rights" that will so easily forsake the First Amendment. If the NRA wishes to fancy themselves as being rigidly and exclusively a single-issue organization, then they are deluding themselves. You can't defend the Second Amendment without availing yourself of the First. There is no vacuum in which the Second exists. While they may not take up the work of FIRE or the ACLU, it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly of them to ignore their responsibilities to the Constitution in this particularly instance.

Leroys "conflicted" statements below:

Originally Posted by leroy

Be careful what you choose to believe. The NRA is the biggest friend that the Bill of Rights (...and us citizens who believe in them...) have in modern times.

Originally Posted by leroy Two things. NRA will not argue the "free speech" issue if they do not have to (...meaning no public argument from NRA if "exempt"(...that is, exempt as an organization from disclosing the names of donors...). If not "exempt"; then the NRA will actively fight the bill.

I think you read this correctly. The NRA is saying this: "If we get ours, then we'll be happy. If you don't get yours, sucks to be you. That's your problem."

I disagree with their position, but that's nothing new for me.

You can take the position that you have taken if you want to; and I understand that it is not in agreement with mine. I see no confilct with the logic of my position. The reason for that is that I wrote it, and i believe it for the reasons stated in the previous posts.

Your opinion (..and Jeff Knox's opinion...) seems to be that "...the NRA is no friend to the Bill of Rights" because they havent went far enough to defend it.

My opinion is that the NRA is doing a good job of defending the Bill of Rights by ensuring that the Second Amendment is protected for the reasons listed above and in previous posts.

Having said all that; the important thing to remember that BOTH OF THESE POSITIONS ARE OPINIONS. One of the great things about living in this country (...for now, anyway ....) is the ability to have "opinions" and openly speak them in the public forum.

If you take the time to look at Jeff Knox site (...here http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php) he is head of the "Firearms Coalition, "The Hard Corps". Could it possibly be that Jeff Knox could see himself as a potential competitor to the NRA and could he possible be using this little dust up to feather his nest by potraying himself as a "greater patriot" than the NRA by standing up for the First Amendment? Or could he honestly be trying to push the NRA to do more in this little dust up? The answer is, we simply dont know which is the case. I dont know if that is true or not; as Mr Knox seems to not have spoken his intention in this matter. The end of this little discussion in my mind, is what to with regard to the actions of the NRA:

• If you agree (...as i do...) with the job the NRA is doing, send them dollars and become a member.
  
• If you do not agree with them, dont send them money and criticize them if you feel the need to.
  

Thats one of the great things about living in this country (...for now, anyway...). You are free to do those things. You can even criticize the government (...for now...).

Now to the issue of "speech being speech and money being money": There are those who apparently do not believe that money equals free speech. See below:

9teeneleven

How do we have this so backwards? Citizens United was the attack on free speech. Jeez. The NRA is wrong not for opposing the Disclose act, but for defending citizens united.

Simply put, money is not speech. Money is money; speech is speech

.

I happen to believe that the use of money to lobby, advertise, inform thru mass media (...TV ads, radio, internet ...) to promote an idea or concept in the political arena is a type of "free speech". You can choose not to believe that if you want to; but simple observation will prove you wrong. That is exactly why political parties solicit contributions from their various constituents. It seems to me that the labor unions were given a pass in the original unconstitutional "Campaigh Finance Reform" bill (...by the way, the same way the NRA was given this one --- for different reasons, of course. The unions are pro Demorat... .).

Money is, indeed, a tool for political free speech. That is why the Demorats (...along with some republicans too --- remember the McCain-Finegold bill ....) would like to limit the abilities of groups to use it to politically campaign in the public arena against them.

Don't be drug off into the bushes by the polititians and pundits that say that dollars need to be regulated to make the electioneering process more "pure and uncontaminated by special interest groups". That is baloney and always was. The real reason is that most polititians "mean to govern" and do not like to be criticized. That means that they (...and for many of them, only they...) know best what is good for us "ordinary citizens" and if there are any decisons to be made; they will make them. I dont believe that and neither should you. That is why we have "electioneering" -- a First Amendment right..., and elections. Both McCain-Finegold and the "Disclose" act are attempts by polititians to supress criticism of their policies and positions thru legislative action. Always remember this great quote that i lifted from one of our members here:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority ... the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Noah Webster

When it comes right down to it, the quote above is what this is all about ---assumption of authority to tell you what you can and cannot do under the guise of the "public good" (...i prefer the old Soviet standard quip: "The Collective Good"---what baloney!!!....). The "elites" (...read that polititians and pundits...) would presume to take the authority to tell you everything you need to know and what you need to do at the point of the bayonet thru the legislative process. After all, you are just an ignorant, ordinary citizen and dont know anything about this "important" stuff like government. If this sounds familiar, it is; it is what the Communists and Totalitarian governments do. I dont like that governmental system and I suspect that you dont either.

Moral of this little essay; "Your money belongs to you (...for the time being, at least...). You are entitled to put it to work in the arena of First Amendment protected free political speech." Some polititians dont like that because it criticizes their actions and may get them thrown out of office. They have taken 'stealth" measures like the "Disclose Act" and "Campaign Finance Reform" to limit your ability to criticize them; all the time purporting to be doing the "right thing"---nothing could be farther from the truth.

I dont like that and my advice to you is that you shouldn't either.

Food for thought.

Kind regards,

Leroy

Edited June 28, 2010 by leroy
Added Jeff Knox website!!!