Posts Tagged ‘NRA’

GOP RINO’s attack: Truth in politicing?

October 29, 2010

Seems that there are some behind the scenes activity going on in Wyoming politics. As usual, the mainstream GOP is attempting to co-op TEA Party people, and calling members of the movement out of touch, radicals, and all the usual garbage.

There are a number of letters circulating on the Internet telling people to Google Matt Mead — guns. When they do they are led to several websites (more than one of them designed by the same person giving the impression that there is a whole body of “evidence” regarding Matt’s position on gun control, when in fact just one person is pushing his own agenda). These phony sites are putting out erroneous information concerning Matt Mead’s record on gun issues.

Really? Have you bothered to notice all the comments? Or the fact that this blog certainly isn’t ran by that person?

A California transplant moved to Wyoming and started a blog about gun rights and gun issues. He published that Matt Mead was anti-gun and supported the BATF in lawsuits against Wyoming and Wyoming gun laws. These statements are not true and when confronted, said blogger refused to meet with Matt to correct his misrepresentations.

Sorry, but the facts are otherwise. Not to mention that he uses a website, not a blog… I’m also a California transplant just to let you know. I left there in 1978 because of the stupid anti freedom things that were going on. Now people are trying to pull the same sorts of insanity here..?

Matt Mead is a member of the NRA and has an A rating from them. He has not favored/does not favor gun control. People need to remember that the Internet is a tool which can be a very good source of information, but some who have an agenda can also use it to spread misinformation. Wyoming has seen its share of “dirty politics” but deliberate untruths which seek to malign a person’s character or present false information about him should be rejected.

One of Matt mead’s big campaign points is that he will stand up for Wyoming: FACT; He went after Wyoming as a U.S. Attorney. Just doing his job? Alright, I can understand that. That’s also what those folks said at Nuremberg, and things didn’t work out so well for them. Rightfully so I might add. So what if the NRA gave him a favorable rating? They gave favorable ratings to a lot of people that the membership, such as myself, deplore.

I have found Matt Mead to be very approachable and willing to sit down and rationally discuss any topic. I am certain that Matt will protect your Second Amendment rights as well as other constitutional rights and will be a good governor for Wyoming.

He may be, but if past behavior is any indicator of future actions then the people of Wyoming need to think long and hard about electing a RINO. Not that there is much out there to be had other than the lessor of evils, yet again.

SOURCE

 

Second Amendment Foundation Defends an American Veteran!

October 17, 2010

Alright… I like the Second Amendment Foundation, what they do, and why they do what they do. What makes me sick though is the never ending begging for bucks that they engage in. Want to donate? Fine, I’ll plug in a link at the end.

Now, the meat of this is a theme often addressed here. That being life time bans of inalienable rights for less than felonious deeds. Indeed, since the treasonous and un-Constitutional Lautenberg Abomination that made ex post fact law the national norm? Things have only become worse, due to hot button political correctness. The Second Amendment Foundation is taking this head on. Playing follow the leader is not always a bad thing, as Gun Owners of America have been on top of this from day one. While the NRA, sat back, and collected dues…

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over
Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial

Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

MILITARY VETERAN ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE DENIED RIGHT TO OWN A GUN

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their “territory,” according to the complaint.

FBI THREATENS TO CONFISCATE SCHRADER’S FIREARMS

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

FELONS GIVEN MORE RIGHTS THAN HONORABLE SERVICEMAN

“Schrader’s dilemma,” explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

“No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way,” he added. “Mr. Schrader’s case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws.”

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer’s bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn’t happen to you.

YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON THE VALUE OF YOUR LIFE

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Here is the obligatory link

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!

Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs?

October 7, 2010

Deceptive Blue Dogs Prop up Pelosi
Over fifty Democrats in Congress—so-called Blue Dogs—claim to be pro-gun, but can any member who votes to retain Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House really be considered a defender of the Second Amendment?

Most of the Blue Dog members voted with Pelosi as she crammed the anti-gun ObamaCare bill down the throats of the American people. Most voted against protecting gun rights in national parks. And, not surprisingly given their anti-gun voting records, they stood with Pelosi to silence groups like GOA by supporting the so-called DISCLOSE Act.

So, are they Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs? Read more HERE.

SOURCE

Now, contrast what is revealed in the linked story with this from the National Rifle Association;

So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority. The endorsements aren’t the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls “an incumbent friendly” policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

Read About It: The Washington Post

Does money and praise make an endorsement?

September 8, 2010

Last week the National Rifle Association officially announced they were not endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – NV).

They also went out of their way to make it clear they were not endorsing Reid’s opponent, Republican Sharon Angle — who filled out the National Association for Gun Rights Federal Candidate Survey 100% pro-gun.  A typical Washington non-statement, statement.

The NRA’s “non-endorsement” statement brings up a number of important questions.

Does giving a candidate money not constitute a more-than-tacit endorsement? The NRA’s Federal PAC gave Harry Reid $4,950 this year, for his 2010 reelection campagin.

Does speaking glowingly of a candidate or politician during an election year not constitute an endorsement? In the June 2010 edition (page 16-18) of the NRA’s magazine, the American Rifleman, they featured an article highlighting the work Harry Reid has done with the NRA.

I firmly believe that actions speak louder than press releases.

In that spirit, our cartoonist outlined just what that the NRA’s “non-endorsement” really means.

Please feel to forward this cartoon to all of your gun owning friends and relatives.

For liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director


To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

U.S. Firearm Production Soars

August 22, 2010

Anti-Gun Group Shows Why The American
Way Is Better, As U.S. Firearm Production Soars

Anyone who traveled behind the Iron Curtain back in those days probably didn’t have to look very hard to find groups of “workers” sitting around doing pretty much nothing, except collecting a taxpayer-funded government paycheck.

The American way is better. Anti-gun group employees can still sit around doing pretty much nothing and collect a paycheck, but the money—lots of it—comes from donations, from foundations and individuals who share their ideals. While the rest of us have to contend with anything tangible they might produce, at least we don’t have to pay for it, most of the time.

Take the latest from the so-called Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), a handful of gun-hater lawyers operating out of an office in San Francisco, California. Mimicking the Brady Campaign—probably not a good business plan, given that Brady Campaign is not exactly a thriving enterprise these days—LCAV is now ranking the states according to how “strong” their gun laws are.

If by any chance you are unfamiliar with the word “ludicrous,” now would be a good time to look it up in your dictionary. On the other hand, never mind, because once you go over LCAV’s pseudo-scientific poppycock, you’ll be able to write a good definition yourself.

Some examples serve to make the point. LCAV ranks California best in the nation, though its firearm-related death rate is higher than those of 16 other states, including Vermont, the gun owner-friendly laws of which LCAV ranks third worst in the nation. LCAV ranks Maryland 7th-best, just ahead of New York and Rhode Island, the firearm-related deaths rates of which are only 42 percent and 29 percent that of Maryland. Joining the declaration of ideological war by some in California against neighboring Arizona, LCAV ranks the Grand Canyon State worst in the nation.

And it goes on from there, with no correlation between LCAV’s ranking and the states’ widely divergent firearm-related death rates, no recognition of the fact that most firearm-related deaths are suicides, the frequency of which cannot be restrained by any gun control law, and no recognition of the fact that the world is still waiting for any evidence that any gun control law on the planet has ever prevented individuals or regimes from committing crime.

LCAV’s point structure for the various gun laws doesn’t even make sense. LCAV gives states four points (the maximum for any gun law) for requiring registration of all guns. We get that, since we know that gun control supporters consider registration indispensable, for purposes of enforcing a subsequent gun confiscation law. But LCAV gives almost as many points (three) for banning .50 caliber rifles (which are probably the type of gun least frequently involved in firearm deaths, or darned close), three points for requiring a dealer to be licensed (even though federal law requires that in every state anyway), and . . . well, you get the idea.

Similar to Violence to Policy Center, LCAV is especially apoplectic about “assault weapons” (three points for a ban), standard self-defense magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (three points for a ban), and anything at all to do with carrying a firearm for protection. Relative to the latter, a state gets a minus-1 point for a “shall issue” carry permit law, minus-1 for open carry without a permit, and minus-two points for concealed carry without a permit. All this malarky, with the number of carry states at an all-time high and the nation’s violent crime rate at a 35-year low.

We’re not sure how often LCAV will have the opportunity to repeat its state ranking exercise, though. One bad gun law at a time, NRA, its members, and their friends elected to state office have been eliminating gun control laws left and right for the last two decades in most states. And, Americans have responded by exercising their right to acquire arms in record numbers.

Some evidence to that effect was put forward by the BATFE recently, in the form of its report on U.S. firearm manufacturing in the first half of 2009. In the first half of 2009, U.S. manufacturers produced more rifles, more pistols, more revolvers and more shotguns, than in all of 2008. Coupled with increases in NICS checks of 11 percent between 2006 and 2007, another 14 percent between 2007 and 2008, and another 10 percent between 2008 and 2009, the evidence is pretty clear that the gun control laws LCAV wants have been on the wane, while the ones it most despises have become the norm.

SOURCE

NRA sells out the people of America:Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

June 16, 2010

After spending close to half an hour on hold I was finally able to speak to an NRA rep. at NRA / ILA. I received the usual lip service, and was told that my comments would be passed on…What follows is the limp wristed defense of their actions that landed in my email inbox this morning. This is just another example of the NRA selling out, again…

Statement From The National Rifle
Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

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.

And this is what GOA has to say about this issue;

House Democrats Close to Reinstituting Penalties for Criticizing Congress
— Help GOA get other pro-gun groups on board in this fight

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

We alerted you last week to the very dangerous DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), where liberal House Democrats are trying to gag their political opponents.

Well, there have been some late-breaking developments in the fight to kill this bill, but you’re not going to believe what’s happening.  This is what Politico.com reported yesterday:

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.

But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.

So if the NRA gets an exemption for itself, it will not oppose the anti-freedom DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).  This legislation is designed to overturn major parts of the recent Supreme Court decision which restored the ability of groups like GOA to freely criticize elected officials during a campaign.

But the NRA would no longer oppose the bill once they’ve won an exemption for themselves.  As reported by Politico.com:

The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.

Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year’s midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.

The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.

In addition to benefiting the NRA, this “exemption” amendment will benefit Blue Dog Democrats who will be given a green light to support the Obama-Pelosi backed bill:

Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.

“There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith,” Shuler said, referring to the NRA. “Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager’s amendment.”

But here’s the rub, the special exemption amendment will ONLY benefit the NRA and no other groups whatsoever.  It will leave all other groups who are currently in Obama’s crosshairs dangling in the wind:

The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.

The exemption for a huge group like the NRA is sure to outrage smaller special-interest groups [like Gun Owners of America].

We are in a political war, and our opponents are trying to change the rules of the game by gagging those groups that are their political enemies.  Some might say that the requirement to disclose our membership is not a gag rule, but it most certainly is.  Gun Owners of America will NOT do anything that would jeopardize the privacy of our members!

Gun owners know the dangers of being registered, as it has often proven to be the first step towards gun confiscation — which, by the way, is why it’s lamentable that the management of the NRA is selling out its members for the proverbial bowl of pottage.  (Go to http://tinyurl.com/2uw9sm9 to see what a leading Capitol Hill blog has written about this sell-out.)

We’re positive that regular members of the NRA would never want this to happen — where all the other pro-gun organizations (like GOA) that are fighting to protect our rights would be gagged, while special favors are cut for one group in particular.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with NRA and all the other pro-gun groups when they are fighting to defend our Second Amendment freedoms.  We all have to stick together if we are going to win these battles.

We’re not sure who is making the decisions over at the NRA headquarters… but this type of thing would have never happened in the past, and we’re positive that the NRA membership would not be happy with it.  This cannot stand!

ACTION: Please do everything you can to kill this dangerous DISCLOSE Act legislation (HR 5175).  Here’s what you can do:

1. Urge your congressman to oppose HR 5175.  You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

2. Call the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) and urge them to oppose this legislation and to rate any congressman who votes in favor of HR 5175 as having cast an ANTI-GUN vote.  Urge them not to sell out our constitutional freedoms just because they can get an exemption for themselves.

3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights.  You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to this new threat.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).

There are reports that a deal may be cut to exempt one large organization from the terms of the DISCLOSE Act.  This smacks of the money-for-votes fiasco which helped grease the skids for passage of ObamaCare and which has already lowered Congress’ reputation to unprecedented depths.

On the Senate side, Senator Mitch McConnell blasted this deal, which is aimed at carving out special exemptions for the NRA leadership in exchange for their promise to sit on their hands and not oppose the DISCLOSE Act.  “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the backroom dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else,” McConnell said.

“Just as it wasn’t the Democrats’ money to offer in the health care debate, free speech isn’t theirs to ration out to those willing to play ball — it’s a right guaranteed by our First Amendment to all Americans.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  Please do NOT vote in favor of this legislation, as it will have a chilling effect upon our free speech rights by forcing the organizations we associate with to disclose their membership lists.

How ironic that a Congress and President who treat transparency with contempt should now be trying to force legal organizations to disclose the names of their law-abiding members.  The hypocrisy is blatant, to say the least.

Vote no on HR 5175.

Sincerely,

NRA: Selling out the membership yet again!

June 15, 2010

URGENT ALERT: NRA cuts deals to limit free speech

Three prominent Washington D.C. websites are reporting what many capitol insiders warned of: the National Rifle Association has made a deal with the devil (i.e. anti-gun Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to limit the free speech of Americans in exchange for their carved-out exemption.

While some pro-gun rights advocates may think free speech does not matter or that nothing another gun advocacy group does should ever be questioned, the National Association for Gun Rights and I take a very different view.

Without the right to free speech, we are defenseless in the battle to save our Second Amendment rights.

Let me be clear: restricting our First Amendment rights is the first step to stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, and should be resisted at every turn.

We don’t care who you are or what an organization may have done in the past – we only care about whether your actions will promote or harm our rights.

And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights.  After you read up on the facts, I ask you to give the NRA an earful by calling 1-800-672-3888 and insist they renounce the deal with Pelosi and Reid. Believe me, it is not too late if you will get involved.

Though at first objecting to the DISCLOSE Act, which would radically limit the free speech of organizations and thus, gun owners, the NRA has now agreed to an exemption for their organization (and other mammoth, mostly liberal, organizations like AARP and probably Moveon.org) in exchange for support of the Democrats’ bill.

This legislation would place draconian limitations on the ability of organizations to voice their opinions on politicians, and by extension, their legislation.  The chilling effect on free speech would be difficult to overstate.

Along with their tacit endorsement of Senator Harry Reid, the NRA is signaling that they trust the Democrats will spare the Second Amendment from further assaults.

But that’s a strategy of appeasement, and to put it bluntly, it’s insane. It just delays the inevitable.

Winston Churchill addressed this strategy when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Background:

This is not the only time the NRA has cut a deal to harm gun owners and gun rights in the glare of an anti-gun media frenzy.

Just a three years ago, the NRA joined with arch gun-hater Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to pass H.R. 2640, the Veteran’s Disarmament Act.  When gun control advocates saw the Virginia Tech shootings as an opportunity to pass gun control, the NRA immediately signed the documents of surrender and actively lobbied Congress to pass legislation that will disarm tens of thousands of Americans, including veterans.

Why did they do that? Frankly, they were more concerned with what the media and Washington power-bosses were saying than their loyal-to-a-fault members.

Similarly in 2004 when, desperate to pass the Firearms Manufacturers’ Lawsuits Protection bill, the NRA dangled a re-authorization of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban in front of hungry politicians.  The deal was going to be that if anti-gun politicians voted for the Lawsuit Protection bill, the NRA would not oppose re-authorization of the sun-setting Clinton Gun Ban.

Thankfully, a coalition of groups led by the National Association for Gun Rights joined together to kill that deal by exposing it to the light of honest gun owners across this nation… just like we are doing now.  In that fight, after a few weeks of excuses and covering their tracks, the NRA backed off of the deal, the Lawsuit Protection Bill still passed and the Clinton Gun Ban ended.

What can you do?

Tell the NRA you’ve had enough, and urge them to kill the DISCLOSE Act, not cut a deal to pass it.  Call them at 1-800-672-3888 today, as it may be too late tomorrow.

Freedom of Speech: epic fail obama HR 5175

June 9, 2010

HR 5175 Selectively Silences American Opinion


Fresh from his efforts to seize government control of the health services sector (ObamaCare) and the financial markets (“finance reform”), Barack Obama has a new priority:  silence his political opposition.

As satisfying as it was for Obama to seize control of one-sixth of the economy, he has had to suffer protest from the “little people” (like us).  So he is pushing the Orwellian “DISCLOSE” bill (HR 5175) to make sure gun groups and other pro-freedom forces cannot mobilize their members in the upcoming elections.

When Obama says “disclose,” what he really means is “disclose gun group membership lists”

Not surprisingly, these efforts to shut down free speech don’t apply to Obama allies, like Democratic-leaning labor unions.  They only apply to groups which are not reliable Obama allies, like Gun Owners of America.

But, for those groups whose free speech is targeted for Obama’s wrath under this bill, the consequences are severe:

* Under Title II of the bill, GOA (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures — potentially including their membership lists.

* Also under Title II, GOA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea:  If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply his sleazy new rules to his political allies, as well?

ACTION: Please urge your congressman to vote against the anti-gun HR 5175.  This bill has moved out of committee and has now been placed on the House calendar.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose HR 5175, a bill that will deny the free speech rights of all Americans.  Under Title II of this bill:

* Groups like Gun Owners of America (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures — potentially including their membership lists — even though the Supreme Court has previously ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that membership lists (like those of GOA’s) are off limits to government control.

* Also, groups like GOA and the NRA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government’s snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here’s an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court’s defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn’t he apply the new rules in HR 5175 to his political allies (like the labor unions), as well?

Suffice it to say, if you care anything about the First or Second Amendments, you will vote against HR 5175.  GOA will be scoring this vote on their rating of Congress.

Sincerely,

Mayor Daley: Poster Child for Hoplophobia

June 9, 2010

Mayor Richard Daley is almost as good at harming the gun control crowd’s agenda as the Gun Salesman of the year epic fail obama is. Every time he opens his mouth lately he says things that make the arguments of people such as myself so much easier to defend.

Read more about this HERE.

Keep it up Mayor! PLEASE!