Posted on 06/17/2010 11:14:52 AM PDT by Dan Nunn
We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.
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' 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 NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, 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 has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle – unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a bipartisan, 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.
They endorsed strickland for Ohio...
They are DEAD to me...I wont be renewing my instructor certs.
It took only one post to demonstrate what I said in #1.
BTW, I am a Benefactor member of the NRA.
At a certain point, no matter how badly we need more people to join the NRA to fight against restructions on our rights, some of the comments in the past few days' NRA threads makes me realize that there are some people that we are frankly better off without, and honestly some people whose judgement makes me a little worried about their responsibility levels as gun owners.
Stricklands running mate is an anti-gun former social worker...
F’em both.
I struggle to separate the two. I am an NRA member and recognize the work they have done to protect our 2A rights. BUT...their endorsements of Strickland, McCain, Reid, (Bev) Perdue (and others) have me puzzled. Shouldn't they only endorse when one candidate is clearly more pro-2A than the other instead of picking favorites? And regardless of his rhetoric, I don't believe Reid is pro-gun at all. If so, why in the world is he a member of a party that has gun-control as one of its major issues? He can't be that dedicated to the cause....
But they haven't made their endorsements or ratings for the 2010 election yet.
That's what I was talking about . Once you start collaborating , you become like your partner , you begin to think you have a right to determine whose rights should be protected .
Whether or not you're right, looking at the facts... we haven't had one single gun control law signed with the Democrats' trifecta of power. In fact, CCW in national parks was signed.
You are under the mistaken impression that they are lobbying to pass the law with an exemption written for them.
They only said they wouldn't lobby to prevent the law if they are exempted. And why should they? They are a 2nd Amendment organization first and foremost.
I’m a Life member and this carve out by NRA seems like the wrong thing for the association to do.
By abandoning support of free speech for all but itself, the NRA will soon find itself with few allies.
In spite of, not because of.
I respectfully disagree. I think if it weren't for Reid, we'd have Holder's assault weapon ban renewal. There's a reason he's rated highly by the NRA. The NRA isn't politically stupid.
“But they haven’t made their endorsements or ratings for the 2010 election yet.”
The NRA has endorsed...
Harry Ried
Jerry Brown
Ted stricklland
The First Ten Amendments are interdependent. If they get to excuse themselves from embracing the whole package, because they got an exemption for themselves, they have abrogated their right to speak for anyone. It’s time to throw out the lapdogs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.