Posted on 09/10/2001 4:17:15 AM PDT by Movemout
"CARA sux & so does all confiscatory policy," said National Rifle Association Director and gonzo rocker Ted Nugent Saturday evening, adding, "I will fight it with you."
Nugent, lifetime NRA member and author of "God, Guns, and Rock and Roll", made the statement in response to an advice request from a conservative high school teacher. The exchange appears in a topic discussion board on Nugent's TNugent.com, the website of Ted Nugent United Sportsmen of America. The board's URL is www.tnugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/010390.html.
CARA is the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, HR 701, a controversial 15-year, $47 billion appropriations bill now pending before Congress. The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action officially supports the bill, pointing to its substantial enhancement of the Pitman-Robertson Fund, a traditional source of money for conservation, hunting, shooting, and field sports programs.
Opposition to CARA has erupted on grounds of Constitutionally unseemly if not improper delegation of Congressional appropriation authority, funding of government agencies acquiring private property by coercion, likely increases in budget deficits and, directly or indirectly, federal, state and local taxes, and empowerment of environmental absolutist groups that would eventually exclude hunters, shooters, and other field sports participants from the use of public lands.
Nugent's full statement as he posted it was,
"all goodmen stand by the self evident truths as enumerated in our sacred US Constitution. I do. We salute you for your courageous teaching approach! God & goodmen knows how much we desperately need more of that! stay on course goodsir!! we are with ya!! Plz join the NRA & help upgrade from within, Its the only way!! Freedom is manifested in the private ownership of land. CARA sux & so does all confiscatory policy. I will fight it with you. Godbless, Godspeed."
Nugent appears and participates as moderator on some topic strings on the website.
Previously, on the topic discussion board , "Nuge", as he styles himself as forum participant, indicated his position on CARA with only a cryptic "Amen" to a letter from one-time National Wildlife Federation president and former NWF board member G. Ray Arnett.
In the letter, Arnett, also a former executive vice-president of the NRA, said,
"The unprecedented flood of money provided by CARA will enable the purchase and turning over to federal and state agencies, private lands historically and currently used for sport hunting, fishing, and trapping. This will subject the property's sporting use to the whim of public opinion, and bureaucracies that are increasingly hostile to sport hunting, fishing, trapping and firearms ownership.
"Already, animal rights extremists are taking aim at Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson funds in an effort to deny access for hunting and fishing. The Animal Protection Institute (API) is an umbrella coalition of these anti-sportsmen groups. One of the objectionable goals within API's effort to abolish hunting is to "change the constituency of power within our wildlife management agencies and the funding sources that maintain these government agencies."
Many NRA members oppose CARA and NRA's stance in support of it. The controversy, and particularly what opponents considered a curt and dismissive response from NRA Institute for Legislative Action Director James Jay Baker to opponent Jay Zane Walley and others, touched off a furor within the association. Sierra Times editor J.J. Johnson chided the organization in an interview with Walley entitled, "NRA: Learn How to Shoot -- Yourself in the Foot". KeepAndBearArms.com presented a wrap-up article entitled "NRA vs. Land Rights: You Decide Who's Right".
But a scathing denunciation of NRA's position by Diane Alden, in a column entitled "NRA, CARA, and the Cafe' Constitution" prompted an equally stinging reply from NRA's Dr. David Oliver, circulated to the Board of Directors and to Alden. That brought about an informal e-palaver more or less moderated by Oliver with Board members, journalists, and CARA critics participating last week.
The debate brought out that most Directors had either neither heard of CARA or knew very little about it, despite public advocacy of the bill by Board member Rep. Don Young R-AK, its author, since 1999. Finally, giving as cause the complexity of the CARA issues and insupportable demands on his time, Dr. Oliver declared the e-debate ended and referred all questions to scheduled NRA meetings.
The meetings, beginning at NRA headquarters in Washington, D.C. Friday, September 13, are scheduled to last three days. Oliver expressed hope that opponents might be heard, short of turning the directors' meeting into what he termed "hearings", and that Board members Rep. Young and Wyoming Congresswoman Barbara Cubin, who opposes CARA, could be heard.
Prior to Nugent's declaration, other Board members had withheld outright declarations for or against CARA, some expressing misgivings but not announcing personal decisions. Despite members' calls for statements, NRA eminences President Charlton Heston, Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, Jr., and radio commentator and columnist Oliver North had not declared their positions.
And neither will get any of my hard-earned dollars until they get back on the straight and narrow.
Exactly!
People I heard on local talk radio were really fired up that someone who got national press coverage had finally "spoken up to power" and called 'toon on this issue.... then they dropped the ball!
Why, I have no idea, but it was one reason I let my 15 year plus membership expire. They had a perfect opportunity & blew it...
For me, it was a question of not really having the $$$ for full membership anymore coupled with the idea that it might be better to send even a few bucks to GOA, SAS, JPFO and other "no compromise" groups who are "flying under the radar" of the grabbers.
But the NRA really squandered a golden opportunity, IMO....
To: agrandis
Long story. First, SAF (second Amendment Foundation) is Alan Gottlieb's group. They specialize in legal challenges to laws. http://www.saf.org
GOA however is another story.
1. They were caught lying. They said that they were working on a CCW law in Michigan a couple of years back with a certain legislator. Well, I know the guy who worked for him. GOA never contacted him. Dennis Fusaro was lying. They lost credibility with me there.
2. GOA also actively opposed our shall issue law. I spent years trying to get that passed. Well, we finally did, and almost all counties have issued. We(MCRGO) got the job done, not GOA. GOA was on the side of Carl Levin with shall issue. That one REALLY PO'ed me.
3. They are ineffective. They have no lobbiest in Washington. They have no friends at all in Lansing and aren't respected here. The reason in Lansing's case is because of their attacks on shall issue. They burned any bridges they would have had. That's not how to succeed in politics. In fact, our most hardline rep here has no use for GOA.
60 Posted on 09/10/2001 08:25:29 PDT by Dan from Michigan
FWIW, I know DfM about as well as you can know someone on a forum, know he's active in RKBA issues, and would weigh his opinion carefully.
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.