I'm Dissappointed in the NRA

[pickenup]

It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.

Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.

Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.

Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."

NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.

From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT‘S OUR BILL in five years.

*****

Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The “Parker v. District of Columbia” case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the “DC Personal Protection Act” bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the “Parker v. District of Columbia” case was based upon. Thereby preventing the “Parker v. District of Columbia” case from going before the supreme court.

Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially will settle the long disputed “individual right v. the right of the militia” to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was “too good” and might actually make it before the supreme court? Which it HAS. A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?

And when was the NRA fighting for our rights in this way? Oh ya…..2007.

*****

Lets look at ANOTHER bill backed by the NRA. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act” Later to be designated “The Veterans Disarmament Act” To see the first red flags thrown up, one need only look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and the Brady bunch.

There were MANY veterans organizations, along with NRA members that were against this bill. When they questioned the NRA as to why they were supporting it, the answer was………..well, they didn’t get an answer. Silence was all they received.

Nevermind the far reaching implications (which may take YEARS, for them all to surface) the potential of opening a Pandora’s box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has “potentially” ANY kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc).

Right or Wrong, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.

Oh, and this again IS happening in …..2007.

*****

Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who “indicated” that “assault rifles” should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.

(quote)I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five…(/quote)


*****

While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, “In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment.”


In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an “A” rating from the NRA. Why an “A” rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an “F”. Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills

TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA’s Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?

In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.


In Virginia in 1996, extreme “F” rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced “A” rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS…..NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???

In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ·

In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a “B” because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

*******

John Dingell?
The NRA’s Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 “Assault” weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA’s Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?

NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, “Our Lady of Peace Act” Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don’t know what it is/was? Look it up.

Can’t forget the “help” we got from the NRA. In the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.



The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender of Freedom” Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of “freedom” apparently thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time

Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!

In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?

From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun “accomplishments” of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and “milita-esque” organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.

The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.

*****

Admittedly, some of this information is “historical” in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. (as in 2007) Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it’s one that I’m not happy with at all.


Is this the kind of “representation” that YOU want/expect? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn’t open your eyes, nothing will.

Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time. This post is not for the ardent followers of the NRA. The ones that will NEVER change. It is for those looking for an education.

I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a “Life Member” Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.

They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. If they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side, then is there really…any hope? No wonder some refuse to see.

[-Wolverine-]

The NRA spends way to much energy trying to be PC, instead of standing strong and not caving to compromise. Background checks are totally stupid and worthless. If somebody wants a gun, they can get one alot of other places besides a gun shop. If someone really wants a firearm and they get rejected by background check, do they stop there? No they go buy stolen gun from "joe" on the corner. So no access is restricted there. Even if they pass a background check there is no assurance. The VT shooter passed a background check if I recall, so what good did it do??? Absolutely none.

They get them from illegal sources. Background checks are the one and only effective means of preventing the wrong people from purchasing guns legally.

The VT Tech shooter passed the NICS check because prior to the VT Tech shooting the NICS checks did not include voluntary admittances into the loony bin as a valid reason for the denial of the firearm transfer. Now it does. The NRA supported that, which is a good thing.

I doubt you will find any group who as done as much for gun owners as the NRA. They compromise because they need to, they can atleast water down legislation that will pass.
Thats something the no compromise groups won;t do. They would much rather have a bill that restricts the 2nd Amendment to a greater degree than a watered down version that was a compromise.

I also doubt anyone will find any other right in the Bill of Rights that has not been restricted. I don't see why the 2nd should be free from some restrictions.

[Gman]

Must I remind some of you.. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND IN LESSER COURTS OR SYSTEMS.

I agree with that belief, but it's already happened.

The government that we've ended up with isn't what the Founders envisioned. Now what are you going to do? Blame the NRA for the way things have gone? That's productive. We can't get politicians and the courts to agree what "marriage" is. They expand "Interstate Commerce" to cover just about everything. Why haven't these other organizations that are taking contributions for membership solved the problems? Does GOA want to grow the size of their organization?

By your reasoning, The American Heart Association doesn't want to solve problems with Heart Disease. The American Diabetes Foundation doesn't want to solve problems with Diabetes. The American Cancer Society wants more cancer so that they have a reason to increase their membership and continue to exist.

[Gman]

Are you under the impression that just anyone can bring a case to SCOTUS and have it heard? Do you think that the press would work with the NRA to advance our cause?

Why do I care? Yeah, screw the NRA! Those rat bastards! They're worse than Chuck Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg, and Ted Kennedy!

Damn. Being emotional didn't make me feel better or solve anything.

The Brady Bill was signed into law in 1993 and required a 5 day waiting period. The NICS was brought about in 1998 and made the states using it exempt from the 5 day wait. I fail to see where the NRA was working against us. If you feel they should have taken an 'all or nothing' approach, then you would have gotten nothing. You can cry "foul" from the sidelines or you can get in the game and try to influence the ultimate outcome.

You blame them for not changing the law or getting it overturned in court. Maybe they don't have full control of the processes at work here?

A citizen that feels he's been wronged can bring a case to court. The NRA can then try to help that individual with a "Friend of the Court" brief that tries to help support the individuals argument detailing prior case law (like this - http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=114). An individual must exhaust all appeals to eventually end up before SCOTUS. SCOTUS then decides whether or not they want to hear it. The NRA can't simply petition SCOTUS to rule on a definition of the 2nd Amendment. Even with Heller, SCOTUS asserts that some "reasonable" restrictions are OK, as is the case with the 1st Amendment. The current makeup of the court isn't throwing out everything that can be determined to be an 'infringement'.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Article...=294&issue=010

U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who was granted 15 minutes to give the federal government’s view of the case, explored this point. He began by declaring that the Justice Department’s position is that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. He further argued that the case should be sent back to the lower courts with a new standard of review, one of “intermediate scrutiny.” This is an important legal point, because the standard of review will essentially determine how high a bar the government has to clear in order to justify a regulation restricting the right. “Strict scrutiny” is the most protective and is accorded to rights the court deems “fundamental.” The First Amendment, for example, has this protection. This is why the NRA’s friend-of-the-court brief argued for strict scrutiny.

Justice Ginsburg asked if a strict scrutiny standard would make many of the firearm regulations already on the books unconstitutional. Clement answered that strict scrutiny could imperil some laws, but “intermediate scrutiny” would not. Chief Justice Roberts then said, “I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply to the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as a sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up.”

As to the NRA blocking the move of Parker to SCOTUS, you need to get your timeline correct;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...03053392_x.htm

In fact, the National Rifle Association tried to block the case, fearing that the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time could lead to more restrictions on guns, not fewer, if the court ruled on the case, Levy said. But the high court has since shifted to the right with appointments by President Bush, and Levy said he and the NRA have made peace.

The NRA doesn't write legislation. Congress does. They can try to influence the legislators elected to office, but they don't control the game. Sometimes they have an audience that is more willing to cooperate than others. They don't get to choose. The NRA is a group of individuals. That's why we are kept informed of what's going on in Congress and asked to contact our representatives. GOA does the same thing. They don't just apply leverage on their own without our participation.

Congress was advancing 2 bills to strike down the DC handgun ban. There was no guarantee at the time that SCOTUS would hear the case. Would you have preferred that the NRA tried to work against the legislation?

You can direct your anger at the NRA if it makes you feel better. There are a lot more targets more worthy, IMHO. It would be nice if the 2nd Amendment advocacy groups worked together instead of fighting one another.

I also see the NRA as being billed something they are not. If you think their primary goal is supposed to be defense of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should re-read why the NRA was formed;
http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

One of the arguments made in the Heller v. DC case in SCOTUS directly reflects that goal;
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Article...=294&issue=010

When Gura summed up his position by saying that the District of Columbia “simply doesn’t trust the people to defend themselves in their homes,” Justice Stephen Breyer asked Gura, “In light of [the number of people killed by firearms every year] why isn’t a ban on handguns, while allowing the use of rifles and muskets [sic], a reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia?”

Gura responded that “the handgun ban serves to weaken America’s military preparedness.” Keeping an armed populace that is proficient with firearms is certainly in keeping with what the founding fathers intended and, in fact, is the reason the NRA was formed after the U.S. Civil War.

[ssf467]

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

[banks74]

They get them from illegal sources. Background checks are the one and only effective means of preventing the wrong people from purchasing guns legally.

Exactly they get them from ILLEGAL sources. Not from the mom and pop gunstore down the road. Background checks are a waste of time.(See example below) Legal guns are expensive. I know a few guys back in the day who thought they were getting a steel on a $100 Beretta, or Glock. I wonder why it's that cheap? Its probably hotter than shit!! So the criminal gets it from the cheapest place without any paperwork. Meanwhile the law abiding folks have wait for the background check etc. Have you ever had to wait for a check on gunshow days?? Its ridiculous. I talked to the owners of a high traffic gun shop, they only remembered one time a person tried to buy a gun and the police came and picked them up. Other than that the only people that got denied for were for identity mixups. I personally witnessed in the past 3 months 1 current LEO get denied for mistaken idenity, and 2 active duty military personnel with the same problem.

As for background checks, who really need's a background check is our politicians, and probably a mental health examination while were at it. All the stupid and crazy shit they try and do enact into laws. For example the discrimenation bill that Ritter just signed. WTF!!! This lets either sex have legal right to go into either sex's restroom in a public area. Great now some f***ing pedophile can peek in on your daughter and wife while they use the facility, and its legal for them to be in there! http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9419103

The NRA's non political involvment and programs seem to be great. If only they would keep out of politics. Why do so many of there A rated politicians find themselves across the wall from us on firearms legislation?? Also one of my final straws with them was I emailed them multiple times asking whether or not they supported a certain piece of legislation or not. Well it is something like 16 months later and still no response. I find that unacceptable.

[-Wolverine-]

So because criminals find the guns on the street, illegally, we should simply forgo background checks and allow them to purchase firearms legally?

Thats just asinine.

"Well, we can't stop child porn. Might as well make it legal."
"Well, we can't stop murder, might as well make it legal."

[banks74]

Criminals are going to have firearms no matter what we do. Background checks for law abiding citizens are stupid. If a person is so dangerous that you think that they might go buy a gun and kill someone, what the hell is that person doing walking our streets in the first place? It has been shown time and time again that criminals get guns illegally for most of there crimes. So a background check is not an obstacle to them. So how does a background check keep weapons out of there hands??? So to go along with what you are saying, since how people use vehicles in far more deadly encounters than firearms (i.e. drunk driving, wreckless driving) should each person going to buy a vehicle be subjected to a background check, along with a medical records examination?? Guilty before the trial. NICE!

[banks74]

=
"Well, we can't stop child porn. Might as well make it legal."
"Well, we can't stop murder, might as well make it legal."

What you are suggesting is that since how a very small percentage of people buy computers and camera's for the making and viewing of child porn, that the government should regulate it with background checks?

Guns = murder? I think not. Dirt Balls/low-lifes = murder. A gun is only a tool. Instead of spending all that money with very little if any real return. (Background checks), why not spend a whole lot more on education, prevention, rehabilitation and keeping those real dirtbags behind bars?

[Gman]

Firearms are heavily regulated, including background checks. You can wish they weren't, but they are.

I would suggest that there is an illegal market for criminals because they can't get them from a dealer due to the background check requirement. Would you prefer that criminals have unrestricted access to firearms?