NRA and H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act

[keeper7011]

It seems as if the NRA is more concerned about themselves once again.
From their own website:

"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."

Seems to me, IMO, there is a lot of contradictions there.

 

[marvinvwinkle]

Sounds to me like a love fest with the US House. I believe the only one that would understand what they are saying is JB. This is legalize in it's truest form. So JB do you want to interpret?

 

[streetglideok]

Campaign finance reform? Controls on lobbying groups?

 

[30BulletHoles]

It seems as if the NRA is more concerned about themselves once again.
From their own website:

"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."

Seems to me, IMO, there is a lot of contradictions there.

If you read the bill, then you might know why they are concerned.

 

[keeper7011]

I'm not exactly educated in political verbiage and I'm not against the intent of the bill. My contention with the NRA is that they were against the bill UNTIL they "found out" that they would be exempt. If I were contesting a law or bill, for example, that stated that no one could carry concealed and I was told that if I didn't contest it that I would be exempt from said law, don't you think that I would be castigated everywhere if I backed off? Granted, that is a very simplistic example, but the principle is the same. At least in this average citizens opinion.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Here's what I posted in the 2A section:



Initially, the Schuler Amendment would have exempted ALL 501(c)(4) organizations. The NRA wouldn't support it until it was changed so that it ONLY exempts 501(c)(4) organizations that:

• have been active for the previous consecutive 10 years
• have 1,000,000 or more dues-paying members in the previous year
• has at least one member in each state
• receive 15% or less of their revenue from unions or corporations
• don't use that 15% for independent expenditures or electioneering communications

This is their "answer" the the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United that returned free political speech to corporations. (By the way, the DC Circuit relied heavily on this when ruling that limits on individual contributions are unconstitutional in SpeechNow v. FEC [DC docket 08-5223].)

 

[Danny]

I think more is being made out of this than needs to be. They still don't support the bill. They're just not willing to spend valuable resources to fight the bill as long as they are exempt and can still fight for our 2nd Ammendment rights. The bill will probably get passed anyway. With, or without, their silence on the matter.

I can understand smaller organizations being upset by it. But until they reach the stature of the NRA, they are mostly ignored anyway.

 

[Rod Snell]

The real target of this "incumbent protection act" is the tea party movement, but any way you look at it, the proposed bill stinks as government is trying to cancel the First Amendment.

Expecting the NRA to save everybody's bacon on this may be flattering from some perspective but it is unrealistic. The NRA is about the 2nd Amendment, not a broad-based civil rights group, at the insistence of members like me.
We just don't have the funds to fight every civil rights violation that Congress tries to implement. Wish we did, but there it is.

Do you think it might be more productive to attack the distinguished reps in Congress trying to pass this atrocity rather than bashing the NRA?
I do. Gun owners and religious groups seem to be the only interest groups that stop to attack their friends each time there is a crisis.

 

[abajaj11]

The real target of this "incumbent protection act" is the tea party movement, but any way you look at it, the proposed bill stinks as government is trying to cancel the First Amendment.

Expecting the NRA to save everybody's bacon on this may be flattering from some perspective but it is unrealistic. The NRA is about the 2nd Amendment, not a broad-based civil rights group, at the insistence of members like me.
We just don't have the funds to fight every civil rights violation that Congress tries to implement. Wish we did, but there it is.

Do you think it might be more productive to attack the distinguished reps in Congress trying to pass this atrocity rather than bashing the NRA?
I do. Gun owners and religious groups seem to be the only interest groups that stop to attack their friends each time there is a crisis.

In general I agree. While the NRA seems to have country club republican types and 2A types on its board, its better than nothing, and worthy IMHO of a $35 support per year, and not a penny more.

 

[boomermet]

The real target of this "incumbent protection act" is the tea party movement, but any way you look at it, the proposed bill stinks as government is trying to cancel the First Amendment.

Expecting the NRA to save everybody's bacon on this may be flattering from some perspective but it is unrealistic. The NRA is about the 2nd Amendment, not a broad-based civil rights group, at the insistence of members like me.
We just don't have the funds to fight every civil rights violation that Congress tries to implement. Wish we did, but there it is.

Do you think it might be more productive to attack the distinguished reps in Congress trying to pass this atrocity rather than bashing the NRA?
I do. Gun owners and religious groups seem to be the only interest groups that stop to attack their friends each time there is a crisis.

I agree. The NRA is one formidable oponnet(?) for Congress or any other group. However, if you ca't tell'em, you can't sell'em. In other words if your right, large group or not, to free speech is taken away you can't do what they intend to do, protect the 2nd amend.