Skip to main content
Report this ad

Did the NRA sell out other gun rights organizations? Not so fast...

Recent publicity has focused on H.R. 5175, the so-called DISCLOSE Act which would, in part, "establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in [Federal] elections." In particular, this bill would regulate "Coordinated Communications" in Federal election campaigns.

In the findings portion of the bill, they note that in January of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned legislation "restricting the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited funds from their general treasury accounts to influence the outcome of elections." This is their second attempt at it.

Recently, news broke that the National Rifle Association was given an exemption from this bill, not by name but by a thinly-veiled description. The NRA released a statement that they were dropping their opposition from the bill, allegedly at the expense of smaller gun rights organizations. But is that was really happening?

David Hardy from Of Arms and the Law points out that some political maneuvering might be taking place when he notes "in a chess game this complicated, Murphy's Law and the rule of unintended consequences begin to play major roles, and any tactic that complicates the opposition's situation makes both more prominent and is thus a good move"

Hardy explains that now the Public Interest Research Group, National Right to Life Committee and Sierra Club all oppose the bill, the Brady Campaign is upset and is speaking out, and that even if the bill passes, their exemption could very well be the reason the bill would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Not to mention the fact that the average gun owner, who can at times be hard to motivate to action, is now compelled to work the phones in opposition due to a perceived betrayal.

Is the NRA shrewd enough to make such a play at the expense of some good will in order to ensure that the bill is ultimately killed? Perhaps.

Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea reports that the NRA might be changing their stance to being opposed to the bill. If true, this could mean that Hardy's theory is incorrect. Or it could mean that the repercussions from its members was too high. Only time will tell.


  • TCSF 5 years ago

    I am a life member of the NRA and have followed the NRA for decades. They are neither shrewd nor risk takers. They always play it safe. They took the exemption from this law because they were scared of another fight. Just like they were scared to bring the Heller lawsuit which was left to others. Instead of standing as a titan in the history of the defense of gun owners' civil rights they will go down in history as a mere footnote to this case. Now, in another critical showdown, they cut and run again.

    They stated in a recent email to their membership that their members were their first priority. Organizational survival has become more important than the Bill of Rights. Well, America can survive the loss of the former, but not the latter.

    You can't rely on a soldier who is more concerned about his personal survival than the cause for which he fights. And to quote Martin Luther King, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends

  • John 5 years ago

    Wow talk about a stretch. Is Obama really interested in bringing back the assault weapons ban in order that it can be overturned by the supreme court and forever protect our freedoms? PERHAPS. What a shrewd man. Let's get real, the NRA has been selling out for several years now starting with vets.

  • Ron Lilly 5 years ago

    while there are NRA apologists that support/defend the NRA no matter what, the idea that the NRA's president and other officers intended to kill this bill by getting themselves an exemption is just so absurd that only a fool could actually believe that. Not everyone is gullible enough to swallow such pap. I have been an NRA member since my dad signed me up when I was a child. My membership will lapse since I now have no intention of renewing it.

    Q. Did the NRA "sell out gun owners?"?
    A. Yes

  • Donna 5 years ago

    NRA did not drop their opposition to the bill! Read their June 17 public statement, they still opposed the bill. As another life member, I would hope we check their web site and actual facts, not flagrant lies from people with ulterior motives.

  • straightarrow 5 years ago

    Oh Dan, what a shame. I have been a consistent reader of yours for as long as you have been here. This is the first time I ever had reason to question your reliability. There can be no, NO justification for what NRA has done. This is not their first betrayal by a damn sight, but it is the most publicly despicable.

    Do you wish to back up and reassess what you said and just accept the harsh truth that NRA is loaded with traitorous bastards who are really in the gun control business, and evidently now speech control?

    I think that would be a good use of your abilities.

  • Mark 5 years ago

    You ignorant rednecks make me laugh.....God,Guns, and Glory What a bunch of jackasses

  • MamaLiberty 5 years ago

    Whether or not this legislation is overturned by the supreme court or not - and that could take 10 years - the damage will have been done by this November. That's all that counts to these people.

  • Mark 2 years ago

    Mark I pray to God no one ever pulls a home invasion on you and the fam . I can tell you right now, that thing between you're legs wont scare them, enjoy watching them rape and murder the fam.God bless ignorant jacka$$es like this.

Report this ad