It was reported by numerous sources today the the NRA has endorsed Governor Chet Culver in his bid for re-election against challenger Terry Branstad. In response, the Iowa Gun Owners PAC endorsed Terry Branstad. This should really be no surprise to anyone that has been following the gun rights movement in Iowa over the past several years.
In spite of that, the NRA still managed to raise a lot of eyebrows with their endorsement. However, there are some things that their critics need to remember.
For starters, the NRA has had in place, for a long time, a policy where they nearly automatically endorse an incumbent over a challenger, if the incumbent has voted favorably on NRA sponsored legislation – regardless of how the challenger appears to stand on firearm issues. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Votes are real, and can be counted. Responses on a survey are easy to fill out without any history to back up the answers.
Additionally, the NRA does not make endorsements based on a particular party. Democrat, Republican, Independent, Tea Party, whatever. Even though voters in general are ready to throw out the majority party – the Democrats – and their policies generally do not track with firearm owners, that does not mean that there are not pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans.
Finally, the NRA is a single-issue advocacy group. Like it or not, they do not (and should not) get involved with issues that do not deal with firearms. Governor Culver stood by his word and signed Iowa's new Shall Issue legislation into law.
Is Governor Culver's support of Shall Issue enough to win over Iowa firearm owners? That depends. Those who vote on this one single issue are in a tough place – a choice between an incumbent who has acted in a pro-gun manner versus a challenger who says he will act in that same manner. Those who look at a bigger picture have a bit of an easier choice, as they would look not only at firearm issues, but other issues as well, like same-sex marriage, taxes, employment, etc.
Many NRA members have said on other blog sites that they will drop their support of the NRA over this endorsement. That is too bad, because the NRA is still the largest and most effective pro-gun advocacy group in Washington. While nobody will agree with them 100% of the time, they still hold the lion's share of power. There are times that their members will question their motives, and in all honesty, the NRA needs to pay attention to the members who fund their operations. They've done their share of things in the past several months that have made even their strongest members scratch their heads and wonder what's going on in Fairfax.
But strength comes in numbers. Other “national” gun rights groups cannot wield the amount of power that the NRA can. It is perfectly OK to question the NRA's motives and hold them accountable for their actions. But handfuls of people pulling their support for for the NRA because they are doing what they said they would do – and have for the most part always done – is not the way to accomplish this.
Comments
I disagree, the only way that the NRA will pay attention to their memberships is when the they start loosing members and loosing their money. As a Patron Life Member and long time supporter I have been seriously questioning my support recently and this may have "broke the camels back"
Why not stay out of races when the incumbent has all but lost the race and the challenger has a record of supporting the 2nd Amendment?
I find it odd, though not surprising, that some groups like the Iowa Gun Owners have a knee jerk reaction and endorse Branstad to spite Culver – when Branstad during his 16 years as Governor did NOTHING to advance gun rights in Iowa.
Culver signed the Shall Issue Bill into Law. Is it perfect? Nope. It is however, a huge improvement that will allow Iowans who live in certain restricted counties the ability to get a Permit to Carry for the first time.
Culver also signed the wife-beater law, which takes guns away from gun owners based on just the Accusation of a crime – without due process of law, and without being convicted of a crime. So yes, for this reason, and other reasons, Culver will not get many votes from gun owners.
So why endorse Branstad to spite Culver? No reason, just a vote in opposition. Branstad may not support gun rights any more than Culver however, so a better approach by the IGO would have been to endorse no candidate.
no4gman -
"So why endorse Branstad to spite Culver? No reason, just a vote in opposition."
WRONG!!! IGO had every good reason to support Branstad over Culver: Branstad has endorsed and pledged to support IGO's flagship legislation, the "Real Right to Carry Bill," which will gut the stupid permitting system in this state that does absolutely nothing to keep guns from the hands of criminals intent on malevalence, and replace it with "Vermont style" carry laws, or should we simply say, the recognition that the second amendment garentees a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. IGO did exactly what they should have done: work to advance the second amendment in Iowa. Culver refused to even fill out IGO's survey - there is no doubt that IGO represents the best interests of gun owners in Iowa far more than the NRA or it's "subsidiaries."
I saw the survey Branstad filled out for the NRA and the Iowa Gun Owners. They had a booth at the gun show in Des Moines this weekend. Branstad is VERY strong on second amendment rights.
Also, Kim Reynolds co-sponsored Kent Sorenson's bill that was stronger than the one the NRA backed.
Branstad/Reynolds are VERY pro-2nd amendment.
And for those who cancel their NRA memberships, do you disagree with them 10% of the time, 25% of the time, 50% of the time or most of the time? I doubt if anyone could find a gun-rights organization they agree with 100% of the time. But if you agree with the NRA the vast majority of the time, then why would you cancel your membership?
I probably agree with NRA actions 80% of the time, and I’m very glad that for 139 years this organization has been fighting to protect and the defend the 2nd Amendment, more so then any other group or organization in America.
When you disagree with the NRA, how many of you bother to call or write them to express your view? Or do you simply cancel your membership and quit on the NRA?
The NRA doesn’t need quitters. The NRA needs members who take action and get involved in improving the organization, taking an active role in the team that is fighting for our rights.
Don’t like what the NRA is doing? Don’t quit. Don’t just sit on the sidelines and complain about the players on the field. Get involved, get on the field and join the team, and make it better.
So Branstad completed a survey showing he supports the 2nd Amendment. And Branstad says he is a member of the NRA.
Is there anything in his 16-year record as Governor, or in his 4-year record as Lt. Governor, or in his 6-year record in the Iowa House as evidence that he supports the 2nd Amendment?
Has Branstad ever supported or even said he supported Alaska carry?
If not, then why would the IGO endorse him?
Branstad has endorsed and pledged to support IGO's flagship legislation, the "Real Right to Carry Bill," which will gut the stupid permitting system in this state that does absolutely nothing to keep guns from the hands of criminals intent on malevalence, and replace it with "Vermont style" carry laws, or should we simply say, the recognition that the second amendment garentees a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. IGO did exactly what they should have done: work to advance the second amendment in Iowa. Culver refused to even fill out IGO's survey - there is no doubt that IGO represents the best interests of gun owners in Iowa far more than the NRA or it's "subsidiaries."
I wonder who the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association will endorse.
It would be funny if the ISSDA and IGO endorsed the same candidate.
The NRA has a incumbent protection policy that supports the current office holder if they have voted right. Some in the Iowa Legislature are scared and voted for Senate File 2379 simply because they knew the NRA was watching! They are not firearms rights supporters and have never voted pro gun rights in their life!
Hey Sean,
I have a serious bone to pick with you, based on your lack of logic and I believe as well, a lack of deep consideration of the 'single policy' concept, as well as the mountain of evidence against the NRA's positions which Cox and La Pierre have provided over the years.
You said:
"..Finally, the NRA is a single-issue advocacy group. Like it or not, they do not (and should not) get involved with issues that do not deal with firearms.."
What?
Tell me Sean, considering the DISCLOSE issue, what happens to our 2A rights if your 1stA rights are 'compromised' down the toilet?
When even ONE Constitutional Right is compromised, dwindled, curtailed, or otherwise limited, the AFFECT is that ALL our Constitutional Rights are negatively assaulted.
Because of how complex life has become in America, and how very INTRUSIVE the Judicial Branch of government has become, ie, invading the legislative branch of pervue, it is no longer possible for ANY NGO to remain just a 'single issue' organization.
We do not live in a vacuum, nor does the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government anymore exist in a vacuum.
The NRA's insidious actions involving the DISCLOSE Act prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that they have, under Cox and La Pierre, become an underhanded organization which will thrown anyone, including their own members, 'under the bus' to achieve whatever goals the Power Elite of the NRA Executive have in mind.
The Reid-Angle Race in Nevada is another prime example: Harry Reid in vote after vote, in bill after bill, has PROVEN that he is intent upon undermining the rights of ALL Americans and not just 2A gun owners' rights.
Despite this provable fact, what have been the actions of the NRA? They've helped Reid and dumped all over Angle.
This benefits no one in real terms and remains a positive only in the 'fevered minds' of the NRA Power Elite.
The NRA has, legislatively, UNDERMINED the 2A rights of Americans time and again, by 'compromising' with anti-gun zealots in Congress and the White House. Their 'better half a loaf than no loaf at all' stance has severely debilitated 2A rights during the last 30 years.
Allowing anti-gun fanatics to 'whittle away' our 2A rights little by little (which has been their practice all along and verifiably so) by 'compromise' is no better than just handing over our 2A rights and our guns in one fell swoop.
This is however, precisely what the NRA has done.
Sean, why do you think that Gun Owners of America and all the State Organizations have grown so dramatically during the same period that serious dissatisfaction with the NRA's positions have increased?
The NRA has become a 'perpetual motion' machine at making money, providing perks and money to the NRA Executive Power Elite, while letting others do the heavy lifting legislatively and judicially speaking.
The bottom line is that the NRA has betrayed gun owners one too many times, they have 'compromised' our 2A rights one too many times, and have continued to take for granted all the membership and what members think and want.
Political Power in America is in numbers, you are completely correct in that statement and position. However, because of the repeated betrayals and underhandedness of the NRA towards its own membership, other gun NGO's, and in its repeated and set in concrete position of 'compromise' with anti-gun fanatics, the 'numbers' are growing for GOA and State organs, while they are diminishing for the NRA.
Soon the 800lb gorilla will not be the NRA; there will be at least two other 900lb gorillas in the room and they will work in tandem for ALL our Constitutional rights: Second Amendment Foundation and the Gun Owners of America; backed by State Gun Organizations.
The 'proof is in the pudding' Sean and the NRA has, simply put, cut its own throat by its less than ethical behaviours.
I would urge you to look at the 'bigger picture' as you put it, with greater clarity than you have so far done.
Cheers.
You and I may have to agree to disagree.
If groups want to protect *all* rights, not just gun rights, then they should not portray themselves as gun-rights groups. Rather, they should portray themselves as "civil rights" groups. Or some other general moniker. I did not join the NRA or SAF (yes, I'm a member of both for different reasons) for them to fight for my rights that do not fall under the Second Amendment. I joined them to work toward protect my RKBA rights. I expect other broad groups to work on the other ones.
If there are enough members that leave the NRA, then they will take a look at the situation and figure out what's wrong. However, a more effective first attempt would be for members in Iowa to contact the NRA and explain their dissatisfaction with the endorsement, listen to the reasoning of doing so, and make their decision based on that.
In all honesty, this is an Iowa issue, not a national issue. You (and others) may believe this is a symptom of the NRA selling out to its members, not just in Iowa but across the country. I will not debate that in this forum, as that is not the focus of this story. Rather, this story deals with the NRA backing an incumbent who did what he said he would do - support NRA sponsored legislation - over a challenger that as yet has no track record of how he would respond to pro-gun legislation if given the chance to govern the state of Iowa.
What is surprising to me is that people seem to be genuinely surprised by this. In fact, this endorsement should be a surprise to nobody. The NRA endorses incumbents who support their agenda, plain and simple. Endorsing Culver is no different than that.
Can members make a difference? Sure. Enough national attention was given to the Reid/Angle flap that the NRA changed course. Slightly, but still changed. Did it make everyone happy? Of course not. But it also not their stated goal to make *everyone* happy. With a "big tent" mentality, it is impossible to make everyone happy 100% of the time.
GOA does a better job of keeping their "customers" happy because they don't have a big tent. Their numbers are much smaller. But they also tend to be more abrasive by holding the "no compromise" approach. You point out that we've lost our rights a little at a time. We need to win them back a little at a time, even if it means a short term "compromise" in order to use that to build for a longer term gain. Iowa's Shall Issue law, while knocked hard by the local GOA affiliate as a sell out, nonetheless provides relief for the thousands of citizens who had zero chance of getting an Iowa Permit to Carry Weapons. That victory can now be used to launch other legislation, which is already in the works as I type this.
Regarding the DISCLOSE Act, while I (personally) would like to have seen the NRA stick up for the smaller affiliate clubs that make up their membership, I also understand that it's not really their job to defend the First Amendment. They are not the National Printing Association.
If the First Amendment goes down the drain, then we have the Second Amendment which protects the First. Not the other way around. And truth be told, its high time that politicians take heed of that small fact. They've started waking up the populace. They need to get their collective selves together and back on the (somewhat) right path before more of the populace figures out that the folks who gave birth to this Republic intended the Second Amendment to protect all of the other ones.
Finally, if people are really upset at the direction that the NRA is taking, my best suggestion would be one of two things: start (or support) another group that is an 800 pound gorilla, which is not likely to happen in the near future; or, work from within to make a change. Get involved with the NRA at a local level, rally the troops, work to get into the leadership, and work for change.
In the meantime, while I will never agree with everything the NRA does, I also do not see a viable alternative to the amount of persuasion that they are able to possess at all levels of government.
Sean
I realize this is not an Iowa topic, but it is about the NRA incumbent protection plan. In Missouri the NRA plans to endorse a incumbent State Senator with an A rating. The challenger is a term limited, pro gun State Representative, with an NRA A+ rating.
The Representative has sponsored, co-sponsored and got the majority of the good gun rights laws passed, that Missourians now enjoy!
Am I going to send money to the NRA-ILA? Are a bunch of the gun owners in Missouri going to send money to the NRA-ILA? NO!
We are going to send that money, plus much more to the A+ candidate!
And that's exactly how it should be, Stu.
Just because the NRA gives an "endorsement" doesn't mean that you have to blindly follow that. More intelligent voters will explore the candidates and vote based on what their heart and mind tell them.
In your case, that's a tough one. Two politicians with *proven* records running against each other. In that case, maybe the NRA should have taken a "no stance" posture. My point in the article is that a legislator with a record of supporting pro-gun legislation vs. a candidate with no background is not a difficult choice for the NRA.
Nothing more.
Sean
What Mr. McClanahan conveniently leaves out of his article above is the reported NRA endorsement of ultra-liberal and anti-gun state Senator Staci Appel in deference to her truly pro-gun rival, Kent Sorensen, in the Senate District 37 race. This is apparently for much the same reason as the endorsement of Culver: Appel voted in favor of the watered down NRA carry mod bill to deflect attention away from Sorensen's HF596 "Real Right to Carry” bill, which was an Alaska/Vermont style, no-permit required bill fully recognizing the second amendment in Iowa that the NRA endorsed on paper, but worked in the background to defeat (NRA director and state house member Clel Baudler actually voted AGAINST the Sorensen legislation). As I said, the NRA endorsed this legislation on paper, but now Appel is coming out against it and Kent in her campaign literature . . . which looks pretty bizarre for the NRA, given their endorsement of both the legislation and the anti-gun Senator who is opposed to it!
Meanwhile, Sorenson has been a true proponent of second amendment rights in Iowa, co-sponsored HF86 - A Castle Doctrine bill that provides important legal protections to Iowa gun owners, co-sponsored HF2057 - A bill that disallows the government from demanding to know the make and model of your weapon prior to receiving a permit to carry it, co-sponsored HF87 - A bill that disallows the government from making lawful Iowans give their fingerprints, like a common criminal, as part of receiving a concealed carry permit, and Sponsored HF2267 - A bill that repeals Iowa's unconstitutional permit to purchase handguns. If passed, law abiding Iowans would be able to purchase self-defense weapons from other law abiding Iowans without government interference. The NRA and their lackey Sean McClanahan have demonstrated no support for these measures or Kent’s candidacy, and are doing more to limit second amendment freedoms and progress in Iowa than “the Brady Campaign” will ever do. But hey . . . at least Iowa’s gun owners get the “explanation” (excuse, reason?) for it above. Thanks to you and the NRA for great favors Sean!
I'm still waiting to see where Appel was endorsed by the NRA, as is being reported in several places.
"Anonymous" (scared to use a real name, apparently) has yet to do enough homework to see that Appel is not getting the nod. Instead, Sorenson has been personally notified by the NRA that they will be endorsing and supporting him.
I've already published a story on that. It's fairly easy to find.
Sean
Thanks for the answer anonymous.
IGO based their endorsement of Branstad just on what Branstad WROTE on the survey, and not on anything Branstad actually DID while in State Government for 26 years.
I understand now.
no4gman wrote:
"Thanks for the answer anonymous. IGO based their endorsement of Branstad just on what Branstad WROTE on the survey, and not on anything Branstad actually DID while in State Government for 26 years."
I understand now."
Exactly . . . just like Culver signed into law the gun confiscation without a trial bill that violates Iowans right to due process . . . the same one that I believe the NRA came out against. So Culver SHOULD get the NRA endorsement . . . for the anti-gun bill he signed into law.
Understand now?
no4gman wrote:
"Thanks for the answer anonymous. IGO based their endorsement of Branstad just on what Branstad WROTE on the survey, and not on anything Branstad actually DID while in State Government for 26 years."
I understand now."
-------
Exactly . . . just like Culver signed into law the gun confiscation without a trial bill that violates Iowans right to due process . . . the same one that I believe the NRA came out against. So Culver SHOULD get the NRA endorsement . . . for the anti-gun bill he signed into law.
Understand now? (Anonymous)
------------
You still can't answer my question as to why you support Branstad over just a survey.
Or is IGO supporting Branstad because they don't like Culver?
That works, but it still isn't a positive reason to vote for Branstad.
You know, I bet Obama completed a survey where he promised Hope & Change.
How'd that work out?
Branstad's Lt. Gov. nominee Kim Reynolds CO-SPONSORED the legislation authored by Kent Sorenson. Branstad is 100% pro-2nd amendment and always has been. So is his running mate.
Sure, Branstad is 100% pro-2nd amendment - because he said so on a survey.
Barack Obama: "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."
I suppose the IGO will endorse Obama in 2012.
"Governor Branstad has not replied to our survey at all.
Rod Roberts responded to the survey with 100% pro-gun answers.
Bob Vander Plaats responded to the survey with 100% pro-gun answers.
This means that Roberts and Vander Plaats have both pledged to sign the REAL Right-to-Carry bill, if elected, when it comes to their desk.
We have heard nothing from the Branstad campaign. It is concerning when a candidate will not complete a survey. A candidate can say what they want, but without a signed survey you and I don't really know where they stand on the issues."
IGO Alert 6/17/2010
Sounds like IGO is now settling for their 3rd choice for Governor.
Dear no4gman:
Obviously, Branstad filled out and returned the survey to IGO subsequent to 6/17/2010 (Duh!)
On another note, please feel free to continue to try and dig the NRA/ McClanahan/ Rager cadre out of the tremendous hole they have dug for themselves in Iowa. The entertainment value alone is priceless. I suspect that every time one of you guys opens your mouth or prints a word here . . . NRA membership in Iowa drops another 5%.
I feel sorry for Dave Codrea, because the very fine "gun-rights examiner" format that he established for genuine support and promotion of the second amendment across the U.S. has become nothing but an "NRA political stupidity apology" sham here in Iowa. Iowan's deserve better . . . and so does David.
That the best ya got Straight Shooter?
A survey SAYING Branstad supports the 2nd Amendment?
26 years in State Government, and what did Branstad DO to support the 2nd Amendment?
I'm sure Codrea would be very proud of IGO endorsing not one, not two, but THREE candidates for Governor of Iowa in the last 3 months.
All recommendations based on ONE survey.
By the way, just to remind you of what I posted yesterday:
Culver also signed the wife-beater law, which takes guns away from gun owners based on just the Accusation of a crime – without due process of law, and without being convicted of a crime. So yes, for this reason, and other reasons, Culver will not get many votes from gun owners.
---------
So I see many reasons not to vote for Culver either. As for Branstad, I gotta scratch my head and wonder how ANY gun rights organization could endorse him, unless of course endorsements are made FOR the Lessor of Two Evils.
The best approach for a gun rights group in the Governor's race in Iowa, would be to endorse neither candidate.
This is just another plug-your-nose election, where a vote is made for the least-worst candidate.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!