(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Related Articles
"On Monday, June 28, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court," the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) Grassroots Alert begins.
[H]er record...shows a hostility towards our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, such as her role in developing the Clinton Administration's 1998 ban on importation of many models of semi-automatic rifles; her note mentioning the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan as "bad guy" organizations; and her comment to Justice Marshall that she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban.
That being the case, a report by Erick Erickson at RedState.com becomes all the more troubling:
NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan...[I]nternal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association’s management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA’s board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues during the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings...The gag order on board members is not limited to providing testimony, but it prohibits board members from coming out against Kagan in their individual capacity.
Matt Lewis at Politics Daily adds background details:
It turns out that during the confirmation hearings for then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the testimony of former NRA President Sandy Froman angered current NRA leadership, because she didn't obtain permission to appear at the hearing...As one prominent board member (who asked not to be named) told me, Chris Cox, the executive director of the association's lobbying arm, NRA-ILA, "was livid because he didn't 'authorize' them to speak directly to Congress."
NRA defenders are quick to point out that ILA staff does not have direct authority over Board members, who, according to Association Bylaws elect the Executive Vice President, who in turn appoints the Executive Director for ILA. But there are other ways to apply pressure, via the Nominating Committee, and, in an example of push coming to shove, they featured an ad in their official journal to keep out a faction of reformers led by the late Neal Knox with a dissent-chilling result:
All 13 on the NRA establishment's Do Not Vote For list were defeated.*
Directors mindful of their positions and wishing to continue in them are aware of this, and of the powerful insider alliances, and conduct themselves accordingly if they wish to maintain their seats.
But all this leads to the singular question of why NRA will not oppose Kagan's nomination, instead offering words to give themselves cover, but no action to give those words meaning. Those of us following such matters will recall they had to be dragged into grudgingly announcing a vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor would be scored against senators, but we have yet to see that manifest itself--will we, now that she provided a vote against the Second Amendment in yesterday's Supreme Court decision?
How will NRA keep it's promise? If, as Erickson reports, they "in effect, announced they’d score it and ignore it," how is that differentiated from...a lie?
What rationale could they possibly have for not opposing the Kagan nomination, especially in light of yesterday's 5-4 narrow "victory"? Does anyone seriously think she will do anything but rule for "gun control" if given the chance? If they won't "expend political capital" on this, when will they?
Part of the totality of a politician's record is what and who they support, and giving aid and comfort to political enemies must not be whitewashed over. It's not enough to vote on bills--votes for politicians and votes for nominees--knowing the damage they will do--must also factor into the equation. So support for Barack Obama, for Eric Holder, for Sonia Sotomayor, for Elana Kagan...all of these enable attacks against our right to keep and bear arms, and to act as if they have no bearing is, at best, disingenuous, at worst subversive.
I know some of the more prominent NRA apologists would have us believe ILA Executive Director Chris Cox is a master Vulcan chessplayer (seriously!). Couple this with a strategy to woo democrat support, and the game he's playing becomes as transparent as Spock's 3-D chessboard.
Some will no doubt argue that NRA assesses Kagan is unstoppable, so why subject the Association to a high profile loss? I guess if you're looking for an excuse to cop out, that's probably as good as any. But I think the decision to avoid a fight goes beyond a mere PR perception, because the antis and their media allies are going to manifest their hatred regardless of results.
NRA is a single issue organization, we are told. With the emphasis on lobbying, it's fair to ask if that issue is at odds with a competing priority--having access above all else.
* Get the inside story about the "13 stalwarts" and how power and influence are used to maintain management's grip on Association policy.
Also see: 2009 NRA Director candidate questionnaire
A near loss
Jennifer Freeman of Liberty Belles shows how close we came.
Comments
The NRA needs a purge.....NOW
I'm startin' to miss Chuck Heston right about now.
Further proof that NRA is out of touch with reality. Given that gun owner bigots (erroneously) equate the gun owner lobby with NRA, any candidate, nominee, appointee, etc. that is remotely identifiable as anti gun owner rights who successfully gets into office is shouted from the rooftops as a defeat for NRA. They're going to be portrayed as losers anyway, they might as well not be quitters, too.
What's with Obama and all these ugly, overweight, clipped-haired women appointees?
It would appear that the organization is once again out for itself and not the average gun owner. It is worrying more about making friends in Washington than friends among gun owners whoi make up the membership and will suffer. Who gives a da-- about Cox being some sort of fantesy Vulcan chessplayer. Is that what qualifies him to be a NRA leader? If so then everyone better start withholding their membership. Everything the NRA has backed has sold us as gun owners out recently. I don't think the NRA backed the five justices that voted for us to be honest. Members want a "Rocky" organization. An organization that will stgep in the ring against incredible odds and either put on a losing fight no one will forget (remember the alamo) or win one that will stand for time. So far I have not seen the courage to do either from the NRA. They don't have the founding forefathers guts and they are counting on fools to continue to pay their dues rather than find someone new to support for gun rights
These NRA shenanigans are why I refuse to join this organization.
They can play their reindeer games without my money.
quite simply the NRA is an organization staffed with leadership that is treasonous to the nation, traitorous to its membership and devoid of any kind of principle. It must be comforting to them to know that Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell will never accuse them of being "principles freaks".
At this point in time there are four million morons who still belong to the NRA, me being one of them. However, I will change my status this fall. Hopefully I will be joined by the remainder of the four million.
There is no word in any language capable of showing my contempt for the NRA because of their consistent betrayals of it membership and America.
The board must grow some 'nads and fire LaPierre and his so-called 'team'. This gang makes millions and NRA throws the match every time...Wonder why hdqtrs will not provide contact info for every board member???
The NRA is not interested in a decisive 2nd Amendment win - that would put them out of their cushy jobs. They come down to Georgia on our last two major gun bills and tried to screw us over each time. The last time we had 2 bills, theirs and one supported by Georgia Carry, our local gun rights group. They were telling State Reps they would support them if they voted against OUR bill. That they had NRA "cover" for voting against it. In the end, both passed, but the NRA bill was vetoed.
NRA - Fighting for just enough of your rights to keep you as a paid member.
I have not been happy with much of what the NRA has been doing in the recent years...the GOA is working hard to fill its gaps though.
Not
Relevant
Anymore
Only in the NRA can the executives tell the board of directors what to do!
75 Twits on a Board, who are precisely as useless as… !
As far as Obama's appointments go, just realize that a narcissist would never consider having anybody work for him who is prettier than he is. In his case, even Secretary of State took some real arm-twisting.
I think a lot of the criticism about the NRA is unfounded or simply misunderstood rumors. If it were not for the NRA, Peters and her gang of rich backers would have disarmed the USA long before now. So join whichever organization you think can do the best job to maintain liberty. But join something.
citizenjohn, the time for political arm twisting is long gone - if it ever had any relevance. I'm spending that money on ammo...
I quit donating to the NRA about 5 years back. I'm still a member but will not renew when this term expires. My money will be going to the Second Amendment Foundation who were instrumental in both the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS "wins". I'll miss the conveinence of my local gun range but ...
As I told both Chris Cox and David Keene in response to their response to my initial email regarding their "compromise" on the totally unconstitutional DISCLOSE Act, their "single issue organization" strategy is the same failed strategy that the Native Americans lost with. They were all "single issue tribes" and wouldn't join together to fight a common enemy. Look how that ended up for them.
+1 for Simon Jester
As a life member of the NRA, I still see a lot of arrogance with the FNRA, and their fund raising policies. Seems Washington may be rubbing off on them.
Shows the NRA is compromised and playing politics with our rights.
Chris Coxs is dening this as i type this on NRA News Right now. So whos telling the truth
NRA, thy name is "Quisling".
Howard--I hope Mr. Cox does, and then takes concrete action to show us his denial has meaning beyond damage control. Of course, it means Mr. Erickson is either misinformed or making things up, so I'd be interested if NRA would clarify if there is a BOD policy prohibiting what's raised in the Red State article and if ILA sent out a recent communication to that effect to directors with the Kagan process in mind. Then will ILA formally oppose Kagan's confirmation and score it? And just to clarify, will Mr. Cox specifically tell us how he intends to keep NRA's commitment to score Sotomayor votes?
Without these things, they are just words. NRA has been raising a lot of hackles lately with McCain, DISCLOSE, this, and lots more, and these are just recent disconnects with much of the gun activist community. It's time for Fairfax to look at how their actions and attitudes have contributed to the perception. A firm stand here might help.
citizenjohn: "If it were not for the NRA, Peters and her gang of rich backers would have disarmed the USA long before now."
Speak for yourself. You mean you would have let them disarm YOU long before now.
If the nominee is a conservative, the hearing will wallow in vile feces and Democrat Dung, characterized by the Leahy protocol:
The seven types of hearings are:
(1) Separate hard lumps, like nuts (hard to pass). -- Kennedy
(2) Sausage-shaped but lumpy. -- Leahy
(3) Like a sausage but with cracks on its surface. -- Schumer
(4) Like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft. -- Feinstein
(5) Soft blobs with clear cut edges (passed easily). -- Franken
(6) Fluffy pieces with ragged edges, a mushy stool. -- Spectre
(7) Watery stool, entirely liquid. -- Durbin
If the nominee has no experience and is a stealth Marxist, or open commie the hearings must elicit goodwill and humor, showing the gentlemanly character of the mushy inquisitors.
Specter: "you have shown a really admirable sense of humor, and I think that is really important. As Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer said yesterday, we're looking for somebody who can moderate the court, and a little humor would do them a lot of good.
Thanks for your response Mr. Codrea. I'll be keeping an eye on the NRA. I hope you can understand my problem. I keep hearing the bad things about the NRA and I keep hearing the NRA having to fight these aligations. Like the Open Letter to Ted Nudgent that gets passed around on a regular basis. Just a few weeks ago I listend as he stated just the oppositt of the aligations in the letter. However, he did not mention the letter at all. He was just having a conversation on NRA news. Believe me, I know the NRA has problems, but they are still the big dogs in this fight.
Thanks again for the response, One of the reasons I keep reading your articles. Please, keep up the hard work.
What the left, Marxists/Socialists/Communists do is, infiltrate organizations, subvert them and then use them to carefully and quietly and subtlety, realize the goals that the original organization, would never have supported or promoted.
They do this time after time all over the world and they've done it for a very long time because it usually works because there isn't anybody to report what is actually happening because those people are the first targets....
This isn't new.
The NRA isn't forthright and is less so every time we hear of them. They will either be completely coopted by the left or destroyed. That was always the intention. You should consider membership in other organizations that have not been penatrated yet but realize that they too are targets.
This is not a game. It's deadly serious and live do actually hang in the balance.
David this is another hard hitting article from that’s addressing a serious problem in the gun rights movement. [Thank you]
Let’s look at some facts.
The NRA is the LARGEST lobbying group in the USA with 4 million members.
Gun owners are the largest demographic group in the nation. Depending on who you talk to there are 40-100 million gun owners [majority of voting age]
So why does the NRA play games when they can rally the largest group of voters in the country?
All the NRA has to do is say to politicians “if any judge or law is voted on that is not 110% pro-gun we will work to remove you from office”
So what does the NRA do, this year in Illinois they played games and gave HB5832 a pass a Bill that mandates 1-3yrs in prison if you’re caught with a loaded firearm in your possession if you don’t have a valid FOID card
McCain, Sotomayor, DISCLOSE Act, Kagan.... If NRA backs down from some (most) political and legislative fights because it might suffer a "high-profile loss," it is, by definition, picking the low-hanging fruit. How many millions of our membership dollars are being spent annually by the group to accomplish its magnificent feat of ... acquiescing?
NRA Board members are saying this is untrue.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom King []
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Tom King
Cc: NYSRPA-alert@yahoogroups ; nysrpa-bod@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
NRA Members of New York,
There are a myriad of rumors regarding the NRA cluttering the internet but one in particular is causing me personal anguish. That rumor reports that the NRA staff has issued a gag order to the NRA Board of Directors regarding comments on the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court. Let me explain something about the structure of the NRA; authority to do anything within the NRA comes from you the members of the NRA. That authority is delegated to your elected Board of Directors who in turn elects officers and formulate policy that is then issued to the Executive Vice President/CEO who then turns that policy into action through the professional staff. Gag orders for the Board of Directors do not exist.
Friends; those of you close to
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom King []
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Tom King
Cc: NYSRPA-alert@yahoogroups ; nysrpa-bod@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
NRA Members of New York,
There are a myriad of rumors regarding the NRA cluttering the internet but one in particular is causing me personal anguish. That rumor reports that the NRA staff has issued a gag order to the NRA Board of Directors regarding comments on the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court. Let me explain something about the structure of the NRA; authority to do anything within the NRA comes from you the members of the NRA. That authority is delegated to your elected Board of Directors who in turn elects officers and formulate policy that is then issued to the Executive Vice President/CEO who then turns that policy into action through the professional staff. Gag orders for the Board of Directors do not exist.
Friends; those of you close to me should know by now that telling me I can’t sp
There seems to be more than the usual number of posters today who's minds are made up and are not interested in any facts. I would suggest we not tar and feather NRA's leadership on this one quite yet, at least not until we know more.
At this point what we do know is that Eric Anderson has aledged that this gag order exists and that emails at least referring to is were circulated among some senators. The aledged gag order may also have been sent to the NRA board members via email. Yet Chris Cox of NRA/ILA and Tom King of NYSRPA, and also an NRA board member, have categorically stated that no such gag order was given.
The ball's apparently in Mr. Anderson's court. Let's see a copy of this gag order, Mr. Anderson.
David can you help confirm this?
During the confirmation hearing of Sotomayor the NRA refused to hold Senators accountable that voted for Sotomayor
During those hearings Sotomayor said that the Heller decision was settled law but in the McDonald case Sotomayor voted to disarm the American people.
What would have happened had Sotomayor been the swing vote in the McDonald case.
Would we have a 2A today?
Again the NRA doesn’t have to make deals all they have to do is stand their ground and stop compromising.
Its easy to say we the people are in charge but why does it seem that our elected representatives in government and groups like the NRA, Farm Bureau and others keep selling out our freedom?
Every time I turn around, NRA sends me an envelope asking for more money to help them fight "looming gun battles". They then go on to say how every election is the most important in the nation's history, as far as gun rights go.
If NRA has issued a gag order regarding Kagan, then I don't want to hear NRA whine about how dangerous she is for our 2A rights. Do you think NRA is silent on Kagan as payback to the Democrats for that DISCLOSE exemption? I do.
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!