The head of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action denies that NRA has prohibited its directors from testifying during the Kagan hearings. Appearing on NRA's "Cam and Company" program, ILA Executive Director Chris Cox dismissed a report claiming a "gag order" as "just outrageous, it's a lie."
Here's the claim from RedState.com's Erick Erickson:
Internal 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.
Per Cox:
...[T]his is one of those internet rumors that is simply not true.
Let's watch the entire exchange:
Cox did allude to an official policy, in fairness not unlike those adopted by most organizations:
But when we do communicate an official position of the National Rifle Association, it's important for us to speak with a united voice.
Is such a policy what Erickson's sources were referring to, and did ILA issue a specific reminder with the Kagan hearings in mind?
Mr. Erickson would do well to clarify, because as it stands, we have a he said/he said situation with credibility in question and much confusion in between.
And Mr. Cox would do well to take concrete action to show us his denial has meaning beyond damage control.
Adopting a "wait and see" attitude on the Kagan nomination hardly helps--especially since the perception is NRA was reluctant to take a stand during the earlier Sotomayor hearings. No one can seriously think Kagan will be protective of gun owner rights, and Monday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision ought to make it clear how foolhardy it would be to not strongly oppose such a nominee, who will assume lifetime power to rule on future Second Amendment cases if confirmed.
I see no good reason for NRA not making its objections known before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The "political capital" apologia does not wash--if there was ever a time to take a firm stand, it is now. If only certain authorized individuals can speak on behalf of the Association, why isn't Cox appearing? NRA presents itself as the leader, but the battle has begun and they're absent from the field, telling us their role is to be observers, not combatants.
At this point, we don't even know if they will 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, which he repeated in this interview?
Will we see any lowering of letter grades? If we don't, what good is it, and how is that any different from no scoring at all? And if we do, will they be equally weighted across the board or selectively assigned? That is, will we see a standard scoring impact that reflects the gravity of putting an anti-gunner on the Supreme Court? Will NRA tell us what it is? Why haven't they to date?
Without these questions unequivocally addressed, the posturing is 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 past time for Fairfax to look at how their actions and attitudes have contributed to the perception.
Also see:
Is NRA squelching dissent on Kagan?
Comments
What is the NRA waiting for...Another Deal? This should be so obvious...
Now now, the mistake eveyone is making is in assuming that the NRA speaks for its members when in truth its primary focus is the preservation of the organization. They choose to absent themselves from the Kagan discussions and declare no interest in the Disclose legislation once their organization is exempted. Yet they had no problem horning in on the McDonald vs Chicago case, stealing one third of Alan Gura's alloted time just so as to be able to claim involvement once all the hard work was done.
When my current five year membership expires it will be the last they see of me. I am well past the "fool me twice" stage with what was once a fine and valued organization.
I would like to see Erickson's evidence. I while we all know the NRA is capable of doing some dumb stuff (McCain, Disclose) RedState is also known to run off at the mouth about NRA too. Erickson made a disparaging comment about the NRA for not backing a Republican pet anti-gun candidate a couple of weeks ago.
So they "score" Sotomayor's votes? So, ??????????????? and that will protect us from her and Kagan's expected activism and downright treachery to the Constitution and their Oaths to support it as the Supreme Law of the Land how??????
I've ask on several blogs the last week or so and have yet, to my knowledge, recieved an answer: Is there a codified punishment for violating their Oath of Office or for failing to uphold their duties as specified in the U.S. Constitution? What is it? What's the reference in the law. I think we the people have standing to challenge every dissenter in the McDonald decisions ability to continue holding office as the dissents blatantly ignore the constitution's supremacy and their oaths of office to uphold it.
What can we the people do?
The dissenters in McDonald have NOT conducted themselves with "good behavior" in my opinion and their comments in their dissent prove it.
Just sayin'
My default position is Cox and LaPierre and NRA lied. They have done so so consistently over the recent decades that to bet any other way in the absence of evidence supporting them would simply be foolish. That's the problem liars and betrayers face, they cannot expect their words to be believed once they have been proven liars.
"Internal 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."
This sounds rather hard to believe, that a directive from NRA executives to the board would be circulated as an "internal Senate email". But if it is true, then all of the board members and a lot of senators have seen it and may still have copies of it. Thats as high as 175 posible recipients, some of whom should be willing to produce a copy. So, Mr. Anderson, when do we get to see a copy of this alledged email?
"But when we do communicate an official position of the National Rifle Association, it's important for us to speak with a united voice."
Right, because it wouldn't do for, say, Chuck Heston to tell some reporter that the private possession of AK47s is inappropriate.
I find it very uncomfortable that the NRA after being caught in the "disclose" mess is now supposedly muzzling it's people and not allowing them to tesify on a voluntary basis at the Kagen hearings when it is evident that she is anti-gun and could in the future threaten the recent Mc Donald victory. What kind of a deal is the NRA waiting for now or has it already sold it's members out already by keeping quiet. The NRA does not appear to be supporting it's members wishes and does not appear to be willing to risk anything to restore gun rights. I would still call for the withholding of dues and new memberships while those members with time to go press for a more agressive representation in front of Congress. Congress does not fear the NRA anymore becuase the NRA cannot show that it singlehandly defeated any candidate recently or STARTED any court lawsuit and won it. All the recent suits were brought by others and the NRA just grabbed on to the coattails if I remember right.
I jumped ship from those quisling SOB's at the No Rifles Association years back when they started their back door deals with the left and began bargaining away rights we already had..
Now the membership finds itself in the same situation as those Democrats who still consider themselves as Americans instead of "Progressives", surrounded by domestic enemies and wondering how they got here.. Until the membership takes responsibility for their own rights and puts this multimillion dollar hijacked conglomerate of Progressives out to pasture looking for new jobs you wont ever be represented as the NRA was originally intended to do.
As citizens its our responsibility to make sure we get a fair deal, not some mooks we hire and pay who lie, cheat, and collude with our ideological opposites seeking to disarm free Americans.
If any of you still doubt this whole dog and pony show is about anything but civilian disarmament you are seriously deluded and the NRA is your best friend.
Spitnyr
keep badmouthing the NRA Thats the right thing for all of you to do.
Weve came a long way from having to sign for ammo and having to jump through hoops to get a carry permit. sure weve got a long way to go, but The NRA's Membership, using it political power has had a lot to do with our progress. their unity and support has given gun owners, across the U.S., the ability and information to stand up for their rights. You can stand around badmouthing or you can get in the fight. I guess some people have a hard time seeing whos on their side in the big picture. Most of you sound as if you watched a Moore movie or read a belisiles book and believed every word.
Iknow the NRA has some problems but so does any orginization.
This does not look good coming right after the DISCLOSE fiasco. I'm beginning to think that they realize if they do score and apply letter grades based on this, they realize they will expose their policy of supporting "pro-gun" Democrats in the House and Senate as the idiocy that it was.
When Pelosi wants a vote, there ARE no pro-gun D's. I realize there are anti-gun R's, such as Peter King, but at least the R leadership will push them on the issue, even if they don't apply the thumb-screws the way the D's do.
Pournelles' Iron Law: In any given organization there are 2 kinds of people - Those who are there to fulfill the purpose of the organization, and those who are there to advance the organization itself. The control of the organization will invariably wind up in the hands of the 2nd type.
Actually, if the seat was in the hands of an anti-gun "moderate" R, the NRA policy was not completely stupid, if only a few seats were targeted each election. The R's were completely incapable of running primary challenges. So the "primary challenge" was to beat them in the general election and then replace the new guy with a more conservative R 2 years later.
This backfired in 2006, and again in 2008 due to the fact that the change was 40+ seats, and the TRUE BELIEVERS got leadership positions due to seniority.
We do live in interesting times... in the ancient Chinese curse sense of the words.
"I see no good reason for NRA not making its objections known before the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Bingo. In fact, the NRA owes it to their members to represent them now, as never before. They should be kicking down the damn door to testify.
This is the same B.S. that the late Neal Knox fought from within the NRA, while keeping the dogs at bay from without.
As always David, good stuff.
Robert I sand Armed to defend my RIGHTS. Untill the nra STANDS and suports MY Rights AND Your I will not suport them.
Three cheers for Gun Owners of America!
Howard, you are correct "some people have a hard time knowing who is on their side". But it ain't us. We know when we have been betrayed. We have been betrayed by the NRA repeatedly, this latest is just the most publicly despicable example. Talk to some of the local/state affiliates about NRA's betrayal in their own state capitals when we had won absent the NRA's betrayal and lobbying against the interests of its members and its affiliates.
Georgia and Illinois are two good starting points, but by no means the only examples.
Oh yeah Howard, check out NRA's actions against the interests of its members in Iowa just really recently.
Obviously, the NRA needs to get their @ss in there and stand up for its membership...RIGHT NOW! I MIGHT consider rejoining since I left 10 years ago seeing the writing on the wall by their inaction. DO THE RIGHT THING LA PIERRE - consequences be damned. You'll get MORE MEMBERSHIP DOLLARS and make Americans proud!
David in my opinion the NRA has been giving lip service to the 2A for years. If their mission is to protect the 2A then their doing a poor job.
Anyone and I mean anyone that opposes the 2A should be opposed themselves.
Why did the NRA support the NICS?
Why is the NRA continuing to make deals in Illinois like they did this year with HB5832?
How many people know that Illinois couldn’t afford upgrades to the computer system that is used for the FOID card and the system was on the brink of failure?
The NRA/ISRA step in and supported a bill that allows Illinois to seek a federal grant to up-grade the FOID card computer system.
Why!!!!
The FOID card system was going to fail and the NRA/ISRA steeped in and saved it!!!!
And people want to know why I’m against the NRA?
Duh!
The NRA needs boogie-men in power so that they can bring in the money from the membership. They then are saying they are fighting the boogie man.
Really, why the heck should the NRA get publically involved - her appointment to the court is a fait accompli already, a mere formality. What concrete benefit is there to the NRA or gun owners in continuing to oppose Kagan's appointment. Even if her appointment wasn't already assured - does anyone really think that the next Obama selection wouldn't be just as bad or worse. There are a lot of reasons to criticize the NRA - including the Disclose fiasco - but not going after Kagan isn't one of them. The only way to stop future Kagans is by voting out senators that support such nominations and removing presidents who make them.
My bet is that the NRA has been active behind the scenes and found out that they couldn't get the support to stop the appointment and therefore see no precentage in throwing a tantrum about it in public.
mack, step away from the crack pipe.
It's been some time now since Mr. Erickson mentioned this supposed "gag order". No proof of it haveing actually happened seems to be available or we would have seen it. Looks like a lot of folks are getting their shorts in a bunch over something that probably didn't happen. Look, Folks, can we save the NRA bashing for things they have actually done?
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!