In the 48 hours since an apparent “deal” was struck between Congressional Democrats and the National Rifle Association to carve out a special exemption for the NRA and a handful of other special interest groups from provisions of the so-called “Disclose Act,” a tidal wave of outrage has erupted across the political spectrum.
Other gun rights organizations have cried foul, liberal special interest groups are fuming as is the liberal media, and even a member of the NRA Board of Directors (Full disclosure: where I served nine years between 1992 and 2002) has blasted the exemption. The bill, H.R. 5175, has been portrayed by supporters as a way to keep a rein on big corporate spenders during political campaigns, and by opponents as a deplorable move by Congressional Democrats to silence their opposition during the mid-term election cycle.
NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, writing Thursday in the Washington Post, criticized her own organization for having “opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation’s requirements.”
...the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind."—Cleta Mitchell, NRA Board member
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue, WA-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, released a statement Thursday that scolds the NRA, but blisters Democrats. He called their exemption offer to the NRA “despicable.” He called on the 650,000 CCRKBA members and supporters to flood Congress with calls to defeat the entire bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: House Democrats Thursday afternoon are trying to sweeten the road-apple pie and dampen opposition from smaller gun rights groups by lowering the membership threshold to 500,000 members from the 1 million in the original offer, according to a breaking story at CQ Politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressmen Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE) – who back the measure – complained that when the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down much of the so-called “campaign finance reform” law in January’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, the court “threw out 100 years of established law and legal precedent.” That’s the same nonsense used by anti-gunners to criticize the 2008 Heller ruling that affirmed the Second Amendment as protective of an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.
To think they could actually get away with such smarmy Chicago-style politics suggests that the Democrat leadership in Congress has not only lost its moral compass, they’ve lost their minds."--Alan Gottlieb, CCRKBA
Speaking of anti-gunners, the Brady Campaign’s Dennis Henigan weighed in with a column on the Huffington Post in which he blasted the exemption language as a “stunning act of craven appeasement to the gun lobby.”
So, Dennis, what was passage of the Brady Gun Control Act of 1993 and the 1994 adoption of the Clinton administration’s semi-auto ban? Wasn’t that a craven act of appeasement to the gun prohibitionist lobby? Or do you consider it a public service to pass legislation that treats law-abiding gun owners as criminals, and demonizes their firearms simply because they look different?
This column took a position yesterday that this debacle reveals more about desperate Capitol Hill Democrats than it does about the NRA. My hard-charging colleague David Codrea continues his criticism of the legislation here, while Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner Paul Valone has a blistering update here.
Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them.”—Cleta Mitchell
This cannot be a good time for NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre – whom I consider a personal friend – as it has him facing some tough questioning from traditional allies, including nationally-syndicated talk host Lars Larson. In an exchange on Larson’s program, LaPierre justified NRA’s position by stating, “If they cut out the tongue of the NRA they’re cutting out the tongue of every gun owner around the country that expects us to stand up and fight for them, and then they’re going to be free to destroy the Second Amendment.”
To his credit, LaPierre also told Larson, “We’re not in it (fighting over the bill) anymore but we think it’s unconstitutional. We think the court’s going to throw it out…I honestly think that this thing is probably not going anywhere, to tell you the truth.”
The DISCLOSE Act fiasco is just the latest instance of legislative hostage-taking by the gun lobby. The Congress enacted credit card reform, but only at the cost of an NRA amendment to legalize loaded guns in national parks. The Senate approved a voting representative for the, but only at the cost of an NRA amendment to gut DC's gun laws.”—Dennis Henigan, Brady Campaign District of Columbia
As this column noted previously, Democrats “made a serious mistake in presuming that the NRA is the only gun rights organization in town.” The NRA (this writer is an Endowment member) may be the proverbial “800-pound gorilla,” but this exemption gores a lot of oxes in the firearm community, and as the past 48 hours have revealed, a gored ox can be frightening, and a herd of them is a political nightmare.
Joe Waldron, legislative director for the CCRKBA, has advised this column via e-mail that four Washington congressmen have signed on to H.R. 5175. They are Reps. Jay Inslee (D-1st), Rick Larsen (D-2nd), Jim McDermott (D-7th) and Adam Smith (D-9th). Waldron also notes in his message that no Evergreen State Republicans signed on as co-sponsors.
Perhaps Gottlieb summed it up best with this observation: “Congressional anti-gunners like nothing better than to drive wedges between effective gun rights organizations, and this week’s events prove they can still accomplish that. We are astonished that anybody on Capitol Hill would imagine for a heartbeat that they could buy off one gun rights group at the expense of all the others… They have insulted and infuriated millions of gun owners who are represented by smaller grassroots organizations, and they need to hear that loud and clear.”
CCRKBA’s chief Capitol Hill lobbyist, John Snyder, advised this column via e-mail that the bill goes to the House Rules committee sometime Thursday (today) afternoon and will probably face a House floor vote on Friday.
This proposed exemption is unconscionable, but it reveals the desperation of its sponsors to pass legislation that would still silence organizations critical of how the Democrat leadership has mismanaged things on Capitol Hill.”—Alan Gottlieb
BULLETIN: There was no ruling issued by the Supreme Court this morning on the Second Amendment Foundation’s legal challenge to the Chicago handgun ban, McDonald v. City of Chicago. The next release of rulings will be Monday, June 21.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
I don't like to see the Compromises that take place, It is about the Second Amendment or not, the fight cannot be over this or that it has to be focused or we will loose the Battle.
This bill strikes at the core of the Second Amendment fight in that it would silence first amendment rights based on arbitary and ludicrous assumptions in direct violation of the first amendment. It is a bill designed to silence opposition from grassroots organizations though intimidation while leaving large organizations to do as they please during election years. The NRA did what it does best in my opinion. It made a sweet heart deal that gave it a seat at the big boys table while abandoning the other estimated 76 million gun owners in America. In my personal opinion the NRA chose not to fight for what was right but to make a deal and sell out 76 million gun owners who do not belong to them as members for probably that very reason. Proof of what I am saying is the democrats willingness now to drop the number from a million members to half a million to get opposition to agree. I say fight the NRA for turning traitor and fight this bill proposed by the democrats.
Dave, I guess I’m learning a lot today. I didn’t realize you were on the NRA board from 1992-2002.
So this forces me to ask this question since you were on the NRA during debate over the Brady Bill/NICS did you try to stop them?
As far as the NRA goes the Democrats would never cut a deal unless it was to their advantage.
It’s obvious the Democrats do not see the NRA as s threat to their agenda; after all the NRA supported the NICS just like they supported the 1968GCA and many other gun control laws.
So Dave to answer my question did you try to stop the NICS or attempt to encourage a repeal of any gun control legislation while you sat on the NRA board?
You must have a very very low standard for friendship if you consider LaPierre a friend.
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!