What's Going On at NRA?

[Excaliber]

This article about recent actions by NRA leadership is alarming.

If this information is true, the organization's actions with regard to the confirmation hearings for Sotomayor and Kagan wouldn't be any different if Bloomberg were calling the shots, and I wasn't at all comfortable with the weasel explanation about the DISCLOSE Act carveout NRA negotiated.

We're starting to see a pattern on a series of critical issues, and there's a smell in the air. What's going on?

[Purplehood]

Makes one wonder if a weasel got in the hen house. But than again, that website looked kind of over the top to me.

[texas1234]

Its not that uncommon to have your board stay silent on some issues.

[Excaliber]

Makes one wonder if a weasel got in the hen house. But than again, that website looked kind of over the top to me.

I can't vouch for that web site as a longstanding and well accepted source of verified news accounts. Unfortunately, issues like these aren't covered at all in what used to be considered comprehensive and reliable media sources which are no longer either of those things.

I often first find out about actions and events in our country from articles in the foreign press which are much more straight to the point than what we are used to here, or from small blogs and interest group web sites which have folks with the time and dedication to uncover things that some in our country would rather we not see. Bits and pieces of information that confirm these early articles sometimes leak out into the major media outlets over time, but the earliest and often most accurate accounts frequently come from secondary or tertiary news sources.

The NRA's position on the Disclose Act as recounted in the article is correct, and was discussed on this forum. I was not and am not comfortable with the NRA's position that negotiating a Pelosi style carve out for the NRA in exchange for silence on the overall measure was the right way to approach this issue. That move appeared to me to be a sharp departure from NRA's previously stalwart and consistent defense of freedom whenever it has been challenged, and I thought it stunk to high heaven. I tried to swallow it as an aberration, but the organization's reported tack on the Kagan nomination, and its handling of the Sotomayor confirmation, if true, make it appear that the NRA leadership is making a sharp turn to the left and adopting the tactic of muzzling those who would speak the truth in our behalf.

The article's statement said:

"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 allegation regarding the critical appointment of a supreme court justice who would sit in a position where she could effectively assist in nullifying the Constitution piece by piece with one more change on the court is specific and subject to fact checking. If true, I see it as a betrayal of the organization's most basic responsibilities to our membership. I hope it is not true, but I'm not willing to take that on faith at this point.

I posted it here to see if anyone can either confirm or refute this information. I think it is extremely important that we find out if NRA has changed course, or if there is a disinformation campaign being mounted to discredit it, which is also possible.

I emailed the NRA at ILA.org with a request that they provide a credible account of their position. If they respond, I'll share it here.

[Excaliber]

Its not that uncommon to have your board shut its pie hole, having the board shut their yappers can be a good thing.

As a trained media spokesperson, I fully understand the importance of speaking with one voice through a consistent, authorized source. If the NRA sent one designated and well qualified officer to testify on our behalf during the confirmation hearings, I would applaud that.

I am also well aware that not speaking at all surrenders control of the discourse to others who may not all be our friends.

[A-R]

This is obviously not the same as testifying before the Senate committee regarding Kagen, but LaPierre indicated the NRA was against her and Sotomayor near the end of this exchange on PBS Newshour last night .... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan- ... 06-28.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (also more on the overall debate shown in this clip in this thread viewtopic.php?f=94&t=35701" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Still, I would've liked to see LaPierre and the NRA be more vocal in their opposition. Simply stating "she doesn't support 2A" is nice, but his overall delivery seemed basically resigned to the fact that she'll be confirmed. Perhaps this is logical and practical assumption, but does seem a rather subdued opposition.

[Purplehood]

I wonder if it is simply a tacit realization that there is no chance at denying the Kagan nomination and consequently the NRA does not want to be associated with trying to throw a wet-blanket on the beach-blanket bingo-party.

[The Annoyed Man]

I wonder if it is simply a tacit realization that there is no chance at denying the Kagan nomination and consequently the NRA does not want to be associated with trying to throw a wet-blanket on the beach-blanket bingo-party.

It could simply be a case of spending your political capital wisely.

[Purplehood]

I wonder if it is simply a tacit realization that there is no chance at denying the Kagan nomination and consequently the NRA does not want to be associated with trying to throw a wet-blanket on the beach-blanket bingo-party.

It could simply be a case of spending your political capital wisely.

OMG, you did it again! Said the same thing I did but with fancy words!

[bdickens]

Read what Charles has to say:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35290" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wonder if it is simply a tacit realization that there is no chance at denying the Kagan nomination and consequently the NRA does not want to be associated with trying to throw a wet-blanket on the beach-blanket bingo-party.

It could simply be a case of spending your political capital wisely.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

But than again, that website looked kind of over the top to me.

You're right; it's complete and utter garbage.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I guess I'd better check my email address at NRA HQ; I didn't get the gag order email. On the other hand, perhaps the article is spreading false information.

Chas.

[ELB]

. What's going on?

Note that Red State doesn't actually provide any of the emails nor name any of the board members they say "confirmed" the "gag."

Sebastian is a long time political gun activist who focuses on PA, but covers national issues as well. Note his take:

Red State is reporting today that NRA has issued a gag order to its Board about the Kagan hearings. This misunderstands how NRA works. Staff can not gag Board members. All they can do is ask them not to get involved in the proceedings. Perhaps the can demand it too, but their opinions for punishment are fairly limited. Without backing from key members of the Board of Directors, there’s not really a whole lot staff could do to retaliate against a recalcitrant member. If they are enforcing a true gag order, then it would need to have backing from other key board members.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/06/28/gag-order/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He has much more at the link, be sure and read the whole thing.

The comment on spending political capital was a wise one. The NRA has to make real decisions that have consequence in a political environment, and sometimes there are no "good" choices, only least worse options. The question about Kagan is "What will actively opposing this nomination net us?" Sure Kagan is a lousy choice for SCOTUS, especially on 2A, but do you think Obama will nominate anyone better for us?

Frankly, since she has so little actual law experience, that might be a plus for us -- the other Justices may give her opinions little respect or weight, if we are lucky. But if somehow she gets jettisoned, then you can bet that whoever Obama nominates in her place will be a guaranteed confirmation -- none of the Democrats, including the so-called conservative ones, will be willing to see the Dems get defeated twice. How would you like to see another Chicago pol elevated? Rahm wants to leave the Whitehouse and run for mayor of Chicago, but he can't run if Daley is still mayor. So how does Obama get Daley to leave? How does "Justice Daley" grab you?

Frankly, the NRA played the best hand they could on Disclose, and they probably are doing the best they can given that the US elected a bunch of idiots to run the country.

[The Annoyed Man]

I wonder if it is simply a tacit realization that there is no chance at denying the Kagan nomination and consequently the NRA does not want to be associated with trying to throw a wet-blanket on the beach-blanket bingo-party.

It could simply be a case of spending your political capital wisely.

OMG, you did it again! Said the same thing I did but with fancy words!

Can you ever forgive me?