TexasCHLforum.com

Mike1951 wrote:Wouldn't this have been a more appropriate cause for the ACLU?

It might, but the question becomes, "would the ACLU take it on, knowing that it would benefit the NRA specifically, and conservative activism generally?"

I don't think they would, unless there were a compelling interest in it for them. Right now, there isn't. The ACLU, despite its claims to non-partisanship, is an extremely liberal organization from a point of view of political ideology. Right now, it's not their ox being gored, so I don't know if they would rise to the occasion or not — but I doubt it. In their favor, the ACLU position on McCain Feingold was decidedly negative back on March 1, 2001. That said, the fairly leftist Brennan Center released a statement 22 days later saying that "Former ACLU Leaders Uniformly Agree on Constitutionality of McCain-Feingold," so the ACLU's position on civil liberties is not consistent, even on the same issue, from one year to the next, nor from issue to issue.

...or even national to state organizations. The national orgainzation is as you say. The Texas ACLU branch seems to be more... Texas, based on things I've read but am too lazy (busy) to try to find right now.

LarryH wrote:In a "ideal world", this bill, if passed and signed, would quickly be found unconstitutional.

Maybe it will. The Supreme Court has already ruled for The First Amendment once during the reign of Barry the First.

Purplehood wrote:I see HR 5175 as a tool for intimidation against Free Speech, regardless of who makes up the current Administration. I think that it is unfortunate that the NRA felt that it could not simply oppose it in total, but settled for an exemption. I suppose I don't blame the NRA, but I am nevertheless disappointed.

I agree. And while I understand and respect Charles' position (which I assume is also the NRA's position) that the NRA must protect itself (and its members and its money and its political capital) first, I do think this could hurt the organization in the long run because it comes across as very self-serving. Why not just oppose the entire bill? Defending the 2nd Amendment requires using the 1st, and defending the 1st isn't possible without the 2nd to back it up .... isn't that what we all tell fence-sitters who defend the 1st but aren't as sure about the 2nd?

Bowing to political realities maintains the status quo. Principled stands inspire the masses to join your cause.

austinrealtor wrote:Bowing to political realities maintains the status quo. Principled stands inspire the masses to join your cause.

Go ahead. Nothing the NRA did here prevents you from spending as much of your time and money as you want to defeat the bill.

bayouhazard wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Bowing to political realities maintains the status quo. Principled stands inspire the masses to join your cause.

Go ahead. Nothing the NRA did here prevents you from spending as much of your time and money as you want to defeat the bill.

I think the issue here is the NRA response to the bill. Are we (NRA members and potential members) satisfied with that response? I can only speak for myself.

Purplehood wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Bowing to political realities maintains the status quo. Principled stands inspire the masses to join your cause.

Go ahead. Nothing the NRA did here prevents you from spending as much of your time and money as you want to defeat the bill.

I think the issue here is the NRA response to the bill. Are we (NRA members and potential members) satisfied with that response? I can only speak for myself.

Would we be satisfied had the NRA taken the hard line stance and the bill had passed without exempting the NRA?

Mike1951 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Bowing to political realities maintains the status quo. Principled stands inspire the masses to join your cause.

Go ahead. Nothing the NRA did here prevents you from spending as much of your time and money as you want to defeat the bill.

I think the issue here is the NRA response to the bill. Are we (NRA members and potential members) satisfied with that response? I can only speak for myself.

Would we be satisfied had the NRA taken the hard line stance and the bill had passed without exempting the NRA?

That is a trick question. It presumes that I would settle for an all-or-nothing result. I would be satisfied with the NRA's actions if it had rejected the Act and failed. I would not be satisfied with the people that jammed it down the nations throat.

David Hardy mentions the bill in his blog Arms and the Law:
http://armsandthelaw.com/

His list of other Orgs. that are against the bill is pretty entertaining.

I keep getting emails from remora organizations that are disappointed that the NRA isn’t doing the heavy lifting for them on this bill. (Excuse me while I dry a tear) Sometimes it seems that there are complaints about everything the NRA does or does not do. At least the Brady campaign admits they are against everything the NRA stands for. There are some Pro-gun rights organizations that don't seem to do anything but complain about the NRA.

My personal policy is to accept what the NRA (and the TSRA) does. If it doesn't immediately seem correct, I wait and listen. Every single time, I have found there is another side to the story AND there are excellent reasons for their actions.

In the case of the clearly anti-1st amendment bill, the NRA's position is forcing some left wing organizations to spend their political capital to kill-the-bill. In shooting this is called a "Double" (or is it a TwoFer).

The NRA "carve out" may help make the bill unconstitutional. Let's hope that someone will sue to get it overturned, if it passes. It's mind boggling the rhetoric that politicians use to hide their attempts to steal our rights and ensure their continued slopping at the trough.

I'm concerned about the "principled rift" that the bill has created within the gun owning community...I've seen this discussion in some other forums (both political and gun owning forums) that too many people ARE thinking outside the box, but in this forum we absolutely have the inside scoop, and our discussion is more civil, insightful, and just plain smarter than anywhere else that I have seen, and I see a lot...That may be my problem...

Would the NRA and its membership have lost something if we had not been granted an "exemption"...Would we have still been effective in our message and efforts in the state and Federal levels of government???

I am not passing judgement, or disrespecting the efforts of those in the NRA who have worked their butts off for years to continue to prove that this is the most successful and meaningful organization to defend our right to keep and bear arms in all aspects of personal freedom and liberties ever...

I will be a cautious supporter, and be ever aware of the potential of "unintended consequences" of "legislation" like this, because that is just how I roll...Because I, and others do know how some of those elected scalliwags operate...

In this day and age where our personal freedoms and liberties are at extreme risk from a government that is gettimg wayyyyyyy too big for its britches, I will always apply the "Steve Template" to any bill or law that effects my unalienable and moral right to keep and arms, as I see fit to do so, with the fact that at the end of the day, I still have them to keep and bear...If not, we'll have a problem...

My First Amendment right to free speech and peaceable assembly, is only hindered by my ability to tap on a keyboard, or if I have a sore throat...And gas money I suppose... Ohhhh, and to continue to be able to vote...Whew, almost forgot that one!!!

I just have the means (as do many other here) to continue "talking", when that is seriously challenged or restricted by government...And I hope it never comes to that...And I'll fight to keep it from coming to that as well...

Just my opinion...

This email came from TRSA yesterday:

Disclose Act, H.R. 5175 and NRA
Dear Larry,
Below is a most recent explanation from NRA regarding their position on HR 5175. TSRA offers this to our membership without comment as we know there is a great deal of concern and a great deal of misinformation. We're attempting to bring you facts without adding to the many and varied opinions.


From NRA-June 17th


We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings-even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle - unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.


The words above are unaltered from NRA-ILA.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,


Alice Tripp
Texas State Rifle Association

Pelosi has pulled the bill.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/18/p ... close-act/

I think the NRA won at least twice. They got their deal that protected NRA members. Other orgs. spent their political capital to kill the bill.

The bill was / is bad. It should never have been discussed in congress. I am glad Pelosi has pulled it.

tomneal wrote:Pelosi has pulled the bill.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/18/p ... close-act/

I think the NRA won at least twice. They got their deal that protected NRA members. Other orgs. spent their political capital to kill the bill.

The bill was / is bad. It should never have been discussed in congress. I am glad Pelosi has pulled it.

Don't hold your breath. This Congress is like a bad habit. It keeps coming back in ways you don't expect. Today's politicians will do anything in their power to stay in office, including eviscerating the Constitution. Just because Pelosi pulled the bill today doesn't mean it won't show up somewhere else, buried as an amendment in some unrelated bill.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

I am not holding my breath.
Instead, I've got Chris Cox and the other NRA reps in Washington DC watching over the 'congresscritters'.

When the 'congresscritters' try to pull the next fast one, the NRA will be there.


I seem to have gotten a dozen emails on this subject from the GOA. The latest one admits that the bill is dead but after all the bad things they said about the NRA Selling out the 1st amendment, they were too small to admit that the NRA's tacit worked. Wow, I guess I was expecting too much.