NRA and H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act

[Bobrob]

And yet not one penny of your $35 can be used to fight crap like this bill, it is Illegal to use membership fees for lobbying.
That is why we get all that junk mail from the NRA-ILA, that's where the funds for legislative action are raised.
Wouldn't AG Holder love to "get" NRA on something stupid like that?

So Bottom line, withholding your $35 doesn't take money away from the funds to fight bad bills.

 

[Danny]

But, withholding your $35.00 does take away a membership. The only reason the NRA is as strong as it is, is because there are 4,000,000 voices behind them. Taking away your membership weakens the NRA.

 

[AKmoose]

From the NRA/ILA on their stance. They are there to protect the 2nd above all else.

Setting The Record Straight On The “DISCLOSE Act”


Friday, June 18, 2010


We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We’d like to set the record straight.

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’ right to privacy and 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 introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, 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 should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a non-partisan, 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.

Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position—including the Brady Campaign—have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.

No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.

 

[vvvvvvv]

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say-unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

According to the NRA, there is no risk to the Second Amendment if you silence all groups smaller than the NRA.

 

[Danny]

According to the NRA, there is no risk to the Second Amendment if you silence all groups smaller than the NRA.

I still don't understand why you think they should care.

They don't exist for other groups. They don't exist to protect those smaller groups right to free speech. They only exist to represent their members when it comes to issues involving the 2nd amendment.

It's like wanting a policeman to show up and try to put out a house fire.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I still don't understand why you think they should care.

They don't exist for other groups. They don't exist to protect those smaller groups right to free speech. They only exist to represent their members when it comes to issues involving the 2nd amendment.

It's like wanting a policeman to show up and try to put out a house fire.

I never said, nor intended to imply, that the NRA should care about anything but the Second Amendment, because that is not their purpose.

The beef that I have is their recent streak of acting like a prosecutor trying to protect a W/L record and accepting concessions for a so-called victory.

Their changing to a neutral stance from a prior strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act once they got an exemption for them and other huge political action groups was the brightest signal that they have emitted that they believe they should somehow be on a pedestal above any other interest group. It also affirmed that they are one with the arrogant elitists that make up most of Washington.

The ONLY reason I signed up with the NRA was a recommendation from my CCW class instructor. My money speak for me much better if I maintain control.

This issue was the final straw for me and is why I am NOT funding the NRA anymore.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's like wanting a policeman to show up and try to put out a house fire.

Not really. It's more like wanting a policeman to show up and arrest the arson playing with matches.

Woody