NRA

Fox Business covers NRA’s deal with Democrats over DISCLOSE Act

Yes, the NRA sold out the First Amendment by making a deal with Democrats over the DISCLOSE Act:

H/T: Club for Growth

NRA board member slams organization over DISCLOSE Act

In an editoral at the Washington Post, Cleta Mitchell, a member of the NRA’s Board of Directors, slammed the organization for not opposing the DISCLOSE Act:

The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.

The NRA “carve-out” reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment’s precise language: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

Congress can’t help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents’ mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle.
[…]
The NRA’s wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it.

Receiving less attention than the NRA “carve-out” but no less cynical is the bill’s sop to organized labor: Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members’ dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members’ contributions to labor’s campaign-related spending wouldn’t need to be disclosed … even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes.

NRA sells out the First Amendment

The National Rifle Association has sold out on the DISCLOSE Act, which is aimed at curbing the impact of the Citizens United decision:

Bowing to pressure from the National Rifle Association, House Democrats agreed Monday to exempt the powerful gun owners’ lobby from key portions of legislation imposing new disclosure requirements on campaign advertising and other political activity.

The legislation is designed to roll back a recent Supreme Court ruling and generally requires organizations to disclose their top donors if they sponsor political television commercials or pay for mass mailings in the months leading to an election.

Democratic attempts to bring the measure to the floor faltered last month when the NRA objected, and hurried negotiations on a compromise resulted.

Under a change negotiated over the weekend, the NRA would be exempt based on its length in existence, size of membership and other factors — a concession demanded by the powerful lobby and sought by Democratic allies in the House led by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. Other organizations meeting the same set of criteria would also be exempt, but officials said late Monday they were not immediately able to name any.

Democratic aides said the leadership hoped the revised legislation could be brought to a vote before the end of the week.

Second Amendment goes back on trial before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in McDonald v. Chicago on Tuesday, a case that deals with the City of Chicago’s restrictive gun laws:

On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs. Among them is Otis McDonald, who says he is worried about the armed drug dealers on the streets in his Morgan Park neighborhood.

“I only want a handgun in my home for my protection,” said McDonald, 76.

On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city’s ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.

“If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez.
[…]
Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its “right to keep and bear arms.” It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.

What the plantiffs hope to do, in addition to bringing more reasonable gun laws to Chicago, is incorporate the Second Amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment.

Going back to the Heller case, it was fairly obvious how the court was going to rule during the oral arguments. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote and he made his views on the Second Amendment fairly clear.

SCOTUS to Hear Another Second Amendment case?

The NRA is seeking incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states:

One day after losing a major test case in an appeals court on the scope of the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association — the nation’s leading advocate of personal gun rights — asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to apply the Amendment to state, county and city government laws that seek to regulate firearms. The petition was announced by the NRA in this news release.; The petition will be posted as soon as it becomes available.

 

“Obama Sales” at Nation’s Gun Shops

See Video

Gun sales have rocketed since the election of Barack Obama on fears that he will restrict or eliminate the right  of individuals to bear arms. Obama supporters call the wave “fearmongering by the gun lobby” which has some merit, but middle America would probably rather be safe than sorry when it comes to their guns.

John McCain and the NRA

See Video

Bet he’d be glad for them to play a role in the Republican Party right now…

Change We Should Fight

One thing that has been overlooked this election cycle is Obama’s stance on gun rights. In my opinion he has been given a free-ride by the liberal “old media” and without independent organizations the issue would pretty much a non-issue. Any candidate that receives an enthusiastic endorsement by Moveon.org should be looked on with extreme suspicion by gun owners, such as myself. There is an AR-15 here in my apartment and do not be naive enough to think Obama does not want to confiscate it; the only thing stopping him is potential public outrage and independent organizations such as the GOA & NRA.

Bob Barr is Packing Heat

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment who is the political gunslinger? Let’s go beyond the rhetoric.

It’s a question we need to look at closely, especially as the election draws near. Shutting off the media circus for a bit, lets look at these candidates strictly on issues. Then see what we come up with.

Sure enough, today we got a great article to back us up.

Kevin Tracy over at ktracy.com wrote a great post laying out, quite simply, why the NRA looks positioned to endorse Bob Barr. As many of you know, the NRA endorsement is something that most Republican’s sweep each year and is considered to be one of the bigger endorsements Presidential candidates seek. Bob Dole missed out on it in 1996 with his assault gun ban flip-flop, but other than that, the NRA is usually a GOP lock. This year however, the Libertarians have fielded Bob Barr, and he isn’t just a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, he’s quite a bit more…

Ron Chimes In On Write-Ins

When Ron Paul was asked by Reason Magazines’s Dave Weigel about write-in ballots, he had this to say-

I don’t think that’s very productive,” Paul said of a write-in campaign. “They could do it, of course, but in most of the states it won’t count. If they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!”


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.