« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Wall Street Journal Takes the NRA to Task For Its Sell Out to the Left

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 16th, 2010 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Wall Street Journal has a fantastic editorial about just how awful the NRA’s carveout deal with the Democrats is.

The NRA may swing a big lobbying stick by virtue of the breadth and voting power of its members, but it draws its legitimacy from the Constitution and it has drawn support on gun rights from those who care about the entire Bill of Rights. Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run.

Made more awful is the NRA’s own statement in support of its carveout. Get a load of this:

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Does the NRA think it alone defends the second amendment? I ask because there are other legitimate gun groups out there like Gun Owners of America. But as the Wall Street Journal notes, based on the compromise language the NRA got in the bill, it is the only organization in America that anyone can find that meets the criteria. Planned Parenthood doesn’t meet the criteria, the Sierra Club does not, Citizens United does not, etc. etc. etc. Just the NRA.

This is not about the second amendment. This is clearly not about “ensur[ing] maximum access to the First Amendment.” This is about the NRA securing an earmark of constitutional protection for itself to turn itself into a monopoly.

That is, in fact, the key. This provision gives the NRA a monopoly that they are perfectly happy to use to shutdown other freedom loving, pro-second amendment groups that should be viewed as their allies, but instead are viewed as competition.

It is also disgusting.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • chihank

    NRA tends to support incumbents. Back in 2004, the NRA backed Specter over Toomey, Brad Carson over Tom Coburn, and Harry Reid.

    Also Southern Dem Governors have been elected with help from the NRA.

    Creigh Deeds received NRA support over Bob McDonnell in the Attorney General contest in 2005.

  • romeg

    The NRA thinks that they (alone?) can preserve the First Amendment by going wobbly on the Second Amendment? Is that what they are trying to say?

    In what parallel universe does it think that Congress will be able to get away for, more than one Presidential Election Cycle, with attempting end runs around the Constitution? They tried it with McCain-Feingold and got smacked down for their trouble.

    WE, The People, must maintain our vigilance against ANY elected official that would countenance such an act and be prepared to drive him not just from office but from politics altogether.

    The NRA may argue that without the First Amendment there can be no Second Amendment. I would submit that without the Second Amendment, there would be no Constitution. My basis for this is in the very first phrase of the Second Amendment itself: “A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the maintenance of a Free State…”. Hamilton and the other Founders recognized the danger of concentrating power into the hands of a few, regardless of how benevolent they may claim to be. The Second Amendment is the ultimate Check and Balance on those powers.

  • GenEarly

    Is that like some laws apply to some citizens and not to other citizens?
    Like Obamacare for you and me but not for Congress? Carve Outs are the problem not the solution!
    Too big to fail will be the next thing I hear from the NRA sheeples If you can?t SEE that CARVE OUTS are a big government usurpation of our freedoms you have become as deluded as the enemy. (Foreign and Domestic)
    Is the NRA immune to Beltway Madness, or Appeasement? Apparently NOT.

  • spainishirish

    It is precisely because the NRA is non-partisan that we have any gun rights left at all. The NRA will endorse a rabid left-winger like Leahy who supports gun rights, and oppose a Republican like Rudy who opposes them. Thus it has been from the beginning. It is the ultimate single issue lobby.

    Now, you can argue that Gun Owners of America, ad nauseum,, are “better.” From a purely partisan stance, and I normally take one, they are better. From a pragmatic standpoint, though, there would be no Gun Owners of America and no gun rights at all if the NRA had been purely partisan in years past.

    I dislike anything that restricts First Amendment Rights. But from a strictly self-serving standpoint, the NRA has carved out an exception that will allow it to continue to lobby for our rights to bear arms. You may not like it–I don’t, either–but it is effective. And if, God fobid, the USSC upholds this latest assault on our free speech rights, at least one organization will be out there to protect the Second Amendment.

    This is the cold reality. Blast me if you want, but question whether or not this isn’t true in the process.

  • spainishirish

    It is precisely because the NRA is non-partisan that we have any gun rights left at all. The NRA will endorse a rabid left-winger like Leahy who supports gun rights, and oppose a Republican like Rudy who opposes them. Thus it has been from the beginning. It is the ultimate single issue lobby.

    Now, you can argue that Gun Owners of America, ad nauseum,, are “better.” From a purely partisan stance, and I normally take one, they are better. From a pragmatic standpoint, though, there would be no Gun Owners of America and no gun rights at all if the NRA had been purely partisan in years past.

    I dislike anything that restricts First Amendment Rights. But from a strictly self-serving standpoint, the NRA has carved out an exception that will allow it to continue to lobby for our rights to bear arms. You may not like it–I don’t, either–but it is effective. And if, God fobid, the USSC upholds this latest assault on our free speech rights, at least one organization will be out there to protect the Second Amendment.

    This is the cold reality. Blast me if you want, but question whether or not this isn’t true in the process.

  • Tbone

    and the majority of participants are here to view everything from a partisan perspective. As such, while I understand their angst about the NRA supporting both Dems and Republicans, if you look at the list it is heavily weighted on the Republican side.

  • spainishirish

    The latter are quite popular here at RedState although they support Democrats, too. Those Democrats include and I suspect still include the Bart Stupaks of the world (maybe not him in particular but his type). The NRA will pull the plug on a MoC or Senator who votes to curtail gun rights, or at least support what it views as the lesser of the two evils on the issue.

    At least the NRA is honest about its mission. Groups like the NRLC and so forth give us Doug Kmiecs.

    My point isn’t to dump on the NRLC and so forth but to point out this gigantic contradiction. I don’t read too much criticism here of “pro-life” groups that support Democrats, even those who sign onto government-funded abortions from time to time. Maybe I missed those criticisms but I certainly didn’t see them.

    Of course you are right about the majority of the NRA’s support goes to Republicans. But that is beside the point. That group walks the walk and focuses on a single issue.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    and it preserves the NRA’s ability fight for the 2nd, it shows the timidity to actually take the fight to the enemy and fight for THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TO FIGHT FOR THE SECOND.

  • romeg

    impair any other of the natural, God-given rights protected by the Bill of Rights is not an act of partisanship; it is an act of treason.

    After all, it was George Dubya Bush, a gun-owning Republican who naively believed that it would be declared unconstitutional, that signed McCain-Feingold into law.

    Attempts to curtail political speech is a clear violation of the First Amendment and anyone who would support such legislation or those sponsoring such legislation is no patriot.

    The NRA should disavow such activity and seek to defeat those who would support such limitations on the First Amendment.

  • Locked and Loaded

    If the NRA is being honest and doesn’t advocate for the First Amendment, why did they sign on to Citizens United in the Supreme Court? What about McConnell v. FEC? These cases had everything to do with the First Amendment and no direct ties to the Second.

    Do you and Tbone really think the NRA is not going to be dealt a serious blow by this action? The membership is going to be ticked; I already am. This is exactly the kind of behavior that Tea Party revolutionists are fed up with, and I feel quite certain you will find many NRA members at any given Tea Party. Also, do you really think any of the dirty, double-dealing congressmen will not come for the NRA as soon as they are ready? Remember what Feinstein said? BTW, are you both forgetting that the reason for the legislation being considered is to undermine the very recent opinion handed down by the Supreme Court in Citizens United, the one in which NRA claimed victiory? The NRA is now playing along as a crony in this legislation, and has pitted the organization against all who oppose it. That is downright idiotic. It could even be viewed as tyranny, seeing how the carve-out is based on their size and time in existence. It absolutely is treacherous.

    I am a Life Member of the NRA, and I don’t have much money to donate to political causes, but the GOA will get membership money from me before the NRA gets any.

  • Tbone

    “THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TO FIGHT FOR THE SECOND.”

    Winner, winner.

  • Tbone

    for those who deserve it.

  • romeg

    of the very foundation of this republic?

  • unfatmatt

    It’s not the NRA whose case is before the Supreme Court in McDonald. It’s not the NRA which argued Heller. It’s not the NRA which is defending all of our first amendment rights. I’m done sending my money to a group which lies to members by touting victories in which they weren’t involved, by taking credit owed to other groups like 2nd Amendment Foundation.

    My money will go to Alan Gura and the 2nd Amendment Foundation. I’m tired of the lies and rationalization for supporting the NRA. Their “big stick” has been used to beat down the other 1st Amendment groups, and I refuse to be a member of such an organization.

  • spainishirish

    It is pure self interest. The NRA signed onto Citizens United and McConnell because it would have been out in the cold. It has signed onto the carve out so it won’t be out in the cold. If the NRA doesn’t have access to free speech it cannot use the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment.

    Again, if not for the NRA there would be no knock-offs like the Gun Owners of America, let alone gun rights, in the United States. If the NRA had chosen a partisan path the Mini-Mes like GOA along with our right to bear arms would not be here. Period. The NRA has taken the current path because given how the USSC reacted to CFR there is no guarantee it could be effective if this wretched legislation were passed. I personally oppose this horrible attempt to chill speech but I’m also realistic enough to know the Supreme Court is not reliable to overturn it.

    Now, you may not like that–it is seemingly contradictory– and you are certainly free to donate to whomever you choose. But given the choice between the most effective singl-issue lobby in the history of mankind and the shadows it created, I’ll take the Big Dog and then vote how I like and support the causes I like. And when it comes to protection of my gun rights, I know who is effective and the sole purpose for which they exist.

  • Locked and Loaded

    I guess the NRA should start making this one of the factors on its ratings of legislators then, don’t you think?

    You are saying the NRA is a single issue organization, yet you belie that assertion when you recognize they must necessary fight a 1A battle. And the fact remains, they threw under the bus all 2A supporters who happen to not belong to the NRA.

    Now, you make another very critical error in your selfish thinking. NRA has, through its actions, actually made this law more likely to pass. Yet you admit you don’t trust the SCOTUS to overturn it. So you must be prepared to live with it. Now, what’s to keep the SC from striking the carve-out from the law and leaving all other provisions intact? You have heard of equal protection under the law, haven’t you? Or do you suppose the unreliable SC that would allow the law to stand would reliably uphold the NRA’s right to exemption from it?

  • spainishirish

    This cannot become law in the first place if all oppose this legislation in the Senate. So I strongly suggest your argument is with any of our GOP senators and MoC’s who support this legislation and you should work vigorously to oppose them. The NRA is, in fact, acting in self-interest with this carve out. It obviously doesn’t trust our Republican senators and MoC’s. Therein lies the problem.

    Now to your specific points. The only way single-issue organizations can be effecitve is to have freedom of speech. The NRA has the clout to have this special exception cut out for them. The NRA doesn’t have one vote in the Senate or the House but used its influence to protect its power. I submit that is what any good single-issue group would and should do. The NRA didn’t throw anyone under the bus because it stayed on it. The only ones who could do such a thing are in the House and Senate. And, again, if a Republican senator signs onto this legislations–which I abhor, in case you missed it–therein lies your beef. I certainly will work to defeat anyone who supports this legislation, yet I can carry two competing thoughts in my head and understand why the NRA wants to buy insurance.

    And how, exactly, has the NRA made this law more likely to pass? The only persons who can do that are in the Senate and in the House.

    So here is the NRA’s problem. It can either believe 41 Republican senators will block this horrific legislation or it can protect itself. Frankly, I think from their perspective they have made the right decision.

    Now I’m too vested in winning elections this fall to continue to join in this circular firing squad. If you want to take out an organization that supports twice as many Republicans as it does Democrats, and actually protects our Second Amendment rights, have at it. I will work to defeat this bill, elect Republicans, and protect Second Amendment rights (along with First Amendment rights). If that is too contradictory or complicated for you and others on this website God help us come November.

    I’m through with this one. But I hope people can get a grip and direct their ire where it is deserved.