« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

An NRA Board Member Takes on the NRA

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 17th, 2010 at 08:43 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Cleta Mitchell is a member of the NRA’s board and the kind soul who reviewed my CNN contract for me. She’s a terrific champion of liberty and is in the Washington Post this morning with some harsh words for the NRA.

[T]he NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind. . . .

The [Disclose] act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association.

It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes.

This is not just “disclosure.” It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • spainishirish

    Again, if the NRA doesn’t get this carve out and Congress passes this law and the USSC upholds it, who will speak for Second Amendment rights? That’s right, no one.

    The problem, again, is that we cannot count on our own party’s Senators to filibuster this legislation. There is no dancing around that point…which Ms. Mitchells acknowledges. The NRA would be ill-serving its members if it didn’t lobby to get this carve out. I don’t like that it is even needed, but given how CFR came about in the first place I realize it is needed.

  • spainishirish

    Again, if the NRA doesn’t get this carve out and Congress passes this law and the USSC upholds it, who will speak for Second Amendment rights? That’s right, no one.

    The problem, again, is that we cannot count on our own party’s Senators to filibuster this legislation. There is no dancing around that point…which Ms. Mitchells acknowledges. The NRA would be ill-serving its members if it didn’t lobby to get this carve out. I don’t like that it is even needed, but given how CFR came about in the first place I realize it is needed.

  • Tbone

    We will assume that in the fine traditions of democracy, Cleta will seek to overthrow the current administration of the NRA or in the fine traditions of personal integrity resign from the Board.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    The Democrats *did not have the votes* to pass the Disclose Act without the NRA cutting the deal.

  • spainishirish

    Perhaps rather than attacking our allies we should be trying to remove via the primaries those GOP Senators who won’t filibuster this monstrosity. I’m thinking Arizona, right? The NRA protected itself because it has enough clout with both parties. I cannot fault the organization one bit because of what I wrote above. I don’t believe a Blue Dog Democrat, by the way, any more than I do the WaPo was watching out for gunower rights this morning.

    We had a party standardbearer in John McCain who conducted the greatest assault on the First Amendment in the modern era. This set about a chain of events—CFR, Citizens United, this abomination. The NRA, from strictly a single-issue perspective, acted quite wisely based on this history.

    We need to clean up our own house before we alienate people more often than not aligned with us.

  • Tbone

    There is no way the far left Dems will vote for the bill with the carve-out in it.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Democrats did not have the votes *in the House* let alone in the Senate to get this passed without the NRA.

    But they have the votes now thanks to the NRA.

  • spainishirish

    You assume Pelosi couldn’t have come up with enough votes in the House. Two words: Bart Stupak. So the NRA would have been ( a) forced to believe the Blue Dogs would not fall into the leadership’s line, and (b) they could trust Republican senators. Any sensate being on this planet would know both are unlikely propositions based on recent history.

    Again, the Granddaddy of All First Amendment Restrictions–which set into motion this assault on the First Amendment–has a challenger in the Arizona GOP primary. Shouldn’t we ask the candidates there how they feel about DISCLOSE and make endorsements accordingly?

    Finally, is the NRA carve out such an abomination that you would suggest GOP candidates refuse its money and endorsements this cycle?

    I’m out of this circular firing squad now. I don’t support DISCLOSE in any shape, manner or fashion. I support the NRA nonetheless. I vote Republican although the party has elected officials who will vote for DISCLOSE and who oppose the NRA. This is just another self-destructive—and pointless—attack on a natural ally of our party. I’m putting down the rifle and doing something more constructive than attacking the most successful single-issue organization in the history of lobbying, one which doles out millions of dollars mostly to our guys.

  • seandparnell

    Senator McCain seems to have recognized the DISCLOSE Act for what it is – a partisan effort to silence voices that tend to favor Republicans, while allowing those voices that tend to favor Democrats to speak. He has not signed on as a sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, and has given every indication that he will not vote for it.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • seandparnell

    Looks like regulation of internet bloggers is still alive under the DISCLOSE Act:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/16/162922/287

    Don’t worry, though, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee promises he’ll fix it. I’m guessing that makes you feel better…

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • Tbone
  • daviddenholm

    I’m an NRA life member and I say shame on them. It is ludicrous to believe that those of us who believe in freedom would stop supporting it if our names were to be disclosed. There is a far greater danger in the DISCLOSE Act. It invades freedom giving government to right to regulate and punish political speech. If the NRA had the power to stop this abuse and sold out for its own exemption, shame on them.

  • unfatmatt

    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.

    Should you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again at any time.

    Sincerely,
    Michael Land
    NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

  • Flagstaff

    “They came for the businessmen and no one spoke up,” etc., comes to mind.

    The First Amendment has been left undefended for too long, but it may not be too late. Reminder: It says

    Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….

    The argument hasn’t been made that any law that affects free speech in any way abridges it, even if it supposedly promotes it or levels the playing field.

    A Supreme Court that can’t see the error in CFR has become part of the problem, not the solution.

    Rush Limbaugh compared the current regime in DC to organized crime, which led me to wonder, What is the difference between the Obama Regime and Organized Crime? Organized Crime doesn’t have its own court system to issue final decrees in its favor.

  • aesthete

    on the right, the ACLU isn’t too shabby when it comes to defending the First Amendment, particularly in the case of extreme outliers (they represented the Nazis marching in Skokie, IN, for instance). They have in the past represented several homeschool families, and other such groups, as well. They have fallen down on the job a few times, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of a more reliable ally as far as the First Amendment goes (they’re simply awful on the Second, though). Personally, I wish that the right would reach out to and co-opt the ACLU, or establish its own First Amendment advocacy organization, and it strikes me as odd that one hasn’t sprung up already.

    At any rate, I’m glad that they moved away from Bork’s asinine opinion that the First only protects political speech. As much as I like and respect the guy, he was pretty much off the reservation on that issue.

  • unfatmatt

    From a wiser man than I:

    “We have never said we would support any version of this bill.”

    No one accused them of that. For instance, they won’t support the version that doesn’t exempt them. Only the version that lets them cut a special deal for themselves.

    “we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced)”

    But not as amended…

  • Flagstaff

    pornography and flag-burning. (Musical strains of “The Stars and Stripes Forever”)

    Not so much in defending conservative political speech. (crickets chirping)

  • aesthete

    in the past. Like I said, it has represented homeschoolers in the past, and from time to time, churches. Its record is not so good when it comes to government speech (its position is that public funding shouldn’t go towards religious displays). If I recall, there are a couple of suits pending against the Obama administration that have ACLU fingerprints on them.

    At any rate, my question still stands: if the ACLU is that terrible, what is the right-wing or non-partisan equivalent? If there isn’t one, why isn’t there? I’d think that the right would be the natural home for protectors of our First Amendment rights (sans Bork and his unfortunate blind spot on that issue).

  • Flagstaff

    Mountain States Legal Foundation

    That doesn’t mean they’re always right, either.

    it has represented homeschoolers in the past

    How long past?

  • aesthete

    I think this year they represented one in California, as well.

    Thanks for the info on MSLF; I’ll look into them.

  • gjpruden

    Spanishirish,

    There’s a reason the first ten amendments are viewed as a whole–the Bill of Rights: take away any one and the rest are destroyed. Sacrificing the rights of one group in order defend those of another is a slippery slope that will lead to the rights of all groups being usurped.

    I left the NRA yesterday after a decade of membership. I began considering it years ago when I discovered its sychophantic love of Harry Reid. This carve-out and–worse–the defense the NRA gives for it (which you’re parroting here) just sealed the deal. I suggest other members resign their membership and join The Gun Owners of America.

  • klondike

    The Thomas More Law Center. It is Christian based but its fight for protecting Christians dovetails with the First Amendment.

    Check this out:

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Lloyd/rees102.htm

    The Thomas More Law Center’s home page is here:

    http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=14

    You won’t like what you read on the first page about the AIG bailout funding Islamic Jihad.

    The TMLC operates much in the same way as the ACLU as far as offering services to those it represents at no charge, except TMLC depends on donations to fund it. The ACLU, on the other hand, is paid with taxpayer money whenever it wins a lawsuit.

  • usnret88

    Devide and conquer has always worked well, and apparently still is effective. Dont forget to vot’em out in Nov.

  • minncon

    … organized crime is “fiscally responsible”… or their leaders pay with their lives. Just ask Bugsy Siegel.

  • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

    NRA’s unpersuasive argument that it is a single-issue organization,i.e. the protection of 2nd Amendment righs, is infuriatingly simple-minded and shortsighted. I am glad Ms. Mitchell had to wherewithall to point that out. NRA’s making a deal with the progressive left to abridge First Amerndment rights in order to protect the 2nd Amerndment is tantamount to a suicide pact. Hasn’t it learned anything from history? Dealing with the devil to protect your own turf is exactly what the German people did and they soon lost it all anyway. This sort of dishonorable compromising with the left should not be condoned by an self-respecting NRA member. The Constitution and the Republic MUST always come first.

  • radicalamericanpatriot

    Thank God people ignore the NRA endorsements of incumbents, which come for ANYONE who pretends to support 2nd Amendment rights. Look at John McCain, whom they called “a friend to Enemies of the 2nd Amendment” and giving him a “C-” rating vs. Hayworth’s “A” rating! The NRA is just another “inside the Beltway” group getting fat off the pretense of supporting our rights.

    Gun Owners of America is a MUCH better organization deserving our support.
    Here is their link: http://www.gunowners.org/

  • spiff

    I have been a Life Member since 1962 and think it’s about time to change the NRA management. They have become too big a business and too little a defender of our Rights.
    Spiff

  • stang52

    During this whole sorry episode I’m reminded of the words of one of our founding fathers: ‘ we must all hang together or surely we’ll all hang seperately’ This NRA ‘cut out’ is wrong on so many levels. I’m an NRA Endowment Life Member and I’m totally disappointed in the NRA leadership on this. I’ve written them and told and encouraged all my friends who are NRA members to do so. Just as it’s time to clean house at the leadership of the GOP, it appears it’s time to clean house at NRA HQ.

  • leehazel

    Can someone explain to me why we have the situation of the two primary Second Amendment Gun Rights support organizations at loggerheads at this very dangerous time.
    This is rank stupidity at a number of levels.
    The United States has never had a greater threat to Second and First amendment rights than that posed by this administration, its’ lapdog Congress, its’ drooling and leg shaking media and local idiots in cities and towns all over the country that want “Gun Control”.
    This is not the time for stupid and self defeating infighting. Does anybody maybe see that the Libs are loving this and will foster this “fight” any way they can.
    Suck it up folks. YOU ARE AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY. As a former Air Force Officer and Vietnam veteran and avid supporter of our constitutional rights (All of them) I am asking you to remove the “Stupid” stamp on your foreheads and bury this particular hatchet. Now is not the time for infighting.

  • MF

    They had strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced). They will not support even the act as amended. But here’s the key – they will not OPPOSE the act as amended. They will take a neutral position. That’s very different from not supporting it. The bill needs strong opposition, even with the carveout. The NRA cares only about what’s in it for them, not for what’s right.

  • MF

    American Civil Rights Union, http://theacru.org, is a very good conservative group that I follow regularly.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • mikie40

    Try reading exactly what the NRA has stated. They did not enter into a deal with the Dems. The Dems handed them an exemption. The NRA has not ?endorsed? this crap bill. Some of this bills supporters have bailed because the Dems gave this exemption to the NRA. Pelosi has pulled the bill! The NRA won without fighting thus saving US members a whole lot of money. As I told another national gun rights group, ?now is not the time to be attacking each other?. The NRA has not supported ?ANY? version of this bill. For the stupid people here that are putting words in the NRA?s mouth, stop being like the Dems.
    unfatmatt said; ?We have never said we would support any version of this bill.?
    No one accused them of that. For instance, they won?t support the version that doesn?t exempt them. Only the version that lets them cut a special deal for themselves.
    ?we clearly stated NRA?s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced)?
    But not as amended?
    Here is a perfect example of self interpitation. The NRA does not support this act at all. I have to wonder which side unfatmatt is on. Are you just an agitator that came here for the sake of helping your new God Obamanation? Most of you are uninformed. Get the information before you start venting at the people that are on your side. Again, The NRA has not supported ?ANY? version of this bill. If they do, it will be suicide for them and they know it. Redstate should also get the facts straight before attacking our friends. Shame on you!!!

  • unfatmatt

    Has the NRA announced opposition to the bill? (They’ve said they won’t support it, but have they said anything about opposing it?)

    Did they oppose gun-grabber Eric Holder’s nomination?

    Will they support Harry Reid for U.S. Senate this year? (Sure he’s pro-gun, but he’s shredding every other bit of the Constitution, which increases the potential for needing the 2nd Amendment.)

  • unfatmatt

    Tom interviewed Wayne LaPierre on Sunday’s show during hour 2.

    http://guntalk.libsyn.com/index.php?post_category=podcasts