The American Spectator : Caught in the Crossfire

Text Size

Caught in the Crossfire

By W. James Antle, III from the September 2010 issue

The NRA has its opponents outgunned but suddenly finds itself in a shooting match with fellow conservatives.

In a ritual as predictable as hunting season, it's another election year and people are once again gunning for the National Rifle Association. Only this time the powerful gun-rights group and bête noire of the left is taking friendly fire -- from activists on the right who are growing increasingly impatient with the NRA for taking stands at odds with the rest of the conservative movement.

"I'm beside myself," veteran conservative leader Richard Viguerie told TAS. "It's really sad. The NRA's leadership has become part of the problem in Washington." While Viguerie's tone is more in sorrow than in anger, Erick Erickson of the popular conservative blog RedState has emerged as scathing critic of the NRA, calling it "a weak little girl of an organization."

"There are few organizations purportedly on the side of freedom that aggravate me more than the National Rifle Association," Erickson wrote in June. "In fact, these days I cringe when I see good conservatives with their lifetime member sticker from the NRA on the back of their cars." During the confirmation process for Elena Kagan, Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice complained to the Washington Times, "The NRA has misunderstood what the fight is about."

What irks these conservatives is the sense that the mighty NRA -- a 4 million-member, $307 million organization -- has become too pragmatic in the use of its power: too willing to compromise with Democrats, too cautious in its approach to Second Amendment litigation, too slow to oppose liberal judicial nominees, and too willing to settle for a place at the table in liberal-occupied Washington.

AT FIRST THE GRUMBLING was muted. Why didn't the NRA oppose Eric Holder for attorney general? Why did it take so long to come out against President Obama's Supreme Court nominees? Then an issue not directly related to guns brought conservative discontent out into the open. In June, Congress was debating a campaign-finance reform bill called the Disclose Act, which imposed disclosure requirements so onerous that many nonprofits and activist groups felt it would prevent them from engaging in any effective campaign season political activity whatsoever.

House Democratic leaders granted the NRA and a handful of other groups a carefully crafted exemption from the Disclose Act's requirements, causing the gun-rights group to drop its opposition to the bill entirely. This freed up additional Blue Dog Democrats, fearful of alienating the NRA so close to an election, to vote for it. The bill ultimately passed the House, though at this writing it remains stalled in the Senate.

Conservative reaction to the carve-out was fast and furious. Spokesmen for economic, social, and national-security groups still battered by the Disclose Act complained they were being "thrown under the bus." The Wall Street Journal blasted the NRA for being "arrogant and hypocritical" in an editorial headlined, "The NRA sells out to Democrats on the First Amendment." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups tried to dissuade the NRA from accepting the Democrats' offer, which Chamber spokesmen Bruce Josten told Politico "undercut not only our [position] but another 100,000 other nonprofits."

NRA board member Cleta Mitchell took the unprecedented step of penning an op-ed for the Washington Post dissenting from this decision, though her most direct criticisms were of the House Democrats. "This is not just 'disclosure.' It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech," Mitchell wrote. "There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else."

Alan Gura, a Second Amendment lawyer with a history of clashes with the NRA, asked TAS, "Would they trade a hereditary monarchy with the Obama administration in exchange for better gun laws?" Says Viguerie, "This is not 'all for one.' This is 'all for ourselves.'" Erickson mocked the Disclose deal by reproducing an NRA press release in which Wayne LaPierre called the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision "a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us."

CRITICISM OF THE NRA from other, smaller gun-rights groups is nothing new. These organizations have long felt more combative tactics were needed to protect the Second Amendment. Larry Pratt, the longtime executive director of Gun Owners of America, told TAS that the NRA "is resigned to working within the system as it is when instead it needs to be restored to what it should be." Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership agreed. "Our members, many of whom are former NRA members, believe the NRA doesn't want the problem of gun control to go away," Zelman says. "If the problem goes away, then so do their six-figure salaries."

What is new is public criticism of the NRA from other organizations in the conservative movement. "We've talked a lot about what the NRA is doing," says one conservative activist. "But not a lot of us have wanted to come out and attack them." That changed when conservatives ranging from the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins to climate change skeptic Myron Ebell expressed their unhappiness with the NRA's behavior concerning the Disclose Act. House Minority Leader John Boehner was particularly blunt.

"Now the NRA are the big defenders of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the right to bear arms," the Ohio Republican said in a House floor speech after the gun lobby backed the Disclose Act. "But yet they think it's all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all the rules outlined in this bill, and frankly, I think it's disappointing."

Endorsements have also become a point of contention. Last year, liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava-the liberal Republican who eventually dropped out and endorsed the Democratic candidate-was the NRA endorsee in the special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. This year, in one of the most closely watched gubernatorial races in the country, the NRA endorsed Ohio's Democratic governor Ted Strickland over Republican former congressman John Kasich. A Republican pickup in the Buckeye State would greatly help the GOP's national fortunes and would be an important bellwether for 2012.

The NRA also threw its support behind Sen. John McCain in Arizona as he was trying to fend off a conservative primary challenge from former Congressman J. D. Hayworth. Both Republicans had generally pro-gun voting records, but there were glaring blemishes on McCain's. McCain led the charge to close the so-called "gun show loophole," touting legislation that would have effectively banned private sales at gun shows and licensed promoters.

In 2004, McCain voted for a bill that contained both his gun show measure and an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would have extended the federal assault weapons bans. McCain had initially voted against Feinstein but continued to support the whole legislative package after her amendment passed. Finally, McCain-Feingold was bitterly opposed by the NRA and almost every other conservative group for more than a decade. Hayworth won the Gun Owners of America endorsement.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (71) | Leave a comment

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 6:41AM

The NRA officers wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and with a straight face say "the Second Amendment is safe because of me and the NRA".

With that very self serving belief, anything they see as good for the NRA is by definition good for the Second Amendment. Hence NRA officers can with genuinely good conscience support the DISCLOSE Act. And when Cox responded to my letter of polite but firm criticism of the NRA for supporting the DISCLOSE Act with standard boilerplate stating "some critics of the NRA think a FIRST Amendment issue should take precedence over SECOND Amendment rights", I wrote back with Dietrich Bonhoeffer's words. Cox did not choose to respond to that.

The NRA suffers from the same disease as all large Washington based advocacy groups do, like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association [AOPA] that I also belong to. They all are terrified of being perceived of being anti one party, so they maintain a religious zealot's narrow view of right and wrong, see the Strickland/Kasich case in Antle's article, all the details of which are exactly correct. But the reality is that effect on the nation is party driven, and all anti gun possession laws do originate with the Democrat Party, just as all environmental legislation that has run up the cost of avgas and made general aviation unaffordable has originated with the Democrat Party. But these large Washington based advocacy groups refuse to face the big picture, and in the process refuse to face the real problem.

And if you don't face the real problem, you can't fix it.

BG| 9.17.10 @ 3:20PM

Absolutely correct!

To believe that only the 2nd ammendment is at risk in these high stake times is simply rank arrogance and stupidity!

The NRA must see and responsibly address the larger picture, or continue to decline in our support.

Reid throws a bone and the NRA, like a good dog, is too happy to obey in re-empowering the cancer of Reid and his other foibles, all of which will in the end throw the Constitution out in its entirety -- for that is what the Radiacal are all about.... That is their end game!

Though the NRA defendsively claims its sole duty is to protect the 2nd ammendment, this kind of parcing of the argument is literally Progressive in its structure, but not in its execution. Radicals want us only to focus on the smaller argument...so as to forget how all the peices fit together. For them, it is a planned distraction. Planned, I say, so that they can undercut and circumvent their real enemy.... the US Constitution itself.

As a pilot, my lift may come from the product of my airfoils and the thrust of my engines, but if I don't mind the necessity and welfare of my tires in the process, I will, I promise you, lose everthing that I thought flying "free" was all about! I will crash and burn.... The NRA is very close in aiding and abetting the enemy... how very liberal of them!

Wake up NRA! or those whose table you will be sitting, will be without "We the People."

Gerald Stephens| 9.17.10 @ 6:14PM

It is time to HUMBLE the groveling bastards. Put your support and dues to work with any one of the other bona fide organizations.

Alan Brooks| 9.18.10 @ 1:11AM

I'm all in favor of gun rights: in case David Duke ever becomes president, one between the eyes at the Inauguration.

Burn Confederate Flags, Not Korans

Jim In Houston| 9.18.10 @ 9:07AM

Be careful what you say...this is an open threat.

Tom| 9.18.10 @ 12:41PM

David Duke? Is that your best Alan?

Why burn either? What purpose is served that cannot be served better in other ways? The only reason to burn either is to garner publicity for self-aggrandizement. Meaningless jestures from meaningless people.

Chalkdust| 9.18.10 @ 11:22PM

Mr. Brooks:
So it's David Duke you see when the lights go out at night.

Alan Brooks| 9.18.10 @ 11:51PM

No thanks; even though Duke is cute I'm not a Log Cabin Republican sort. It is a misnoner anyway; they are Stabbin' Cabin Republicans-- not Log Cabin Republicans.
BTW it wasn't an open threat, anymore than veiled threats of rightwing revolution, tea party, and gun rights (i.e. not all guns are used to hunt FOUR legged critters) are exactly open threats.
But if Gus Hall had become president, what would you have done? sit there and done nothing? Hell no.

Mostly though:
if far rightists can diss N. England or the Left Coast, I can diss Dixie. And I will-- until far rightists lay off their attacks. From now on, tit for tat.

Tim*| 9.19.10 @ 9:48AM

Uh Oh ! It's Brooks , Trash Talkin' The South .

audax| 9.20.10 @ 3:34AM

Alan Brooks is unhinged from reality.

Beboper| 9.21.10 @ 5:00AM

It's incendiary comments like yours that attract the most unwarranted attention and cast the rest of the truly concerned discussion participants in an especially disfavorable light. One could almost imagine someone like you might be an agent of the opposition doing just that purposely. In any case, your ill advised suggestions of criminal conduct are unacceptable and should be cleansed from this board.

Henry Bowman| 10.22.10 @ 5:04PM

"The NRA must see and responsibly address the larger picture… Though the NRA defendsively claims its sole duty is to protect the 2nd ammendment"

The ironic part is, if you read the NRA's original charter, it clearly states that its first goal is to protect THE CONSTITUTION. So LaPierre and Cox don't even understand their own organization.

Kenny| 9.17.10 @ 6:45AM

I left the NRA to join the Gun Owners of America (GOA).

The NRA has grown too fat and too comfortable with the Washington, D.C. crowd.

I hope the NRA is listening to all the negative feedback they're getting. To some extent they must be, as the organization's love affaire with Harry Reid has somewhat cooled -- only somewhat.

Sean| 9.17.10 @ 7:30AM

I encourage everyone to join Gun Owners of America

Nancy in NC| 9.17.10 @ 4:15PM

Like almost everything that gets too big, the NRA has lost its way. We need to forget to pay our dues, and then tell them why.

What good is going to do for me to have 2nd amendment rights, when all the others ones are gone?

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 6:54AM

The Disclose Act was the last act for me. I have been an on again off again supporter of the NR for may years, even contemplating the Life membership option but began to see the endorsement of McLame as another mark against them and decided not to go along with the idea. I have since received their usual membership renewal form in the mail and sent it back to them with a no thank option. Haven't heard from them since.
The one thing this organization should avail itself to is the protection of the words "shall not be infringed" period, regarding the Second Amendment, all else is mere political playing around the edges of the issue. I have since joined AGA, American Gun-owners Association and receive timely pros's and con's regarding the issues of my interest , that is all I wanted from the NRA from the get go. They have not always endorsed me or my interest, "shall not be infringed" for a very long time and I see it as fitting to go to where the money is spent in the most conservative fashion, leave the least qualified mentality behind. The very fact that many CONgress critters, Senate members, and the view from a large segment of the public is constantly skirting around the fringes of my right to defend myself, family and community is enough to make me rather angry most of the time regarding this issue. How does one defend their rights when others are on the move to impale them from the arrows of the progressive quiver. It won't work, either I am going to have the right to own a hand-gun, a black rifle, or a knife of my choosing and make no bones about my right to defend, or others are going to have to call me a rebel. In the political eyes of the serpents, I have been called everything from a baby-killer ( V- Nam days) to a hate monger ( today visa-vi) the U.N. under the endorsement of the hildabeast (hitlerly-klinton) so too bad, it must suck to be the ones on the receiving end of my disgust. All politics are local and we need to be reminded of it from time to time.

Gerald Stephens| 9.17.10 @ 6:40PM

The REVOLUTION has been unleashed. It will end as the FIRST...when the CONSTITUTION is safely elevated to the fullest measure.

Semper Fidelis, Marine

Dave Wilson| 9.17.10 @ 7:57AM

I am an Ohio resident, NRA member and instructor. I will keep my membership because I love to teach concealed carry classes. I will not give one dime to the NRA political fund because of their endorsement of Strickland. While his personal record on gun issues is acceptable his bedfellows are not. He endorsed and supported Hillary to be President. When she was defeated in the primary he endorsed and supported the current occupant of the oval office. He has helped men like Lee Fisher and Sherrod Brown attain high office with his clout. Last week the vile and despicable Bill Clinton campaigned for him. This tells me all I need to know about Ted Strickland. Shame on the NRA. It is time to wipe the dog crap that is the democrat party from the bottom of our shoes.

Melvin| 9.17.10 @ 8:06AM

The Ruling Elite and to varying degrees the NRA think that many Americans are so ignorant, naive, and so law abiding that we, under a treaty with the UN will just lay down our personal firearms, with the attitude of, "It is law and we must abide by the law."
This goes to show you how little the Ruling Elite really know about the majority of Americans. A law is as good as the peoples willingness and consent to follow it.
We in this Country are fast reaching the point of actual at large public disobedience. It would not anarchy, but there would be wholesale disobedience in regards to a treaty to regulate arms sales that Hillary Clinton recently signed under the auspices of the United Nations.
This is just one of the many areas of discourse that we are having to wake up to everyday.
As many have alluded to, the NRA has caught the virus of, "I want to sit at the round table to." But the NRA Leadership has been blind to the fact that in order to sit at the table, they must surrender the very essence of it's existence.
And surrender they did, with it's deal making with the Democrats with the proposed Disclosure Act, and some very unflattering backpedaling, with the outrage expressed by NRA members.
There are good leaders in waiting in the NRA and as the GOP has experienced lately there must be a purge of those leaders who wish to continue the status quo with the Ruling Elite.
There is one thing the Ruling Elite must take into account. We Americans are not Europeans, most notably England who will quietly and patiently wait in a key to turn our personal firearms that have been in families for generations.
The Nazis underestimated our resolve, the Japanese underestimated our resolve, and the Soviets underestimated the American resolve. So it is of surprise that even our own government underestimates us.
Here is a little something uttered by former NRA President Charlton Heston,

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!"

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 1:54PM

Melvin, It will be one very cold day in hell if the elites think they and the UN are going to use international law to take away our guns.
I hope when they do, they and the UN "peacekeepers" wear those cute baby blue helmets. Our ansestors saw red, we'll see robin egg blue, not matter, it's just a nice pastel to lock and load on.
With luck, maybe our UN loving Sec of State, Madam Hillary will lead the charge, yeah right, we should be so lucky. These cowards will be in the tall grass, giving orders!!

Ret. Marine| 9.17.10 @ 8:31PM

and I'll be in the 1,000 meter range under a spider hole applying my trade.....happy hunting fellow rebel.

Tommy K| 9.17.10 @ 8:15AM

Color me disappointed as well. Here in New Hampshire, the NRA came out for Charlie Bass in the republican primary. Here in NH, Mr Bass is known as a "silk stocking republican". I am not saying he is a bad guy, just that there were 2 more conservative (as in conserve the constitution) candidates.

Ryan| 9.17.10 @ 8:33AM

I am an NRA lifer and general supporter.

Per Chris Cox article in the American Rifleman Sept 2010:

"HR 5175 is a dog of a bill, and not a friendly one. NRA has never supported - and will not support - any version of the bill."

"We don't believe the restrictions in these bills should apply to anyone or any organization..."

The NRA does NOT SUPPORT DISCLOSE.

Yeah, maybe there is a bit of backtracking here, and I think occasionally the NRA gets a bit too focused on the micro at times (particularly with Reid) and misses the bigger picture, but I cannot fault them for what they are trying to accomplish.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 9:54AM

If the NRA didn't support DISCLOSE, the boilerplate reply from Chris Cox to all NRA members like me who wrote to him would have been exactly that, short and sweet. Cox could have said "never have, never will".

But instead I got this long winded "explanation" that included the First versus Second Amendment "reasoning" that I mention in my original post above. Now why would Cox have to draw that distinction if the matter was as simple as you suggest it was?

Ryan| 9.17.10 @ 10:07AM

Right or wrong, they see themselves as a purely 2nd-amendment organization. That's continually been the point they are trying to make - that the second amendment is needed to protect the first.

I'm NOT saying I support the decision completely for the language - which, in the same article, Cox points out was put in without their input.

I think he's trying a bit to play on both sides of the fence - to maintain the NRA's power and influence, while at the same time working against the bill as a whole.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 10:57AM

I believe they are right to see themselves as purely a Second Amendment organization, but where they went off the rails on DISCLOSE was that they equated protecting the Second Amendment with protecting the NRA, and that is wrong.

And even as a pure Second Amendment organization, the first step in maintaining the Second Amendment is speaking out. Lock and load is not the first step. And speaking out requires a robust First Amendment. Stifling free speech, the fundamental objective of DISCLOSE, works against the Second Amendment, and the NRA official-dom should have recognized that.

If the NRA came back and said "OK, we ef-ed up, we're sorry, it was a mistake", then maybe forgiveness would be a consideration. But they didn't. I have the Cox letter. They stood by their splitting hairs between First and Second Amendments and that just proves they have a fundamental problem.

Houston Rao| 9.17.10 @ 12:48PM

Sure, they are a 2nd amendment organization. But seeking special favor, through an exemption, for themselves was pathetic political horse-trading and power brokering - seeking rights above and beyond those granted to others. This would be akin to another group, say Congress persons, getting additional 2nd amendment rights not available to NRA members. Had they lost their minds???

A NRA Life Member

Ryan| 9.17.10 @ 1:35PM

I think the jury is out on whether or not they "sought it out" - Cox's article in the Rifleman makes it appear that it was done by scared Congresspeople for the NRA without the NRA's prompting.

Sean Parnell| 9.17.10 @ 3:19PM

I think you've accurately described the NRA's position. My group, which has largely taken the lead in fighting against the DISCLOSE Act, was not at all pleased with the NRA's decision to basically sit this fight out once they'd been given their own special protections for First Amendment rights, but it is not accurate to say they support the bill.

And in some regards they helped slow it down and, with luck, ultimately kill this abomination. The special deal cut with the NRA helped to demonstrate to all just how absurd the whole "reform" movement is, and how it's all about favoring certain interests over others and not about limiting "corruption." For years the NRA has been cited as the reason why campaign finance "reform" was necessary! Then they go and cut a deal exempting them from "reform?" Talk about a teachable moment!

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics

Old Soldier| 9.17.10 @ 8:37AM

I'm another one who keeps my NRA membership because I have to, but I don't give a dime extra for politics.

NRA leadership needs to recognize the precarious position they are in. If they become a purely conservative advocacy group, they lose all influence with Democrats. If they get too cozy with Harry Reid types, they will infuriate the vast majority of their members.

What the should do is simply release everyone's ratings regardless of party. Money and endorsements should only go towards races against candidates with failing grades.

Petronius| 9.17.10 @ 9:05AM

When I joined, the NRA was primarily the governing body for competitive shooting under the late General Maxwell Rich. When Jiminy Carter came to DC bringing dungheap Ham, ("we're goin g to get the bastards") Jordan, Wayne was hired to form the ILA under the late Harlon Carter; (no relation). The Assn. has since become a permanent lobbying group, but now we all see that it's no longer about Our Rights so much as Their jobs. Wayne has dismissed our complaints with a cursory, "we are a single issue organization"
(go away and don't bother me) aside. And it's not just about that alone. They learned from the Liberals, that if the issue is settled your support goes away and membership dwindles. Should that ever happen and the prohibitionists make a comeback, opposition would then be minimal. in this respect, Wayne can consider himself a player. But he's gambling with our chips and for Our part, this is no game!
The NRA has long lost credibility on other fronts. Duplicity and cronyism cost us the privilege of selecting shooters for the Olympic Team and governance of those shooting disciplines is now self contained under the aegis of U.S.A. Shooting based in Colorado Springs. And there's the kitschy marketing program: apparel, watches, beer steins, desk sets, bar ware; all made in China. The credit card and discount program is O.K. But they shouldn't be selling health insurance. Arms Care is their only proper policy.
It's natural enough that politicians aren't trustworthy. But now our principal allies in the fight to retain Our Rights as laid down in the Constitution have little regard towards the members they work for. If they do not change their ways, they could face open rebellion and end up like General Rich.

MoeBlotz| 9.17.10 @ 9:15AM

Wayne LaPierre and some of the NRA hierarchy sold out to dingy Harry for a few pounds of pork. Since NRA is so thrilled with stealing $$$$ from hard working Americans' pockets so that Nevadans can keep sharp their shooting skills,I wonder what else dingy Harry can throw at the organisation to buy an endorsement. If Nevada was so hard up for a shooting range,the state legislature should have stolen the funds from their own residents.If NRA is a single issue organisation and does not give a rat's arse about the rest of the Constitution,they do not deserve my membership renewal.

P.Smith| 9.17.10 @ 9:28AM

I was a member of the NRA, for several years, but then I noticed they were supporting losers like Senator Howell Heflin who seemingly supported 2nd Amendment rights, but was really a sorry excuse of a senator when came to other issues dealing with the constitution. For example Heflin voted against the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert H. Bork. I determined that there were other organizations far more deserving of my donations…. Gun Owners of America is one.

bob alou| 9.17.10 @ 12:01PM

The NRA also opposed Bork.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 3:43PM

If you can believe what you find on the Internet, hah-hah, it would appear that Bork had a view of the Second Amendment that differs quite significantly from that of almost all gun owners, i.e., he thought the Second Amendment only protected state militias and not individual ownership. I can't find his words to that effect on the web, but if true, the NRA was correct in not supporting his nomination.

Jim Dietz| 9.17.10 @ 10:16AM

I am forced to agree that the NRA is not as actively conservative as I would like.

Something to think about though:

Some gun clubs have their insurance through the NRA and the NRA REQUIRES a certain percentage of the members be NRA members. Also the NRA has limited insurance on the members personal firearms. Insurance on firearms is hard to get and very expensive.

This is why I am a life member,not because I agree with everything the NRA does.

JP| 9.17.10 @ 10:25AM

When any organization sets up a large, well staffed office inside the Beltway, that organization over time will become "Progressive". The Beltway has its own agenda, its own clerisy, and it own way of doing things. Why should the NRA being any different?

bob alou| 9.17.10 @ 11:59AM

You bunch of no-nothings. Sure the NRA is a political organization and sometimes has to walk a pretty thin line. However, to suggest that GOA is an viable or an effective alternative in any sense is nonsense. The NRA is not an arm of the republican party, and frankly should not be. You can rail about the endorsement of Strickland in Ohio all you want, but when Kasich was in Congress he supported the Brady bill and had no trouble voting to ban semi-autos. Strickland has been a consistently reliable pro-gun vote his entire career. That's why the NRA endorsed him. Were it not for the NRA most of you wouldn't have a concealed carry option in your state, you would have a permanent federal waiting period, a federal one-gun-a month law, a ban on so-called cop-killer bullets which would have affected all rifle ammo, a permanent semi-auto ban, federal registration and safety class requirements, and MacDonald would still have no hope of ever keeping a handgun in his home for protection. Cry all you want about the fact that politics is politics, but recognize that pro-gun votes --for whatever reason and irrespective of any other issues -- come from both sides of the asile. As for the Chamber criticizing the NRA for anything, what a crock. When the NRA tried to work with the Chamber to get meaningful tort reform in the nineties -- asking to insert a provision in the chanber supported bill that would have made 'criminal misuse of an other wise lawfully manufactured product' a complete defense against liability, they were turned down. When the liability protection act was eventually passed, protecting manufacturers against malicious or frivilous suits, it was with a democratic Senate and the support of the democrats in the House that made the difference. As with any organization that is focused on a limited number of issues, sometimes compromises are made. However, castigating the NRA because it spends its resources and time on what the members expect them to be focused on, is unfair.

Frank Natoli| 9.17.10 @ 3:53PM

All the good points about the NRA that you enumerate are true, and clearly and significantly exceed the bad.

But rather than write "sometimes compromises are made", would you care to explicitly state whether the NRA's failure to object to DISCLOSE was right or wrong?

And your comment about the NRA not becoming an arm of the Republican Party misses an essential point. Parties make policy, not individual representatives or senators. And one party has been unambiguously the cause of all gun control legislation. Just ask the Southern conservatives of that party who had the 1994 assault gun bill rammed down their throats. That was political suicide for them, and caused a shift in the majority of the House for the first time since the year I was born 1952. That party is the problem and ignoring that problem is a fatal mistake.

Dan| 9.17.10 @ 5:10PM

Well said Bob.

Kenny| 9.17.10 @ 12:12PM

Hey Bob Alu, we're not saying that the NRA is totally worthless or that it should disappear.

It's just the GOA is better for freedom -- overall freedom -- than is the NRA.

NRA endorsee Ted Strickland is useless and a clear-and-present threat to Ohio and America. And by the way, today's polls show this lefty is 17% behind in his race for re-election. I love it!

CalMark| 9.17.10 @ 12:37PM

I'm a disillusioned NRA member who won't be renewing. I'm tired of the incessant appeals for money. As another member told me, they don't want us to volunteer hard work and enthusiasm; they just want our money.

The NRA knows that their handling of DISCLOSE was a fiasco. This is shown by NRA defensiveness in their magazine and email responses to members. Unfortunately, they won't admit it, hiding behind "we're a single issue group," blah, blah, blah.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. The NRA would like to pretend that it does.

Anthony| 9.17.10 @ 12:40PM

Thank you, thank you for finally writing this article, as I have been biting at the bit to finally weigh in on what the treasonous, gutless NRA did, with their sell out in the Disclosure Act.
Yes, the Washington mind set has apparently infected the NRA. The Leftists, much to their delight no doubt, were besides themselves, that they were able to pick off the NRA to join their assault on the 1st Amendment, in order to buy a short period of "peace" with the Left.
Like the RINO Rs in Washington, the NRA has apparently placed their balls in their gun safes in order to appease the Left, hoping they have bought a reprieve from the Leftist juggernaut.
Mr. Cox, other than doing a damn fine imitation of Nevill Chamberlain, with "peace in our time" for the NRA, do you really believe, now that you have helped the Left in their assault on the 1st Amendment, that you and the 2nd are safe?
You are sadly mistaken, and I'm shocked that the once formidable , not one inch will we give, NRA has become like the rest of the R whiny establishment.
You have let the left pick you off, divide and conquer is their game, and you played.
If my shooting club didn't insist that we be NRA members to remain, I'd drop you in a heatbeat. But I'm working on making that rule obsolute. Congratulations. Hey, maybe Karl Rove can be your next Executive Director?

Neo-libertarian| 9.17.10 @ 1:09PM

I was once the President of the largest gun club in our state. The reason then, and probably now, your shooting club "insists" that you belong to the NRA is because they are the only ones that will insure your facility. Your comment "But I'm working on making that rule obsolute (sic)" will only result in your "place to shoot" becoming obsolete.

M. N. Gomes| 9.17.10 @ 1:25PM

I am not a gun owner, but strongly support the Second Amendment right of individual citizens to bear arms. I joined the NRA in the 1990s when Wayne LaPierre representing the NRA stood up to Bill Clinton, while the Republicans were cowering. However, times have changed! The NRA playing footsies with Harry Reid has caused me to seriously consider discontinuing my membership.

Jim Feeney| 9.17.10 @ 1:52PM

I have to agree with Bob Alou on this one. It's questionable if any of us would still own guns without being in violation of some Federal law today without the NRA oposition throughout the years.. The NRA did screw up in Nevada with their endorsment of Reid but, consider their position in Ohio which I live in. They called it as it is. Strickland has a good record with his votes and Kasich doesn't. No one has to vote for Strickland just because the NRA endorsed him, I'm not. The question in this case shouldn't be why did they give Strickland their endorsment, It should be why didn't Kasich vote in such a way to deserve it. I will vote for Kasich but I don't mind saying his votes on 2nd Ammendment issues make me have second thoughts on his conservative bona fides.

Neo-libertarian| 9.17.10 @ 3:47PM

I was not aware that Reid was endorsed by the NRA. Are you sure of your statement?

Dave| 9.17.10 @ 4:31PM

The NRA did NOT endorse Harry Reid. But it doesn't surprise me that some think they did. I see a lot of inaccuracies in some of these comments. People need to understand how politics work. Right the the NRA is the best thing gun owners have going for them. Politicians still pay attention to them. You can't say that about any of the other gun rights groups. The NRA is a SINGLE purpose organization. They will support the congress people that support the 2nd amendment. The NRA can't be too conservative or liberal. If it leans too much in one direction or strays off it's 2nd amendment course it will lose it's clout. The NRA did the right thing with the Disclose Act. Cox did write a letter in opposition to the bill to the bills authors. At that time the bills authors approached the NRA with the carve out deal. It's a good thing too. If you donated $10,000.00 a year to the NRA and you were a business owner, and many of your customers were left wing anti-gun people. What would be your chances of staying in business and being able to donate $10,000.00 a year to the NRA AFTER your name and company were made public? I can't believe the ignorance of so many people commenting on this board.

Luis| 9.18.10 @ 6:09PM

If I remember correctly, the NRA did not lobby or seek a special exemption for itself in the DISCLOSE Act. That was done by the Democrats who drafted and wrote the bill. In the aftermath of SCOTUS gutting McCain-Feingold in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January of this year, they were running scared.

As most of my fellow Second Amendment afficionados know, McCain-Feingold was promulgated with the intent of muzzling groups like NRA; given the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. Bush signed it (like an idiot), but NRA filed suit. An earlier challenge to McCain-Feingold fizzled (McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission), but Citizens United succeeded.
Dave Kopel's excellent article, "Speech Freed", in the April 2010 issue of 'America's First Freedom", pointed out that Congress prohibited groups like NRA from mentioning a federal candidate's stand on the gun question, 30 days prior to a general election, or 60 days prior to a primary. If NRA did say something like "Sen. Schumer is bad for the 2A", McCain-Feingold would criminalize them for it.

Congress exempted the news media, the TV networks and radio from the issue advocacy restraints, it placed on groups like NRA. In it's ruling in Citizen's United, SCOTUS said, "That is unlawful", and gutted the exemptions as well.

The same judges who voted in favor of Heller in the landmark 2008 case, also voted for Citizens United this year. No surprise that the most strident anti-gun pols and groups voiced their displeasure over SCOTUS' Citizens United verdict, led by Obama and Schumer.

Do I agree with everything NRA does? Nope. I tire from all the newsletters I get, asking for money to "fight the most important gun rights battle in our history"; only to see them redesign their web site every time I click onto it, it seems. But it does wield power and influence, as gun-grabbing pols have learned to their distress. Richard M. Daley isn't running for mayor of Chicago, next year; and I think a large part of the reason why is the McDonald decision. MAIG is now discredited, thanks to McDonald.

Nothing wrong with the NRA acting to safeguard the 2A, whether organizations like AARP and the ACLU like it or not. AARP opposes seniors arming them selves for self-defense, and ACLU has never fought for gunowners rights or the Second Amendment.

Nunya| 9.17.10 @ 2:05PM

I am an Endowment member of the NRA (for those not familiar, it is one step beyond Life member), and have given subtantially to the organization, until now.

Unfortunately, I believe the organization has lost it's way. Supporting the Disclose act, supporting the RINO McCain, and even the CONSIDERATION of supporting Reid make it patently obvious that they are more interested in playing the game of politics and making friends, than anything else. Standing there saying that they're only about the 2nd Amendment is foolish and too narrow a vision. We need the 1st to protect the 2nd, as was stated above--"lock and load" cannot be our first option.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 9.17.10 @ 4:24PM

I let my NRA membership expire recently. ANY organization cozying up to Dingy Harry Reid & other Democrats who would love to disarm this nation has serious credibility problems.

sinanju| 9.17.10 @ 5:46PM

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether it got slowly taken over from the inside by leftist careerists or not, like so many foundations and charities.

I do know that during the darkest decades for the 2nd Amendment, namely the late sixties through the late eighties the NRA was the principal monolithic force for the gun-grabbers to contend with. The other countries of the Anglosphere: Canada, Britain, Australia and NZ had no such equivalent and now private firearms ownership and the right to self-defense are only a memory in those places. For this I will always be grateful.

Unfortunately, their legislative model is now out of date. The climate has changed irrevocably. Shall-issue concealed carry is now the rule in this country rather than the exception. Where once "Gun Control" was the cheap and easy way for a pol to act tough on crime, Democrat politicians now warn each other that gun control is political hemlock and a career-ender. For decades, the NRA has been afraid to go to the mat before the Supreme Court for fear of losing big, but that worm has turned. On the contrary, now is the time to go for broke, before Obama gets any more of his fellow leftys on the bench.

The Democrat Party has also irrevocably changed. There are NO "conservative democrats" anymore to speak of. Like "pro-life" democrats, they are an extinct species. When push comes to shove they ALL vote as they are ordered. There is no good reason to support any democrat anywhere. They can all be relied upon to vote against the Constitution when it counts. Supporting a dem against a rep because the dem makes the approved noises about gun ownership is allowing the enemy to divide and conquer us just as, in an earlier era, allowing the gun grabbers to pit hunters and sport shooters against those who owned and carried for self-defense was also a mug's game.

As recent events show, the myriad of other gun-rights groups in America have finally come into their own. It is no longer a one-horse town. The NRA is no longer indispensable. I hope the NRA takes the hint and adapts. So many of the important battles are being fought at the state and local level by state and local organizations, it might be best advised to add muscle only when and where requested. I do not want to watch it become obsessed soley with it's own self-perpetuation.

Mic| 9.17.10 @ 7:09PM

NRA has consistently supported bills that would never have been law like GCA 1968. That law was a carbon copy of the Hitler Code, word-for-word. That only came from Thomas Dodd Chris Dodd's father who presided at the trials in Nurburg. NRA has acted like an anti gun organization ever since it came into existence. The plan in 1977 was to "relocate" to Raton, NM and turn into a country club. People have been mad a long time about this type of disconnect stuff. It's a wonder the Supreme Court ruled the way it has recently too. Remember Neal Knox who got treated like dirt with the NRA’s "vote against" list? That man died with a broken heart after doing incredible good for guns in America. When they dumped Knox the GOA's Prat practically urinated on him saying that "We can't run with a shrill voice and a clenched fist." Implying that only via compromise would NRA achieve its goals. That meeting in 1998 lasted only one hour. A life member, he was not allowed his request for "point of order." NRA had lost big money on sexual settlements and office mismanagement only to agree finally on simple accounting and tracking of expenditures. They've had plenty of problems behind the scenes.

HerbM| 9.18.10 @ 8:33AM

"What irks ... is ...has become too pragmatic in the use of its power: too willing to compromise..."

Pragmatism is generally a good thing, so the above is only partially correct and not focused on the real problem.

When one is too willing to compromise, gets stuck in compromise, and compromises on key philosophical, ethical, and human rights points when that compromise is no longer either necessary or effective then one has reach the level of APPEASEMENT.

Appeasement is a failure of courage and principle, and a failure to use power for the purpose it was rightly intended and given.

The NRA is criticize rightly for such failures to use the power entrusted to it by the millions of members.

And to compromised on an enumerated Right, makes no sense for Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Rights to own and carry firearms, etc.

How about if the government "allows you" and everyone else to pick you own religion, but you only get to pick from 3 which are approved by the government?

How about if you get to speek freely but only after obtaining a specific permit and a seven day waiting period, or only within your own home?

How about if you allowed to avoid self-incrimination, but only if you aren't actually guilty?

JP| 9.18.10 @ 9:11AM

The NRA is going the same route as the AARP. The AARP backed ObamaCare despite strong protests from its paying members. The AARP is firmly in the back pocket of the Dems. The NRA will be so shortly.

mack| 9.18.10 @ 1:50PM

I have had serious disagreement with the NRA over specific second amendment issues - particularly the way the dealt with the Heller case initially. But let's be perfectly clear - there are two different things going on here and they are crucial to understand if you care about the second amendment and the RKBA.

First there are good intentioned 2nd amendment advocates like David Codrea - who are voicing their opinion on non-compromising principles of what they believe to be true and correct. God bless them for doing so. Mr. Codrea and many of his fellows are true patriots and treasured assets of liberty.

Secondly, there are political operatives of the republican party and of conservative movements who are attempting to take control of the NRA. If they have their way the NRA will be just another neutered special interest group beholden to a single political party with no voice or leverage in the other party and little leverage in the party that owns them.

You know, you may not like politics, but you ignore the realities of it at your own peril, and if you support the republican/conservative attempt to take control of the NRA - by demanding that the NRA support only conservative and one hundred percent pure candidates then you are cutting your own throat when it comes to your and my RKBA.

Why hasn't a democratic president who sat on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation (one of the largest funding sources in the country promoting the goal of gun control) with a filibuster proof senate and a large majority in the house been able to pass any significant gun control. Why, because the NRA supports democrats that generally support gun rights. Eric Holder the atty general stated his desire to pass a new AWB - why did he drop his call for that shortly after first voicing it - because the leader of the senate (yes, Harry Reid) let it be known that a new AWB was a dead letter. If the NRA only supported politicians that adhered to a litmus test of conservative positions other than the 2nd amendment then they would have no political clout at all with democrats - who have run the government for the last two years.

Additionally, if the NRA only supported republicans - then the republican party could treat them as dismissively as they or the democrats do the special interests that are only represented by a single party - like the unions are treated by the democrats - (“Sorry you don't like free trade - but what are you going to do about it. vote for a republican“).

The NRA is as effective and as powerful as a lobby group can be precisely because it purposely avoids being owned by one party. To do that it "must" keep it's focus narrowly on the 2nd amendment and the RKBA. It must issue grades based on 2nd amendment votes and the RKBA and then adhere to announced criteria by which it endorses or supports candidates of either party. If it were to not do so, or to suddenly change policies in mid-stream then they would lose all credibility with politicians and thus all political pull. "What do you mean you aren't supporting me - I voted 100 percent on RKBA issues according to your report card and now you say you aren't supporting me because I voted for gay marriage and a tax increase?" If the NRA did that they would have no credibility and no political pull at all within a short time.

I think people need to understand the bigger picture here. GOA is fine - but they do not and will never have the political pull of the NRA. SAF is great and is doing great work in the courts - but they have little political clout. Each like the NRA has it's area of excellence and focus and purpose. The NRA's area of excellence and focus in protecting the 2nd and the RKBA is in politics - the down and dirty world of politics - where principles matter less to politicians than votes or money - so the NRA deals in votes and money - and politicians listen.

So if it makes some "feel" good to bash the NRA for not being "pure" enough or it helps some to "feel" better in their "righteous anger and judgment" to bash the NRA for this or that ideological heresy - then go for it. But that isn't really the game that is being played here - the game is who controls the NRA - conservative members who demand allegiance to one political party and those in the republican party and conservative movement who through organizations like redstate are waging a war to own the NRA . And once they own it what are they going to do with that control - are they going to put the second amendment and the RKBA first or are they going to put supporting a conservative agenda and the republican party and their election first?

Me, I want an organization the puts the 2nd and the RKBA first and that can tell politicians of either party to go pound sand if they don't agree to put the 2nd/RKBA first.

There is a lot at stake here - stop and think - don't let those playing cynical politics in the republican party use your anger or frustration to their advantage. By all means vote for who you want regardless of NRA endorsements or support - but don't demand that the NRA focus on anything but the 2nd/RKBA - else you will help them destroy it for their purposes and their agenda.

bob alou| 9.18.10 @ 7:31PM

Nicely said Mack.

Jim Woodward| 9.19.10 @ 1:02PM

Mack,
Well said. I've been a Life member since 1990. The NRA may not be all things, to all folks on this discussion, but it certainly does far more good than harm.

Ray B| 9.21.10 @ 11:28PM

Ahhhh, felllas; it's moot! Means nothing. Disclose failed because enough folks voted against it. Tactics and circumstances will be different next time.
Life NRA member and registered Democrat.

Neo-libertarian| 9.18.10 @ 7:19PM

Amen

Osamas Pajamas| 9.18.10 @ 10:13PM

I'm in favor of gun control. Disarm the government. Arm the people. And vote Libertarian --- or vote Conservative --- if you prefer a somewhat weaker cup of tea...

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.19.10 @ 12:49PM

Got I little news flash for all you “Second Amendment welfare queens,” I really do not care if you “drop out” or that you have decided that your NRA membership or donations no longer are returning the value you deem “worthy” of your pittance. I mean really, if you wish to ignore the fact that the most powerful influence in politics today is being generated by about one percent of the population and for less than fifty dollars a year there is little hope of rational dialog. You jumping off of our bandwagon will neither help nor hinder the fact that we will continue the mission of upholding the Bill of Rights; nor will it persuade us to dilute our influence by adopting some politically correct, non-RKBA, or SoCon party plank.
So please proceed, shoot yourself in the foot. Act out your delusional fantasy that another wannabe organizational “father” will come along; we will keep the NRA pure and on message in your absence. We will continue to cut the welfare checks providing your rights during your dalliance, we will issue the food stamps of liberty so your children can be nourished by the Bill of Rights and dole out the benefits of providing ranges and facilities to learn the skills needed to preserve our National defense and heritage of hunting and self-defense.
Whine on fools, we will let you live in our Second Amendment homestead while you petition the Baney Franks of the beltway for mortgage relief; shake your empty fist at the Wayne La Pierre’s and the Chris Cox’s who have done more in the last twelve seconds at preserving your rights then the collective sum of your entire adolescent lives.
If it takes cutting a ribbon at a range facility, or if it takes endorsing someone who you abhor for non-RKBA issues, so be it. Reid and Strickland currently have the gavel and have been supportive; acknowledging any contribution to the preservation of our Second Amendment right (many here seem to have lost sight of that) does no harm.
Take note, if you want to take lady liberty to the square dance you will have to occasionally do-se-do with someone else’s partner. However, when the parties over you go home with the date you brought.

mol0nlabe28| 9.19.10 @ 3:30PM

I am tired of seeing LaPierre jetting around, begging for money and then cutting self-serving side deals with Congress and endorsing pathetic candidates.

We need to clean out the executive offices of the NRA like we are doing with Congress.

LaPierre reminds me of Dennis Hastert and Mitch McConnell these days.

Al Koenig| 9.19.10 @ 9:15PM

I did not appreciate the NRA backing Lisa Murkowski in the primary election against the people's choice, conservative Joe Miller. I did not join the NRA for them to back RINOs like Murkowski , who is a Washington insider, against the popular conservative voice of change. The NRA should stay out of primary elections.

Miller will end up doing a lot more for the NRA than Lisa ever would. Wake up!

Beboper| 9.21.10 @ 5:15AM

I didn't realize the NRAILA had picked Murkowski as well. It's becoming increasingly clear the the NRA membership is getting a decidedly diminishing representational return for its membership buck. This is another organizational establishment that seems to have gone DC native.

hyrdr| 9.20.10 @ 4:01AM

Someone should remind Mr Viguerie as well as others that the NRA is not a government elected body and if there is something that needs to be done that the NRA is not doing that they should addrress their represenatives.

hyrdr| 9.20.10 @ 4:22AM

Reading the bunch of comments here it is obvious to me that the left is trying to break up the membership ranks by pretending to be a part of them. How many posters here are here on assignment from some stinking liberal blog???

dusty| 9.21.10 @ 5:43AM

The NRA has weight and respect precisely because it focuses on one issue, and doesn't go hounding off after every conservative issue. Democrats and Republicans belong to the NRA. People who won't vote for a Republican, no matter the reason, will stay home on election day rather than support a candidate from their party who has crossed the NRA. Likewise, being a good Republican on some issues isn't enough for NRA's support; a candidate must support civil rights.

Bob K.| 9.21.10 @ 10:54AM

Your statement illustrates what is wrong with the current NRA leadership.

It was just announced today in the morning news that the NRA endorsed an incumbent liberal Democrat from Northeast Pennsylvania's traditionally Republican 10th district over a very well qualified Republican challenger who was LEADING in the polls!

The Republican challenger,Tom Marino, was formerly the Federal Attorney for the local district. Both candidates had received 100% ratings by the NRA. The 10th district has a majority republican registration and should revert back to republican in this economic atmosphere.

The Democrat, Christopher Carney, a college professor at a local extension of Penn State, has in his 2 terms supported every facet of the Obama administration and is raising big money from the Gas Industry which is engaged in some very controversial drilling which has caused pollution of wells and drinking water IN HIS OWN HOME TOWN of Dimock, PA. and in other areas of his district!

The NRA has just made it more difficult to get a majority in the house of representatives because of this stupid endorsement and I am seriously thinking of not renewing my membership because of it!

danz| 9.21.10 @ 12:58PM

Look, the NRA is like any other big organization. Over time its mission changes from the original goals to preserving the jobs, perquisites and power of the employees and leaders of that organization. It is the imminence of danger that keeps the dollars rolling in. Some organizations tasked with fighting human disease have become more interested in self-preservation than finding a cure or publicizing existing effective treatments. Some of them have become tools of conventional medicine rather than sincere seekers for wellness. Many publicly-held corporations are being run more for the benefit of the executives and boards than for their share holders, customers or employees. This is mission drift due to the leaders becoming disconnected from the goals of the grass routes or donators or shareholders at the bottom of the organization (in pursuit rather of that which serves themselves). When a problem is actually solved, the organization makes itself unnecessary (except for a product-producing business). The same applies to government programs. To curtail mission drift, it is necessary to have a very well thought out governance system so that ultimately the grassroots or stockholders select the leadership of the organization rather directly. In the case of publicly held corporations, there is no direct selection of [any] members of the board of directors, so the management of American companies has in many cases become self-serving rather than foremost with the interests of shareholders in mind.