SIG Sauer 556 Arms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I poked around and have not seen this already posted.

I've received several e-mails from various pro Second Amendment and Conservative/Tea Party groups all saying basically the same thing - that the NRA has done something bad in conjunction with this new 'Disclose" bill.
Gun Owners of America sent this:

House Democrats Close to Reinstituting Penalties for Criticizing Congress
-- Help GOA get other pro-gun groups on board in this fight

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, June 15, 2010

We alerted you last week to the very dangerous DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), where liberal House Democrats are trying to gag their political opponents.

Well, there have been some late-breaking developments in the fight to kill this bill, but you're not going to believe what's happening. This is what Politico.com reported yesterday:
House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.
But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.
An NRA official also noted that the group would not be supporting the bill but would not actively oppose it if the deal with the Democratic leadership holds up.

So if the NRA gets an exemption for itself, it will not oppose the anti-freedom DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175). This legislation is designed to overturn major parts of the recent Supreme Court decision which restored the ability of groups like GOA to freely criticize elected officials during a campaign.

But the NRA would no longer oppose the bill once they've won an exemption for themselves. As reported by Politico.com:
The legislation in question is designed to restore more campaign finance rules in the wake of last year's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which removed prohibitions on corporations and unions running TV ads opposing or backing candidates in the run-up to an election.
Democratic leaders fear the Citizens United decision could open the floodgates for corporate money to flow into this year's midterm elections, which they believe would favor Republican interests.
The legislation, offered by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would require special-interest groups to disclose their top donors if they choose to run TV ads or send out mass mailings in the final months of an election.
In addition to benefiting the NRA, this "exemption" amendment will benefit Blue Dog Democrats who will be given a green light to support the Obama-Pelosi backed bill:
Democrats are justifying the NRA exemption, saying the organization has a long history of being involved in the political process, and they say the real goal of the new campaign finance bill is to expose corporations and unions that create ambiguous front groups to run attack ads during campaigns. Unions would not be allowed to use the NRA exemption.
North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler, an NRA backer and conservative Democrat, proved to be pivotal to the NRA deal. Shuler was the first to offer an amendment to exempt the NRA and other nonprofits from the legislation, but that move drew objections from campaign watchdog groups.
"There were a number of concerns that the DISCLOSE Act could hinder or penalize the efforts of certain long-standing, member-driven organizations who have historically acted in good faith," Shuler said, referring to the NRA. "Most of those concerns are addressed within the manager's amendment."
But here's the rub, the special exemption amendment will ONLY benefit the NRA and no other groups whatsoever. It will leave all other groups who are currently in Obama's crosshairs dangling in the wind:
The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.
The exemption for a huge group like the NRA is sure to outrage smaller special-interest groups [like Gun Owners of America].
We are in a political war, and our opponents are trying to change the rules of the game by gagging those groups that are their political enemies. Some might say that the requirement to disclose our membership is not a gag rule, but it most certainly is. Gun Owners of America will NOT do anything that would jeopardize the privacy of our members!

Gun owners know the dangers of being registered, as it has often proven to be the first step towards gun confiscation -- which, by the way, is why it's lamentable that the management of the NRA is selling out its members for the proverbial bowl of pottage. (Go to http://tinyurl.com/2uw9sm9 to see what a leading Capitol Hill blog has written about this sell-out.)

We're positive that regular members of the NRA would never want this to happen -- where all the other pro-gun organizations (like GOA) that are fighting to protect our rights would be gagged, while special favors are cut for one group in particular.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with NRA and all the other pro-gun groups when they are fighting to defend our Second Amendment freedoms. We all have to stick together if we are going to win these battles.

We're not sure who is making the decisions over at the NRA headquarters... but this type of thing would have never happened in the past, and we're positive that the NRA membership would not be happy with it. This cannot stand!

ACTION: Please do everything you can to kill this dangerous DISCLOSE Act legislation (HR 5175). Here's what you can do:

1. Urge your congressman to oppose HR 5175. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

2. Call the NRA-ILA at (800) 392-VOTE (8683) and urge them to oppose this legislation and to rate any congressman who votes in favor of HR 5175 as having cast an ANTI-GUN vote. Urge them not to sell out our constitutional freedoms just because they can get an exemption for themselves.

3. Please help Gun Owners of America to continue fighting for your rights. You can go to http://gunowners.org/contribute-to-goa.htm to help us alert as many people as possible to this new threat.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

I stand with Gun Owners of America in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).

There are reports that a deal may be cut to exempt one large organization from the terms of the DISCLOSE Act. This smacks of the money-for-votes fiasco which helped grease the skids for passage of ObamaCare and which has already lowered Congress' reputation to unprecedented depths.

On the Senate side, Senator Mitch McConnell blasted this deal, which is aimed at carving out special exemptions for the NRA leadership in exchange for their promise to sit on their hands and not oppose the DISCLOSE Act. "If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it's the backroom dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else," McConnell said.

"Just as it wasn't the Democrats' money to offer in the health care debate, free speech isn't theirs to ration out to those willing to play ball -- it's a right guaranteed by our First Amendment to all Americans."

I agree wholeheartedly. Please do NOT vote in favor of this legislation, as it will have a chilling effect upon our free speech rights by forcing the organizations we associate with to disclose their membership lists.

How ironic that a Congress and President who treat transparency with contempt should now be trying to force legal organizations to disclose the names of their law-abiding members. The hypocrisy is blatant, to say the least.

Vote no on HR 5175.

Sincerely,






Freedom Torch said:

Hello FreedomTorch Patriots!
In one of the most shocking betrayals of modern political times, the NRA -- yes, THAT NRA -- the National Rifle Association, has teamed up with Pelosi and the Democrats to crack down on Free Speech!
The NRA is set to betray millions of its freedom-loving, Constitution-supporting members.
The NRA has agreed to side with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats on their new bill to crack down on political free speech (just in time for this year's elections)!
The Constitution's guarantee of free speech was meant to apply specifically to POLITICAL FREE SPEECH!
Millions of conservatives support the NRA, but now it is time to let the NRA know how disgusted we are with this compromise they're making with those who hate America.
Please click here and read my full post. Then click the LOGIN link at the top of the page and just post a reply that says: "I NO LONGER SUPPORT THE NRA."
We will send this to the NRA as soon as we collect enough "signatures". Please invite your conservative friends to "sign" here as well. We must let the NRA know how disgusted we are with their suicidal compromise.
Thanks guys and God bless!
Jonathan Cousar


Several other groups sent basically the same stuff - you get the idea. I let my NRA membership go years ago when I learned how much back room bargaining was going on between them and the anti-gunners, along with their hefty salaries. Every single thing I received from them asked for more $, but every time I brought some anti-gun legislation to their attention, I was ignored.

I've been a member of GOA for a few years now and have to say I like them much better. They don't seem to be compromising at all.

Maybe if enough NRA members called or wrote asking them what the hell they think they're doing, they would start to take notice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
I just got this from the National Association for Gun Rights www.nationalgunrights.org

I'm pissed and will call the NRA to tell them that they fucked up.

FROM: NAGR
URGENT ALERT: NRA cuts deals to limit free speech

Three prominent Washington D.C. websites are reporting what many capitol insiders warned of: the National Rifle Association has made a deal with the devil (i.e. anti-gun Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to limit the free speech of Americans in exchange for their carved-out exemption.

While some pro-gun rights advocates may think free speech does not matter or that nothing another gun advocacy group does should ever be questioned, the National Association for Gun Rights and I take a very different view.

Without the right to free speech, we are defenseless in the battle to save our Second Amendment rights.

Let me be clear: restricting our First Amendment rights is the first step to stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, and should be resisted at every turn.

We don’t care who you are or what an organization may have done in the past – we only care about whether your actions will promote or harm our rights.

And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights. After you read up on the facts, I ask you to give the NRA an earful by calling 1-800-672-3888 and insist they renounce the deal with Pelosi and Reid. Believe me, it is not too late if you will get involved.

* http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/1 ... democrats/

* http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html

* http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom ... l-with-nra

Though at first objecting to the DISCLOSE Act, which would radically limit the free speech of organizations and thus, gun owners, the NRA has now agreed to an exemption for their organization (and other mammoth, mostly liberal, organizations like AARP and probably Moveon.org) in exchange for support of the Democrats’ bill.

This legislation would place draconian limitations on the ability of organizations to voice their opinions on politicians, and by extension, their legislation. The chilling effect on free speech would be difficult to overstate.

Along with their tacit endorsement of Senator Harry Reid, the NRA is signaling that they trust the Democrats will spare the Second Amendment from further assaults.

But that’s a strategy of appeasement, and to put it bluntly, it’s insane. It just delays the inevitable.

Winston Churchill addressed this strategy when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.â€
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Yep, basically they get exempted in the bill so they are taking a pass. THAT pisses me right the FUCK off!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Check out this article.............
http://gunowners.org/ch06142010ee.htm

I've said it before on here and been criticized for it. The NRA has long been compromised. I read about a ten page article a few years ago documenting many different issues that had come to light regarding the NRA's back door dealings in matters that are a conflict of interest to it's supposed mission.

My money and faith go to the Gun Owners of America, whose chairman Larry Pratt has exposed some NRA dirty laundry. You may also recognize Larry Pratt's name because he was one the earliest most outspoken advocates of the Oathkeepers.

If you want to see who is really working for us in Washington make GOA's site one of your daily reads.
http://gunowners.org/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The NRA sticker is coming off the back of my Jeep. They will never see another penny from my family.

I will be passing this information on to every single gun owner I know, and dammit - I know quite a few!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
Last year of membership for me. :x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
I haven't read it, but here is a Campaign for Liberty message I received today.
Dear Campaign for Liberty Member,

Once again, free speech and political liberty are under attack in Congress. And this time they have a surprising (to some) assailant -- the National Rifle Association.

In a minute, I'll give you links to the sorry story and ask you to tell the NRA and your congressman you OPPOSE the freedom-killing DISCLOSE ACT, with or without the NRA's deal.



You see, if there is one thing the establishment hates, it is watching its hand-picked candidates be held accountable for their records on liberty issues.

They want their Big Government power grabs to go unnoticed.

After watching some of their favorites go down in flames in race after race these past few months and seeing their statist schemes like Cap and Tax grind to a halt as a result of a massive uprising by liberty-loving Americans, they plan to strike back.

In a move that has dire consequences for our First Amendment right to freedom of speech and for Campaign for Liberty's ability to fight for our freedoms, incumbent politicians have colluded with a super-sized establishment lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, to push H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE ACT, or as I like to call it, the "Establishment Protection Act," through the House of Representatives as soon as this week.

According to Politico, the NRA bargained for an exemption for itself and other large, established groups while trampling the rights of private citizens, new groups (like Campaign for Liberty), and small organizations.


As John Bresnahan reports, "The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."

RedState's Erick Erickson mentions one of our Regional Conference sponsors when saying, "I support Gun Owners of America, which is a consistent and uncompromising defender of the second amendment, not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus."

Another pro-gun organization friendly to Campaign for Liberty, the National Association for Gun Rights, said in a national email, "And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights."

As we hold politicians accountable and put them on record with our issue discussion program, the Establishment Protection Act will force organizations like C4L to turn over the names of their "top" donors for exercising our First Amendment rights.

You see, they are targeting groups like Campaign for Liberty because they think their "right" to hold office is more important than your rights to privacy and free speech.


Campaign for Liberty has experienced tremendous growth this past year, and the establishment knows we are out there every day fighting back against its statist power grabs.

They watch as we inform you which candidates support the Constitution and which candidates refuse to take a stand on liberty issues.

And they know we won't play their Washington game of trading principle for power. They want to silence us once and for all by going after our donors.

Campaign for Liberty will not be silenced, and we will lead the fight against the Establishment Protection Act so you have the right to speak freely without your name and personal information being turned over to Big Brother.

Call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 right away to contact your representative and INSIST they uphold your First Amendment right to free speech and vote against H.R. 5175, the Establishment Protection Act.

After you contact your representative, call the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and let them know how you feel about their move to stab freedom organizations in the back.

Sincerely,



John Tate

President


P.S. Thanks to all you’ve done for liberty, the establishment is scared, and it’s not pulling any punches to keep organizations like C4L from speaking out.

If you are able, please consider chipping in $10 today toward C4L’s efforts to push back against the statist agenda and guarantee legislation like H.R. 5175, which should be called the Establishment Protection Act, is soundly defeated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
ah I had seen the breakdown regarding the funding and membership etc previously. Wasn't sure where it was from.


Thats enough reason for me to hate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Trey73 said:
I haven't read it, but here is a Campaign for Liberty message I received today.
Dear Campaign for Liberty Member,

Once again, free speech and political liberty are under attack in Congress. And this time they have a surprising (to some) assailant -- the National Rifle Association.

In a minute, I'll give you links to the sorry story and ask you to tell the NRA and your congressman you OPPOSE the freedom-killing DISCLOSE ACT, with or without the NRA's deal.



You see, if there is one thing the establishment hates, it is watching its hand-picked candidates be held accountable for their records on liberty issues.

They want their Big Government power grabs to go unnoticed.

After watching some of their favorites go down in flames in race after race these past few months and seeing their statist schemes like Cap and Tax grind to a halt as a result of a massive uprising by liberty-loving Americans, they plan to strike back.

In a move that has dire consequences for our First Amendment right to freedom of speech and for Campaign for Liberty's ability to fight for our freedoms, incumbent politicians have colluded with a super-sized establishment lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, to push H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE ACT, or as I like to call it, the "Establishment Protection Act," through the House of Representatives as soon as this week.

According to Politico, the NRA bargained for an exemption for itself and other large, established groups while trampling the rights of private citizens, new groups (like Campaign for Liberty), and small organizations.


As John Bresnahan reports, "The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."

RedState's Erick Erickson mentions one of our Regional Conference sponsors when saying, "I support Gun Owners of America, which is a consistent and uncompromising defender of the second amendment, not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus."

Another pro-gun organization friendly to Campaign for Liberty, the National Association for Gun Rights, said in a national email, "And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights."

As we hold politicians accountable and put them on record with our issue discussion program, the Establishment Protection Act will force organizations like C4L to turn over the names of their "top" donors for exercising our First Amendment rights.

You see, they are targeting groups like Campaign for Liberty because they think their "right" to hold office is more important than your rights to privacy and free speech.


Campaign for Liberty has experienced tremendous growth this past year, and the establishment knows we are out there every day fighting back against its statist power grabs.

They watch as we inform you which candidates support the Constitution and which candidates refuse to take a stand on liberty issues.

And they know we won't play their Washington game of trading principle for power. They want to silence us once and for all by going after our donors.

Campaign for Liberty will not be silenced, and we will lead the fight against the Establishment Protection Act so you have the right to speak freely without your name and personal information being turned over to Big Brother.

Call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 right away to contact your representative and INSIST they uphold your First Amendment right to free speech and vote against H.R. 5175, the Establishment Protection Act.

After you contact your representative, call the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and let them know how you feel about their move to stab freedom organizations in the back.

Sincerely,



John Tate

President


P.S. Thanks to all you’ve done for liberty, the establishment is scared, and it’s not pulling any punches to keep organizations like C4L from speaking out.

If you are able, please consider chipping in $10 today toward C4L’s efforts to push back against the statist agenda and guarantee legislation like H.R. 5175, which should be called the Establishment Protection Act, is soundly defeated.

You and everyone else here should read the actual text of the bill and not depend upon others' analyses. My first read of the bill does not show it to be the threat to political speech that some are portraying. Read for yourself and then form your own opinion. Don't depend on others to do your thinking for you. And, for the record I have yet to form an opinion on this legislation. I certainly do not appreciate politically expedient exceptions to the law being carved out-regardless of who is doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Maybe I'm deciding to quickly and am feeling lazy today, but honestly if this:
"The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
is an accurate description of the bill, then IMHO its a VERY bad bill.

I've heard it described as aimed directly at Tea Party candidates who've been kicking ass from Dems AND Repugs.

Bad JUJU man. Bad JUJU. Just like guns, anything that limits free speech, is BAD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
hrgrisso said:
Maybe I'm deciding to quickly and am feeling lazy today, but honestly if this:
"The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
is an accurate description of the bill, then IMHO its a VERY bad bill.

I've heard it described as aimed directly at Tea Party candidates who've been kicking ass from Dems AND Repugs.

Bad JUJU man. Bad JUJU. Just like guns, anything that limits free speech, is BAD.
But the language you quote doesn't say anything about what the bill actuall does. It just says the NRA and similar organizations are exempt. While one might argue that excepting certain organization's from a law's reach is a bad thing, that's not the same as the bill itself being bad. Read the bill-it's available online. Otherwise all of this is just rampant internet rumor and innuendo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Mac2411 said:
hrgrisso said:
Maybe I'm deciding to quickly and am feeling lazy today, but honestly if this:
"The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
is an accurate description of the bill, then IMHO its a VERY bad bill.

I've heard it described as aimed directly at Tea Party candidates who've been kicking ass from Dems AND Repugs.

Bad JUJU man. Bad JUJU. Just like guns, anything that limits free speech, is BAD.
But the language you quote doesn't say anything about what the bill actuall does. It just says the NRA and similar organizations are exempt. While one might argue that excepting certain organization's from a law's reach is a bad thing, that's not the same as the bill itself being bad. Read the bill-it's available online. Otherwise all of this is just rampant internet rumor and innuendo.
I am reading it, however - I do still have faith in organizations like the Tea Party, Freedom Torch, and Gun Owners of America.

I do NOT have any more faith for the NRA.

I have NEVER had faith in pelosi, chairman maobama, leiberman, biden, et. al.

So when GOA, Freedom Torch, and others contact me and tell me that the NRA has cut a deal with the likes of them, in a bill they support that endangers us, I tend to trust them right up front.

Why would I trust some of them but not the NRA? WHy would I be willing to believe the 'worst' of the NRA?

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

Look up Wayne's salary. The last time I googled it, it was just barely over $1,000,000.00 PER YEAR. The last time I was asked to re-join the NRA the offer was for $25 per year.

Unless my math is wrong, that means it takes the membership dues of

40,000 members just to pay his salary.

Do an internet search on 'nra writes gun law' and peruse the results. They compromise with the anti-gunners instead of rallying the economic and voting power of the members to win, they squander all that $ on a salary of what seems to be a less-than-effective 'leader'.

GOA? Known as the only no compromise gun lobby. And I'd bet Larry Pratt is doing either of those!

I, along with quite a few people, have contacted nra-ila to advise of potentially threatening legislation and have been ignored EVERY TIME. None of us ever received any alerts on the issues in question either.

However, every time I have contacted GOA, they have responded. Even when I wasn't a paying member. I have received many, many more alerts from GOA than from the nra.

As for the bill - many of us are reading it, and it could stifle freedom of speech in relation to politics, elections, etc. Have you read it? It almost seems you are defending it, so I thought I would ask.

BTW - received this from GOA today:

"Gun Owners of America has been one of the key players in opposing the DISCLOSE Act." -- Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)

Friday, June 18, 2010

Thank you all for your hard work. The DISCLOSE Act is on the ropes!

Here's what The Washington Post reported this morning:
One of President Obama's top legislative priorities is in serious doubt after top House Democrats' attempt to satisfy the National Rifle Association backfired badly.
The Post says that "top Democrats abandoned plans for a Friday vote in the House" on the DISCLOSE Act after several Representatives and organizations "rose up against the deal with the NRA."

Interestingly, the Post also reported that the intended beneficiaries of the deal -- that is, the Blue Dog Democrats who were expected to drop their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act once the NRA dropped theirs -- were still "spooked" by public resistance to the bill.

You can pat yourselves on the back knowing that you were a huge part of the outpouring of opposition that was generated this week. You played a big role in "spooking" the politicians who are going to be soliciting your votes in November.

You should know that the sponsors of the bill are still looking for ways to resuscitate the legislation, so GOA will continue to keep you abreast of further developments.

But for now, enjoy the victory and have a great weekend!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
restoring said:
Mac2411 said:
hrgrisso said:
Maybe I'm deciding to quickly and am feeling lazy today, but honestly if this:
"The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."
is an accurate description of the bill, then IMHO its a VERY bad bill.

I've heard it described as aimed directly at Tea Party candidates who've been kicking ass from Dems AND Repugs.

Bad JUJU man. Bad JUJU. Just like guns, anything that limits free speech, is BAD.
But the language you quote doesn't say anything about what the bill actuall does. It just says the NRA and similar organizations are exempt. While one might argue that excepting certain organization's from a law's reach is a bad thing, that's not the same as the bill itself being bad. Read the bill-it's available online. Otherwise all of this is just rampant internet rumor and innuendo.
I am reading it, however - I do still have faith in organizations like the Tea Party, Freedom Torch, and Gun Owners of America.

I do NOT have any more faith for the NRA.

I have NEVER had faith in pelosi, chairman maobama, leiberman, biden, et. al.

So when GOA, Freedom Torch, and others contact me and tell me that the NRA has cut a deal with the likes of them, in a bill they support that endangers us, I tend to trust them right up front.

Why would I trust some of them but not the NRA? WHy would I be willing to believe the 'worst' of the NRA?

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

Look up Wayne's salary. The last time I googled it, it was just barely over $1,000,000.00 PER YEAR. The last time I was asked to re-join the NRA the offer was for $25 per year.

Unless my math is wrong, that means it takes the membership dues of

40,000 members just to pay his salary.

Do an internet search on 'nra writes gun law' and peruse the results. They compromise with the anti-gunners instead of rallying the economic and voting power of the members to win, they squander all that $ on a salary of what seems to be a less-than-effective 'leader'.

GOA? Known as the only no compromise gun lobby. And I'd bet Larry Pratt is doing either of those!

I, along with quite a few people, have contacted nra-ila to advise of potentially threatening legislation and have been ignored EVERY TIME. None of us ever received any alerts on the issues in question either.

However, every time I have contacted GOA, they have responded. Even when I wasn't a paying member. I have received many, many more alerts from GOA than from the nra.

As for the bill - many of us are reading it, and it could stifle freedom of speech in relation to politics, elections, etc. Have you read it? It almost seems you are defending it, so I thought I would ask.

BTW - received this from GOA today:

"Gun Owners of America has been one of the key players in opposing the DISCLOSE Act." -- Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)

Friday, June 18, 2010

Thank you all for your hard work. The DISCLOSE Act is on the ropes!

Here's what The Washington Post reported this morning:
One of President Obama's top legislative priorities is in serious doubt after top House Democrats' attempt to satisfy the National Rifle Association backfired badly.
The Post says that "top Democrats abandoned plans for a Friday vote in the House" on the DISCLOSE Act after several Representatives and organizations "rose up against the deal with the NRA."

Interestingly, the Post also reported that the intended beneficiaries of the deal -- that is, the Blue Dog Democrats who were expected to drop their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act once the NRA dropped theirs -- were still "spooked" by public resistance to the bill.

You can pat yourselves on the back knowing that you were a huge part of the outpouring of opposition that was generated this week. You played a big role in "spooking" the politicians who are going to be soliciting your votes in November.

You should know that the sponsors of the bill are still looking for ways to resuscitate the legislation, so GOA will continue to keep you abreast of further developments.

But for now, enjoy the victory and have a great weekend!
In the first place, I did not comment on this thread to defend the NRA or promote it. I am a member of the NRA, but I know very well it is not a perfect organization and that it is not above political shenanigans. I will also say that I am against certain organizations, including the NRA, being excluded from the reach of the law. The law should apply equally to all.

Secondly, I am certainly not here to defend the Democrat party or its members-especially Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, or President Obama. I oppose them poltically on most any issue I can think of (all issues I can think of as I sit here typing this) and would prefer that they all be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

Third, while it may seem I am "almost defending" the bill, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am encouraging people to read the bill and then form their own opinions. Whether you want to believe it or not, all organizations - including those you listed in your comment - have agendas that may or may not be consistent with their public images. If one reads the bill himself, then he does not have to be concerned with viewing the bill through the prism of someone else's agenda.

To answer your question, I have read the bill and will read it again once I have the time to integrate the language of the bill into the law as it currently stands. (I have yet to see a copy that does that instead of merely noting where the new language will be inserted into existing law). Once that is done, I will be able to analyze the language and then form a solid opinion. That said, what I've seen so far does not indicate it is a political speech killing machine as some of these organizations portray it. For example, I have yet to see the section that would require organizations such as GOA to disclose their entire member lists in the event they run a political ad or contribute money to a candidate. Rather, what I've read would require disclosure of the identity of the persons or organizations that donated money specifically for purposes of that specific advertisement. One might reasonably argue that is still a bad thing because it has the potential to "chill" political speech, but on the other hand one might also argue that the public should know the sources of money that are influencing politics. One might also reasonbly argue that if someone wants to speak in the political arena then he or she should be willing to stand behind the message they are promoting by identifying themselves. We have freedom of speech, so why be afraid to stand behind your message? (I could think of some reasons one might not want to be identified, but I'm just pointing out some of the arguments on both sides.)

Another part of the bill prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from contributing money to our political process. I for one think that is a positive, although I can see some potential downsides. Another part of the bill prohibits government contractors with current government contracts worth more than a certain amount from contributing money to candidates. Again, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of that issue.

So anyway, my point here is not to promote, condone, or defend the bill, the Democrat party or its agenda, or the NRA. I am merely pointing out that folks should read these things for themselves and not rely on others to do their reading for them. What I saw in this thread appeared to me to indicate that not only were folks not reading the bill, they were relying on second hand accounts of someone else's analysis and then making decisions. The internet is a blessing to free speech, but to the uninformed it can also be a curse because there is misinformation and a lot of political twisting of words out there. So again, my message is read for yourself and form your own opinions. Do not allow others to do your thinking for you. I stand by that message.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Mac2411 said:
In the first place, I did not comment on this thread to defend the NRA or promote it. I am a member of the NRA, but I know very well it is not a perfect organization and that it is not above political shenanigans. I will also say that I am against certain organizations, including the NRA, being excluded from the reach of the law. The law should apply equally to all.

Secondly, I am certainly not here to defend the Democrat party or its members-especially Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, or President Obama. I oppose them poltically on most any issue I can think of (all issues I can think of as I sit here typing this) and would prefer that they all be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

Third, while it may seem I am "almost defending" the bill, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am encouraging people to read the bill and then form their own opinions. Whether you want to believe it or not, all organizations - including those you listed in your comment - have agendas that may or may not be consistent with their public images. If one reads the bill himself, then he does not have to be concerned with viewing the bill through the prism of someone else's agenda.
Thank you for clarifying those points.

So, what was your opinion of page 32, Subtitle B SEC. 211., in particular the subsection (A) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION requirement?

We have an administration that has already admitted that they keep an enemies list (in violation of the law).

We have a DHS that labels vets, pro-constitutionalists, pro-RKBA, et. al as potential terrorists - so don't the requirements in that particular part of the 'DISCLOSE' act at least make you nervous?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
restoring said:
Mac2411 said:
In the first place, I did not comment on this thread to defend the NRA or promote it. I am a member of the NRA, but I know very well it is not a perfect organization and that it is not above political shenanigans. I will also say that I am against certain organizations, including the NRA, being excluded from the reach of the law. The law should apply equally to all.

Secondly, I am certainly not here to defend the Democrat party or its members-especially Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, or President Obama. I oppose them poltically on most any issue I can think of (all issues I can think of as I sit here typing this) and would prefer that they all be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

Third, while it may seem I am "almost defending" the bill, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am encouraging people to read the bill and then form their own opinions. Whether you want to believe it or not, all organizations - including those you listed in your comment - have agendas that may or may not be consistent with their public images. If one reads the bill himself, then he does not have to be concerned with viewing the bill through the prism of someone else's agenda.
Thank you for clarifying those points.

So, what was your opinion of page 32, Subtitle B SEC. 211., in particular the subsection (A) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION requirement?

We have an administration that has already admitted that they keep an enemies list (in violation of the law).

We have a DHS that labels vets, pro-constitutionalists, pro-RKBA, et. al as potential terrorists - so don't the requirements in that particular part of the 'DISCLOSE' act at least make you nervous?

I assume you are referring to the following section:

Subtitle B—Expanded Requirements for Corporations and
Other Organizations
SEC. 211. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN REPORTS ON DISBURSEMENTS BY COVERED ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE REPORTS.—Section
304(g) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(5) DISCLOSUREOFADDITIONALINFORMATION COVERED ORGANIZATIONS MAKING PAYMENTS FOR PUBLIC INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.—

‘‘(A) ADDITIONALINFORMATION.—If a covered organization makes or contracts to make public independent expenditures in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $10,000 in a calendar year, the report filed by the organization under this subsection shall include, in addition to the information required under paragraph (3), the following information:

‘‘(i) If any person made a donation or payment to the covered organization during the covered organization reporting period which was provided for the purpose of being used for campaign-related activity or in response to a solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related activity

‘‘(I) subject to subparagraph (C), the identification of each person who made such donations or payments in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $600 during such period, presented in the order of the aggregate amount of donations or payments made by such persons during such period (with the identification of the person making the largest donation or payment appearing first); and

‘‘(II) if any person identified under subclause (I) designated that the donation or payment be used for campaign-related activity with respect to a specific election or in support of a specific candidate, the name of the election or candidate involved, and if any such person designated that the donation or payment be used for a specific public independent expenditure, a description of the expenditure.

‘‘(ii) The identification of each person who made unrestricted donor payments to the organization during the covered organization reporting period

‘‘(I) in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $600 during such period, if any of the disbursements made by the organization for any of the public independent expenditures which are covered by the report were
not made from the organization’s Campaign-Related Activity Account under
section 326; or

‘‘(II) in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $6,000 during such period, if the disbursements made by the organization for all of the public independent expenditures which are covered by the report were made exclusively from the organization’s Campaign-Related Activity Account under
section 326 (but only if the organization has made deposits described in
subparagraph (D) of section 326(a)(2) into that Account during such period in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than $10,000), presented in the order of the aggregate amount of payments made by such persons during such period (with the identification of the person making the largest payment
appearing first).



What do I think of that? Well, for now all I can say is that it gives me pause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Mac2411 said:
What do I think of that? Well, for now all I can say is that it gives me pause.
It gives me more than great pause - it flat out scares me. If I'm reading it correctly, it would mandate that the individual names of each and every single person who's donations meet those criteria be turned over to the federal government- that same government that calls us potential terrorists, you know - veterans, people who support the constitution, etc. - now they would have the individual names of the very people they already consider potential terrorists, and the 'proof' that they need in order to target those individuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
restoring said:
Mac2411 said:
What do I think of that? Well, for now all I can say is that it gives me pause.
It gives me more than great pause - it flat out scares me. If I'm reading it correctly, it would mandate that the individual names of each and every single person who's donations meet those criteria be turned over to the federal government- that same government that calls us potential terrorists, you know - veterans, people who support the constitution, etc. - now they would have the individual names of the very people they already consider potential terrorists, and the 'proof' that they need in order to target those individuals.
Well, your opinion, like a lot of folks, is colored by your viewpoint on the federal government. There's nothing wrong with that because opinions are, by their nature, colored by our viewpoints. That's what opinions are.

I have a healthy suspicion of the federal government, but I'm not so suspicious that I fear persecution because of my political beliefs or my support or lack thereof for certain causes. Could it happen? Of course it could, but I don't think we're that far gone yet. If they were going to persecute me, it would have happened a long time ago given how vocal I am with my government representatives and given the public record of every political donation I've ever made.

I don't hide when it comes to my political beliefs-they are out there for all to see. I'm a white male veteran trending to the conservative/libertarian side of the political spectrum, member of the NRA, and I attend Tea Party events on occasion. I oppose the current administration's leftist agenda and think that the federal government has grown far too large and intrusive. I, like many others, voice those opinions in the open in various public forums. The point is that the federal government already has plenty of information on my politics as well as most everyone else's. If they want to persecute me or any other folks because of their politics, they probably have plenty of information to do so wthout the need for additional lists.

All of that said, I'm still undecided on whether I support this bill or not. I am torn between the cause of shedding light on the sources of money influencing our politics and the potential that political speech will be chilled by this if it becomes law. It's a difficult issue, which is probably one reason it has not passed already.

As for a chilling effect though, if what one has to say is not false or does not advocate violence or the overthrow of the government, then they should not fear standing behind their words. I don't. Of course, I understand that some folks do have that fear because of their viewpoints on, or experiences with, the federal government; and therein lies the crux the problem. Are those fears reasonable? I don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Mac2411 said:
restoring said:
Mac2411 said:
What do I think of that? Well, for now all I can say is that it gives me pause.
It gives me more than great pause - it flat out scares me. If I'm reading it correctly, it would mandate that the individual names of each and every single person who's donations meet those criteria be turned over to the federal government- that same government that calls us potential terrorists, you know - veterans, people who support the constitution, etc. - now they would have the individual names of the very people they already consider potential terrorists, and the 'proof' that they need in order to target those individuals.
Well, your opinion, like a lot of folks, is colored by your viewpoint on the federal government. There's nothing wrong with that because opinions are, by their nature, colored by our viewpoints. That's what opinions are.

I have a healthy suspicion of the federal government, but I'm not so suspicious that I fear persecution because of my political beliefs or my support or lack thereof for certain causes. Could it happen? Of course it could, but I don't think we're that far gone yet. If they were going to persecute me, it would have happened a long time ago given how vocal I am with my government representatives and given the public record of every political donation I've ever made.

I don't hide when it comes to my political beliefs-they are out there for all to see. I'm a white male veteran trending to the conservative/libertarian side of the political spectrum, member of the NRA, and I attend Tea Party events on occasion. I oppose the current administration's leftist agenda and think that the federal government has grown far too large and intrusive. I, like many others, voice those opinions in the open in various public forums. The point is that the federal government already has plenty of information on my politics as well as most everyone else's. If they want to persecute me or any other folks because of their politics, they probably have plenty of information to do so wthout the need for additional lists.

All of that said, I'm still undecided on whether I support this bill or not. I am torn between the cause of shedding light on the sources of money influencing our politics and the potential that political speech will be chilled by this if it becomes law. It's a difficult issue, which is probably one reason it has not passed already.

As for a chilling effect though, if what one has to say is not false or does not advocate violence or the overthrow of the government, then they should not fear standing behind their words. I don't. Of course, I understand that some folks do have that fear because of their viewpoints on, or experiences with, the federal government; and therein lies the crux the problem. Are those fears reasonable? I don't know.
Many of us don't 'hide'. You are not the only male/white veteran/conservative/tea party member/ etc. that is vocal with his opinions (and I'm glad you do that!).

I agree with parts of your post, and disagree with parts of it as well.

I think it's important to learn what interest groups might be impacting our government - whether foreign or domestic. I believe that part of the problem is that the amount of money thrown at our lawmakers by various interest groups and governments leads our government to do the bidding of the entities throwing $ their way instead of protecting the interests of the people. Look at the current allegations that BP paid for Rom Emanuel's million dollar apartment. If that's true, it sure is nice to know it because it lends itself to favoritism, etc.

However, I don't trust them with information of the nature this law would generate. There are many things the government has shown us, and one is that they can't be trusted to do the right thing.

The political climate has changed. I don't agree that if they were going to persecute you that they would have done it long ago. I think the risk of the feds choosing to investigate/persecute/prosecute people based on their ideological or political views is increasing, not decreasing or static.

Yes, there have always been lists, but recently they are being much more open about their existence.

Over the last few administrations, there have been startling changes in how our own government views the people of this nation. This nation has always had veterans, but it has only been recently that our government has publicly called them potential terrorists. In fact, the DHS seems to consider most of us potential terrorists.

The Veterans Disarmament Act (not it's real name - HR 2640) even specifically targets Veterans for disarmament without appeal. I say without appeal because after the nra supported the Veterans Disarmament Act, the appeal process was defunded and eliminated. That act also severely broadened the definition of who could determine if a veteran's RKBA would be permanently canceled. Prior to that shameful act, it took the diagnosis or opinion of a psychiatrist, psychologist, or similar. Now it merely takes a 'lawful authority'. What lawful authority? We don't know, because that was not clarified. The adjudication process is also muddied. One of the organizations I work with is trying to secure proof regarding the process as it is being claimed that people are not being told about the adjudications at all - a clear violation of the process as it was previously understood. People were to have the opportunity to present a defense, have a 'hearing' etc. Some people are saying they didn't know anything at all about it until they tried to purchase a firearm and were denied! In other words - no due process.

Kind of like a lot of people didn't know they were on that secret no-fly list until they tried to board a plane. No due process here either. In fact, you can't contest it, review it, or appeal it.

That kind of b.s. wouldn't have passed years ago. But in the new climate that has developed over the last few administrations, it became law.

I bring that up for a reason - use whatever euphemism you wish - thin end of the wedge, camel's nose under the tent flap, it constitutes the start of the process.

Years ago when the seatbelt law started being enforced around here, the rule was that you could not be pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt. You could be cited if you were lawfully contacted for other reasons and you weren't wearing it, but you could not be pulled over for that reason alone. Now, you can be pulled over and cited just for that and that alone. There are even commercial campaigns on the idiot box for just that rule.

That's called mission creep. And it seems to happen quite a bit when the feds are involved. I think that this same evolution of use will be seen with the information gained via the DISCLOSE act. It always has when it's been in their hands.

The new healthcare law mandates that all of your medical records - from every doctor you've ever seen - must be entered into a central database that will be under the supervision of the federal government. This plus HR 2640 can mean the cancellation of RKBA for quite a few folks. There's an example of mission creep again.

So the information gleaned as a result of the DISCLOSE act can and likely will be used for other reasons later on. No fly lists, investigations, etc. Is that pure extrapolation? Yes it is. However, given the government's track record I am comfortable with drawing that conclusion.

Thus, the chilling effect you referred to. The information that the DISCLOSE act will generate can definitely lead many to think twice before standing up for their rights. If there is a socialist anti-gun administration in charge, will I be as willing to go on record as having donated $1,000 to a pro-gun lobby as I would be if they weren't there or if my donation could be anonymous? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps I wouldn't want them to know that. And it's not just RKBA issues - it is every issue.

That is why I feel those fears are completely reasonable; because the feds have shown time and time again that they will abuse information and power.

Yes, it's got pros and cons - I just believe the potential cons far outweigh the potential pros.

The fact that the NRA was fine with it once they had been given their own little exclusion is disgusting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Tuesday June 22nd. Here's the latest email, with NRA contact information, from the National Association for Gun Rights:


Though the pressure activists placed on Congress and the NRA last week made Nancy Pelosi postpone the vote on the DISCLOSE Act, she's now scheduled a vote for this Wednesday.

It's vital that every Second Amendment activist understand what's at stake here, and act today!

We're not just talking about legislation that would shut down groups in Washington, D.C.

The DISCLOSE Act will kill off every state-level association and group in the entire country, while keeping major left-wing radical groups intact - (and, with their exemption, the NRA).

This is not only counterproductive to our liberties, but tactically it's just plain stupid.

The enemies of freedom will kill off, one by one, every pro-freedom group in America, until there is only one.... and then they'll kill them off, with no one left to defend the Second Amendment.

Any kind of "deal" (NRA Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre admitted the deal on the Lars Larsen radio show) with Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

They are only attempting to divide the gun community (which the NRA exemption deal does) in order to conquer us.

And why are the Dems so anxious to pass this bill?

It's the best way they can pass gun control. Remove gun owners' voices from the fight and it means there's nothing stopping a repeal of your gun rights.

Why did Democrat leadership cut the deal with the NRA? There's only one reason -- they didn't have the votes to pass it.

And now that the NRA has it's exemption (from the draconian free speech limits of the DISCLOSE Act), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer believe they can pass this outrageous restriction of your rights to free speech.

Again: the only weapon gun owners have to save their gun rights is their First Amendment right to free speech.

No amount of gymnastics by NRA leadership nor by politicians can smooth over this absolutely traitorous deal with the devil.

What can you do?

First, call the NRA (even if you called them last week) to tell them you don't support their despicable deal on the DISCLOSE Act.

You can reach some of these leaders at the NRA directly:


Ronald L. Schmeits, NRA President:
18 Private Road #2001ST
Raton NM 87740
575-445-5836, 575-445-2080 fax


Charles L. Cunningham, Director, NRA-ILA Federal Affairs:
4864 Oakcrest Drive
Fairfax VA 22030
703-352-3245, 202-651-2570 fax


David A. Keene, NRA 1st Vice President:
5602 Dawes Avenue
Alexandria VA 22311-1102
703-671-5602


James W. Porter II, NRA 2nd Vice President:
215 21st Street N #1000
Birmingham AL 35203-3710
205-322-1744


You can call your member of Congress at this number:
202-224-3121

Or you can e-mail them by clicking here.

Tell your Congressman to oppose the DISCLOSE Act -- regardless of the NRA's deal -- at every turn.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top