NRA Rampage AGAINST Gun Rights

An amendment proposed by Rand Paul banning law enforcement from randomly sifting through gun records, and requiring them to get a judges permission explicitly to search an individuals gun records was spoken against by the NRA.

The NRA sent at least two e-mails to Congress during the Patriot Act debate this week calling Rand Paul's amendment to exempt gun purchases from the provisions of the Patriot Act a "poorly drafted amendment" and stating that "the NRA could not support this." The Senate rejected the Paul amendment by an 85-10 vote May 26. And the NRA e-mail, according to Reason magazine, claimed:

Source: www.thenewamerican.com...

Last week, a gun bill was about to be passed in New Hampshire that allowed concealed carry of firearms without a permit called HB 330. The bill passed the house 244 to 109 in New Hampshire. (Source: www.pgnh.org...) The bill was expected to pass the senate as well until NRA representative John Hohenwarter introduced a more restrictive version that had already been voted down in the house because in part it added restrictions to gun rights. The NRA website then listed on their website one reason HB 330 did not go far enough, and then five reasons HB 330 went too far to protect gun rights on their website (Source: www.nraila.org...). They also seem to take a two-faced approach saying they weren't responsible for HB 330 getting voted down right after saying what a terrible bill it was for going 'way too far' to protect gun rights.

The NRA is clearly on a rampage against gun rights, and anyone who is a member should re-consider their support. There are many other organizations in favor of gun rights and those organizations should be supported... but not the NRA. Liberals should be extremely happy with the NRA right now.

In both cases, the NRA blamed "poor draftsmanship". What is obviously to blame in reality is the fact that the NRA doesn't want any bills except those drafted by their own legal team to pass, and to hell with gun rights in the process.

reply to post by civilchallenger



Thanks for posting this up, after I found out they were one of the driving forces behind messing up the Dick Act of 1902 I've stopped giving them money.

Originally posted by Silverado292
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

Thanks for posting this up, after I found out they were one of the driving forces behind messing up the Dick Act of 1902 I've stopped giving them money.

Please elaborate on the strangely named "Dick Act" and what the NRA did to mess it up.

reply to post by civilchallenger


So much for the NRA. I'm pretty much only gonna support Ron and Rand Paul. The rest can go to hell

Th Op kindly provided the NRA position which, in part, says

Given these unfounded and misleading accusations, we believe you should know the facts. The NRA has repeatedly debunked false claims about suggested reforms to H.B. 330. Now, without explanation, some critics are accusing the NRA of trying to enact "gun control." That assertion is absurd.

Before condemning the NRA for their position, you might actually want to look at their objections in full in the link the OP so kindly provided here. I know it's a little "wordy" and might requires some thought to digest, but it also might be worthwhile if it divests you of the silly notion that the NRA is "against" gun rights.

reply to post by civilchallenger


I'm looking for more information on it, it's also known as Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654. From what I remember is the NRA did a great job of striping us from the right to own select fire or fully automatic weapons. I'm trying to find a more reliable source of information rather than the endless blogs and sites it's talked about.

reply to post by civilchallenger



thearizonasentinel.com...

Here's an article on the all compromising nra, yes the site could be classed as bloggish but it was good information.
www.vlrc.org...

Originally posted by schuyler
Before condemning the NRA for their position, you might actually want to look at their objections in full in the link the OP so kindly provided here. I know it's a little "wordy" and might requires some thought to digest, but it also might be worthwhile if it divests you of the silly notion that the NRA is "against" gun rights.

You are actually right that the NRA isn't philosophically opposed to gun rights. They are simply against gun rights in actual practice, both by *opposing* pro-gun-rights bills, AND, by actually advocating *in favor* of bills that add to gun legislation. They may as well be anti-gun liberals considering the job they are doing this year. Sometimes its the thought that counts, but in the NRA's case its the action that counts!

And looking at the links provided by some of the comments, especially www.vlrc.org... it is becoming clear that the NRA loves to compromise away people's gun rights consider the extremely long history of doing exactly that.

This blurb from this article will tell you why they didn't want it passed:

The NRA takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting gun owners' rights against government abuse.

If the bill doesn't come from them or one of the people they pay in Congress, they won't accept it being a law. No matter how good it is for the people.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

This blurb from this article will tell you why they didn't want it passed:

The NRA takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting gun owners' rights against government abuse.

If the bill doesn't come from them or one of the people they pay in Congress, they won't accept it being a law. No matter how good it is for the people.

/TOA

You take that out-of-context excerpt and interpret to mean "If the bill doesn't come from them or one of the people they pay in Congress, they won't accept it being a law. No matter how good it is for the people"?

They meant that they are as dedicated as anyone or any group when it comes to protecting gun owners' rights against government abuse. It's a mild form of boasting and showing pride in their efforts. Not that concocted interpretation you put forward.:shk:

reply to post by civilchallenger

An amendment proposed by Rand Paul banning law enforcement from randomly sifting through gun records, and requiring them to get a judges permission explicitly to search an individuals gun records was spoken against by the NRA.
:
..
:
Last week, a gun bill was about to be passed in New Hampshire that allowed concealed carry of firearms without a permit called HB 330. The bill passed the house 244 to 109 in New Hampshire. (Source: www.pgnh.org...) The bill was expected to pass the senate as well until NRA representative John Hohenwarter introduced a more restrictive version that had already been voted down in the house because in part it added restrictions to gun rights. The NRA website then listed on their website one reason HB 330 did not go far enough, and then five reasons HB 330 went too far to protect gun rights on their website (Source: www.nraila.org...). They also seem to take a two-faced approach saying they weren't responsible for HB 330 getting voted down right after saying what a terrible bill it was for going 'way too far' to protect gun rights.

The NRA is clearly on a rampage against gun rights, and anyone who is a member should re-consider their support. There are many other organizations in favor of gun rights and those organizations should be supported... but not the NRA. Liberals should be extremely happy with the NRA right now.

In both cases, the NRA blamed "poor draftsmanship". What is obviously to blame in reality is the fact that the NRA doesn't want any bills except those drafted by their own legal team to pass, and to hell with gun rights in the process.

Blaming the NRA for the actions of state and federal Senates is ridiculous. And the NH law was poorly written. The NRA did the residents a service by suggesting changes that eliminated parts of the original bill that were vague and prone to clashes with federal laws down the road.

And the NRA doesn't draft legislation. They employ some of the best legal minds in the business and they use these guys to protect our Second Amendment rights.

dbl post

This is the NRA stopping the draconian policies courtesy of the Baggers to make gun ownership only allowed by those who they deem worthy for it, ie no minorities could own guns!

The core foundation of the NRA is to arm everyone.

The guns you will need to comply with the spirit of the 2nd ammendment are outlawed in most states anyhow. Thats weapons for war you need, not a little pistol to protect your tv set.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This is the NRA stopping the draconian policies courtesy of the Baggers to make gun ownership only allowed by those who they deem worthy for it, ie no minorities could own guns!

The core foundation of the NRA is to arm everyone.

Are you kidding me? This is one of the most fallacious statements I've read on this forum. Wherever did you come up with this gem?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This is the NRA stopping the draconian policies courtesy of the Baggers to make gun ownership only allowed by those who they deem worthy for it, ie no minorities could own guns!

The core foundation of the NRA is to arm everyone.

Are you kidding me? This is one of the most fallacious statements I've read on this forum. Wherever did you come up with this gem?

The NRA directly. More Specifically the Friends Of The NRA New Jersey Chapter whom I know one of the Chairwoman there personally.

They're a twisted, shady bunch.

There's a state affiliate group up here that is always getting in the way of liberty sided legislation called GONH.

They pretend to be all about the liberty until it looks like it'll hurt their bank book then they go nuts trying to convince people that some tyranny is a good thing.

Try to explain it to some old-timer NRA lifer and they call you a communist/terrorist.

Gun Owners of America and the JPFO are pretty solidly no-bull rights pushers. Unlike the NRA's fair-weather liberty garbage.

reply to post by mishigas


What about 330 was "poorly written?"

That NRA rep Hohenwarter wanted to wipe out a simple "carry what ya got" bill and replace it with more training mandates, checks, licenses and higher fees.

It was the most backwards thing when I got that "Urgent Action Required" letter from GONH.

How they expected anyone to buy that dumping Constitutional Carry for a system of permitting that resembled states like CT was beyond me but obviously a lot of people did buy it because the bill died.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


What about 330 was poorly written? Here are 3 examples:

NRA on 330

Given these unfounded and misleading accusations, we believe you should know the facts. The NRA has repeatedly debunked false claims about suggested reforms to H.B. 330. Now, without explanation, some critics are accusing the NRA of trying to enact "gun control." That assertion is absurd.

Unfortunately, H.B. 330, while well-intentioned, was poorly drafted. In its current form, the bill falls short of good firearms policy. Changes and clarifications are necessary to not only strengthen its provisions, but also to prevent serious, unintended legal consequences.

As passed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, H.B. 330 would create legitimate concerns about the carrying of concealed loaded handguns in public by minors. While the bill would not protect the carrying of firearms by minors, it would not actually prohibit it either. This is a key distinction, as under current law, minors are essentially prohibited from carrying concealed loaded handguns in public by the licensing requirement, which would be repealed if H.B. 330 were enacted.

Even more problematic, H.B. 330 would preempt prosecution for the carrying of a firearm in any situation that is not specifically excluded in the bill itself. This includes such instances as:

* The carrying of a firearm by an inmate in jail who is not a prohibited person under New Hampshire law;

* The carrying of firearms contrary to restrictions in protective orders and restraining orders;

* The carrying of firearms contrary to restrictions in a parolee’s or probationer’s conditions of supervision (the bill only mentions bail restrictions);

* The carrying of a firearm on private property in defiance of the property owner’s wishes; and

* The carrying of a firearm while committing a felony.

Also troubling, H.B. 330 in its current form additionally purports to protect, as a matter of New Hampshire law, the carrying of firearms by various categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.

reply to post by mishigas


Those are all gun-control measures.

Sounds like the NRA is mad that 330 would have negated gun control.

Unless I'm reading it wrong the NRA has a problem with minors carrying and felons carrying.

That's gun control.

If my kid wanted to carry and proved to me he wasnt a dumb ass I'd let him carry.
If a criminal has served his time then his debt is paid. Let him carry.

All of those "prohibited persons" measures exist because of the NRA trying to appease the gun grabbing crowd many years ago and they dont want to let go of their great anti-liberty legislation theyre so proud of.