 |
 |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
Featured Listener Comments Section: Contents List |
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Listener: NRA
Category: General
Date: 17 Jun 2010
Time: 11:55:37 -0700
Remote Name: 69.151.26.148
From the NRA, posted here as Pratt on Texas has received numerous emails on the subject:
We appreciate some NRA members’ concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the
“DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or
misunderstood the facts.
We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary,
we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in
a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26.
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly
opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak
and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial
version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during
elections and threatened our members’ freedom of association, by forcing us to
turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been
forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and
Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let
this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.
The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law
enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between
training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political
speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
Is it worth us having to live with this bill’s draconian restrictions just to
protect the First Amendment rights of other groups? We don’t think so. We didn’t
“sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill.
As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its
draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will
not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully
honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.
Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of
the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional
leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising
that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen;
instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend
millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law.
We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our
ability to speak.
There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun
rights. It’s easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some
so-called First Amendment principle – unless you have a sworn duty to protect
the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of
individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do
not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility.
Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And
that we do without apology.
|
|
Join our Listener
Club here. |
||
|
