Sunday, May 27, 2001 Copyright (c) Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: VIN SUPRYNOWICZ Snatching defeat from the jaws of victoryOne way America's mainstream media reveal their rabid anti-self-defense prejudice is through their insistence on characterizing the National Rifle Association as a wild-eyed group of no-compromise, gun-rights extremists.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The NRA endorsed the original federal handgun control bill of the 1930s; the 1968 Gun Control Act; and the Brady Bill with its waiting periods and now its so-called "instant check" national gun registration (for long guns as well as revolvers.) NRA executives seem happy so long as they continue to collect dues and contributions from the outfit's reported 4 million dull-witted members, who apparently never tire of the siren song, "We got you a better compromise than if we hadn't been here; we only bargained away a few more of your rights this year."
Until March 16, Dennis Fusaro worked for the NRA's chief competitor in the field of Washington gun-rights lobbying, the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, training local activists to lobby against further restrictions on the Second Amendment at the state level.
He appears to have done his job too well.
As opposed to the old NRA game of "Let's Make a Deal," Fusaro says he was training GOA's local activists to hold the feet of anti-Bill-of-Rights politicians to the fire and "tell them, `Do what you have to do, but you know where we stand. If you vote any way but for our gun rights, we will work against you in the next election; we will rate you with an "F"; we will run people against you; we will get all the gun owners to vote against you; we will defeat you.' Politicians respond to whoever makes their lives miserable. If they can count on your being their friend no matter what they do, they're going to start cozying up to Sarah Brady."
Fusaro says it was precisely his budding success with these tactics in 20-plus states that led the GOA board of directors to attempt to pull in the reins on such effective lobbying, and -- when that didn't work -- to fire him.
"The local pols tell the lobbyists, 'Can't you control your people?' And what's more important to the (professional) lobbyists is to have these relationships with these politicians rather than saving your rights. And I said that, and for saying that I had to go."
There "were some personality differences" that led to the removal of Fusaro, GOA executive director Larry Pratt insists, adding that the group will not be going "softer" on any gun issues. "It's a shame" that Fusaro had "a personality difference with the chairman of the board," 73-year-old GOA founder and former California state Sen. H.L. "Bill" Richardson.
"If it had just been a personality difference that'd be great," Fusaro responds, "but if it was just a personality difference, why did (GOA) board members come out and say we can't lose the Republican majority in 2002; we have to get Bush re-elected? If that's our primary objective, then what can Bush and the Republicans in Congress do to us, or fail to do for us? Why should they feel obliged to do anything for gun owners?"
It's the larger NRA which cynics have long described as the "Gun Owners' Auxiliary to the Republican Party," of course, since the nation's largest gun control organization will often award its "A" or "B" rating to GOP turncoats who have voted for half the gun control laws to come down the pike, endorsing them over Libertarians or other third party candidates who vow to repeal every gun law on the books.
Why? Because the third party candidate "can't win," of course, and the NRA lobbyist's real game is to "retain access" to the GOP incumbent after helping him win re-election. Why insist on the plain language of the Second Amendment ("shall not be infringed") if the end result is fewer cocktail party invitations next year? That could make your organization appear "out of the mainstream."
"Richardson doesn't want GOA people criticizing the NRA," Fusaro explains. "Richardson yelled at me over the phone, he said they have wonderful relations with the NRA in California; we can't have this public disunity" among the supposed gun rights' groups. "Well, hell, let's look at California," which has some of the most onerous victim disarmament laws in the country.
"What Richardson wants most, in my opinion, is to be part of that respectable conservative Republican establishment, and if that's what you want, then they own you. You have to show them you're willing to break up the country club, you're willing to be thrown out, you're willing to be thrown into the briar patch."
Insiders tell me there may indeed be a drop in GOA lobbying at the state legislative level this election cycle, though they place the primary blame on a shortfall in fund-raising -- one that's apparently affecting most conservative organizations since the Bush election.
When it comes to conservative causes, "People are figuring with George Bush elected we've all died and gone to heaven," sighed one frustrated, inside-the-Beltway fund-raiser this week.
Vin Suprynowicz (vin@lvrj.com), the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday.
If GOA didn't bash pro-gun bills since they weren't good enough(Vermont or NOTHING), then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. I want better than Vermont carry(Vermont with a premption on local municipalities), but it's not going to happen...YET. I want incrementalism(like the ASD'ers have done) toward Vermont Carry. Also, why do they have to lie? Is the truth that painful for them? When the NRA is wrong, I'll say so. When MCRGO is wrong, I'll say so.
Why? Because the third party candidate "can't win," of course, and the NRA lobbyist's real game is to "retain access" to the GOP incumbent after helping him win re-election. Why insist on the plain language of the Second Amendment ("shall not be infringed") if the end result is fewer cocktail party invitations next year? That could make your organization appear "out of the mainstream."
Third party candidates 'can't win', because they HAVEN'T won. When have they won? Twice. Angus King in Maine, and a celebrity in Jesse Ventura. What about the house and senate? Bernie Sanders and James Jeffords are dems(caucuses with them). There are no 3rd party winners in the state house or senate in Michigan. Where are the results.
MCRGO doesn't have grades, but we have endorsements. We are a little tougher than NRA gradewise, although we are affiliated with them. We say endorsement or no endorsement. If one isn't perfect but better than the other, sometimes we begrudgingly endorse the better one. If both are the same, we stay out.
Fusario seems more obsessed with the NRA than getting good legislation passed. What has GOA done since 1998? One bill that passed the house. That's it.
I want results. If a pro-2a org doesn't get results, they aren't worth my support. I see a lot of noise from GOA and Fusario. What have they really done outside of give me a headache in Michigan when I'm explaining the real story to angry emails or messages on the MCRGO message boards.
MCRGO and NRA get good results. I can carry in Michigan. Thank you NRA. Thank you MCRGO. Screw GOA. They weren't at the capitol. They didn't lobby. In fact, they fought us.
I tend to be a little bitter about that.