Posted on 07/14/2010 12:19:11 AM PDT by Neil E. Wright
Shocking Emails Show National Rifle Association Worked to Prohibit Rifles From National Parks
Tuesday, July 13th at 2:35PM EDT
You know things are bad for the National Rifle Association when it has to get the New York Times to run a puff piece on it.
But in their zeal to get a puff piece out there as well as their collaboration with the left on the DISCLOSE Act, the NRA has angered a number of people on Capitol Hill.
Shocking new e-mails obtained by RedState show that the National Rifle Association actively opposed and sought to undermine gun-rights legislation offered in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).
The New York Times article contains this paragraph:
With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
This is referring to legislation by Senator Tom Coburn, which would have allowed rifles and pistols into national parks — legislation the NRA actively tried to undermine. In other words, in getting their puff piece written by the New York Times, the NRA is taking credit for things the NRA actively tried to stop. That is not the whole story.
A congressional aide tells me, “You’re absolutely right that many conservatives view the NRA as an organization that represents itself rather than the 2nd amendment. For instance, the NRA was livid when Senator Coburn introduced the guns in the park amendment without their permission. The NRA worked to undermine the amendment.”
Specifically, the NRA tried to weaken the guns in parks language working with House Democratic leadership (after it passed the Senate overwhelmingly). The Coburn language returned to the states complete authority to determine firearm possession laws in national parks and refuges. This change mirrored similar regulations governing firearm possession for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In some instances, this would result in park and refuge visitors being allowed to carry handguns and rifles in national parks. Ironically, the National “RIFLE” Association wanted to change it so that Coburn’s legislation did not include “rifles” or other long firearms.
Another source familiar with the behind the scenes machinations on the DC voting rights bill tells me that despite the claims in the New York Times article, “the NRA had nothing to do with the addition of the DC Gun language to the DC voting rights bill. Senator Ensign did not give the NRA a heads-up for fear that Reid would block the Amendment, because the NRA would have ratted Ensign out to Reid. They may have helped in the House to make sure the DC voting rights bill include gun rights language, yet they were not part of any pre-Amendment offering strategy sessions.”
Why? For fear that they would rat out the Republican effort to Harry Reid.
RedState has obtained a series of emails between the NRA and congressional aides wherein the NRA is clearly pushing for a Nancy Pelosi backed language to undermine Tom Coburn backed language. In the chain of emails, the NRA says it wants a House version because Senator Coburn’s would have unintended consequences. What were those unintended consequences?
From: NRA
To: Congressional Aide
Sent: Mon May 18, 2009
Subject: Re: Congress Poised to Restore Common Sense Second Amendment RightsThe Coburn amendment to H.R. 627 is open to criticism and potential problems since it is not limited to concealed firearms, or even concealable firearms. Rifles, shotguns, legally possessed machineguns or destructive devices, could all be carried if the person is not prohibited and the person complies with state law.
Two very important points to consider on the language:
1. Limiting to concealed handguns squares with the motive for the federal rule change to legalize self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges - i.e. the growth of right to carry states.
2. Concealed (and therefore concealable) handguns are less likely than rifles or shotguns to be used for poaching - unlike in national forests and BLM lands where hunting is frequent and legal.
Note the NRA uses the words “destructive devices.”
Let’s ignore the fact that the inability to conceal a rifle might actually be of benefit to park rangers should poaching happen. Instead, let’s focus on the National Rifle Association trying to prohibit rifles from national parks.
What. The. Heck?
★ FREEDOM! ★
I can’t imagine the NRA stabbing their members in the back with some dirty-dealing, so what’s their explanation? I am sure they have to have some kind of ‘nuance’ on it. It is just difficult for me to fathom this total sell-out of their principles, but, then again, the AARP sold it’s members out to death panels, so nothing would totally shock me.
Well, I’ve said it before, no need to say it again.
where’s charleton heston when you need him
Too many unnamed sources, and the email stuff is hearsay. Show me the real deal and name names.
The NRA has done a huge amount of good for liberty and preservation of the 2A, a critical component of a free society. They were instrumental in defeating Gore and Kerry. I’m not ready to throw them under the bus just yet.
The difference is that the AARP has always been a rat mouthpiece/propagandist conjob on the oldsters. The same cannot be said about the NRA. They have never been a rat mouthpiece.
What we may be seeing here is an attempt to purloin the NRA from the pub and tea party support - divide and conquer. It sure wouldn’t be the first time they infiltrated a conservative organization.
Be very careful about dumping the NRA. If we dump them, they will turn elsewhere for their support and we will have lost a powerful organization aimed at preserving one of the most important and fundamental rights of citizenship. If the rats get a toehold in the NRA, you know they’ll neuter them in a heartbeat.
Be careful.
Wouldn’t it be nice for zero’s campaign to have the NRA on the rat plantation by 2012?
Meh. “Destructive device” has a particular meaning under federal law and BATFE interpretations thereof. The NRA knows this. They have little to do with your RTKBA.
TC
Wouldn’t it be nice for the Dems if we were squabbling with the NRA prior to the Fall elections?
Correct. Too much unsubstantiated fluff here. And there sure are a lot of Freepers on the anti NRA bandwagon recently. I think FR has also been infiltrated.
Not infiltrated, just woke up and realized the NRA existed only to continue its existence.
“Wouldn’t it be nice for the Dems if we were squabbling with the NRA prior to the Fall elections?”
Yeah it would be a shame if we let the NRA endorse people like Harry Reid before the election.
They never did send me the nifty gym bag . . .
Wouldn’t it be nice for the Dems if we were squabbling with the NRA prior to the Fall elections?
******************
LOL! Too true. Dragons first, lizards after.
I’m beginning to see that. I’m an NRA Life Member and am getting frustrated over a lot of the news coming out about the NRA. It seems like an organized campaign to discredit the NRA.
Infiltrated? Right, I infiltrated FR back in '97. Maybe we just don't like to belong to an organization that supports the likes of John Murtha and Harry Reid. Ever think of that?
I would agree one of the lefts tactics is to cause confusion and disagreement within the ranks of the conservatives. They’ve done it before and don’t have to work too hard at it.
That said, the NRA has shown it should be questioned. Their secret deal on the Disclose Act was egregious. Their support and possible endorsement of Harry Reid is another.
They featured a picture of Harry Reid with Wayne at shooting range in their magazine. The message that gives anyone seeing that picture is that Harry is one of us gun owners. When in reality is has partnered with our worst enemy.
The NRA leadership is full of Washington insiders and mostly several closet leftists. Further they have a financial incentive to insure a continuous crisis exists so they can raise funds.
Then there’s the $60 million dollar gun range. Just how can you spend 60 million on a gun range?
Hey, you’re telling me anything new. I don’t like certain NRA endorsements either. They endoresed many so called blue dog democrats. What a fricking joke.
Yea, I know. I get the American Rifleman too. To see Harry Reid in there was a kick in the nuts. And a good question, how do you spend $60 mil on a gun range?
where’s charleton heston when you need him
Pushing up daisies and contemplating his participation in the successful effort to get the unconstitutional 1968 gun laws through the Congress.
http://www.xmission.com/pub/lists/roc/archive/roc.003
where’s charleton heston when you need him
Pushing up daisies, with all due respect for the dead.
And there sure are a lot of Freepers on the anti NRA bandwagon recently.
Not just recently. Ever since Neal Knox was run out of the NRA and before.
“And there sure are a lot of Freepers on the anti NRA bandwagon recently.”
That’s the poinmt I was trying to make.
you hunt in National Forrest land, you dont hunt in National Parks. simple. get a life....it is part of negotiation....it is something the NRA does to alow you to have guns for protection in National Park lands....NO OTHER ORGANIZATION GOT YOU THAT RIGHT.
if you need protection a handgun will suffice, if you need to shoot game in an area where shooting game is illegal, then you need a rifle.
I would amend this (it may already be amended) that is you are in Dinali, or Glacier or Yellowstone in GRIZZLY territory...that you be alosed a long gun of enough power to protect yourself from one of these beasts, but for most National Parks, you dont need any more than a large handgun.
That’s the point I was trying to make.
...and my point was, it isn’t just recently.
charleton heston
was a figurehead.....he had NO power.
the power is in the executive VP and other VPs.
the power is in the executive VP and other VPs.
I think I would add the Board of directors to the power list.
I think this year, in this coming election, it’s not so important to worry about the NRA — what it’s doing and what it’s saying — but getting out there with time and money and supporting good individual candidates.
Pick candidates in your local and statewide races who are worthy of conservative support and support them. Don’t worry what the national organizations are doing right now. We’ve got November to think of.
absolutely....
the the PRESIDENT of the NRA like Heston or Joe Foss were for public photo ops.....
Read this later today.
“...and my point was, it isn’t just recently.”
I’m starting to realize that.
Well my FRiend, the NRA could nip this in the bud right now by firing LaPierre and the BOD, and getting the organization back on track...
...but I'm not holding my breath, members such as myself have been hammering them lately in an attempt to bring them back into the fold, But all they do is change the direction of the spin, instead of doing what is right .
The NRA needs pull their head out of their butts.
i agree
the NRA is a positive for the conservative movement
If there is gun freedom, there will be no need for the NRA. Their life blood, money, depends upon a constant threat.
It’s not you who keep them going. It is the government. They need the government which does the NRA’s heavy lifting.
The NRA is pro gun control. Always has been. That is what it was set up for, and has always said it was partners with the government in ‘sensible, and responsible’ gun control.
This isn’t news coming out of the NRA, it is rumor (from an aide etc).
Think long and hard-this issue is rather complex and strategies are in play-some of which seem to be counter-intuitive to the overall conservative ideal until you add the effort together. NRA remains a single issue entity but has long reaching affects across the spectrum of consitutional interests.
The press/left is thinking divide and conquer. What better way than to mischaracterize the truth and inspire NRA members to think the NRA is lost its way....
The NRA surely needs to effectively mount a counter-PR campaign and clearly indicate what it is doing.
Rumor about endorsing Reid is one example. They have not.
Heard on the radio that the NRA endorsed Harry Reid.
Is this true?
NRA gone the way of the AARP
“Note the NRA uses the words “destructive devices.””
The term has very precise legal meaning: non-sporting guns with bores over 0.5” (to wit: anything over .50 cal that is not a normal shotgun).
This is another example of how reasonable people can differ over how things can be done. This amendment had certain risks due to its wording, and does set the issue up for certain effective counter-attacks later. Shocked the heck out of everyone that the gambit actually worked.
All strategies and tactics have risks, and not everyone agrees which risks are acceptable.
If they will sell us out on rifles/shotguns what handguns are they willing to sell out on?
Tip toeing around their Disclosure Act debacle was one thing, they can claim that wasn’t gun related but this one is clearly a John McCain like knife right between the shoulder blades of gun owners and NRA members. They have some serious splaining to do over this one.
The disease of going native aka liberalism in DC that infects the RNC idiots has apparently spread to the NRA...
“The term has very precise legal meaning: non-sporting guns with bores over 0.5” (to wit: anything over .50 cal that is not a normal shotgun).”
You mean like my 54 cal side-lock and the powder flask I use to charge it?
where have you been? what planet are you on?
the NRA was NEVER a Conservative or RNC organization....never, ever
they are a 2nd amendment organization since its inception and will give a good rating to those politicians who vote pro gun. their A through F rating runs the gamut of political parties and should be no surprise to anyone.
without the NRA no Heller win, no Chicago win, no CCW....
NONE....because other 2nd organizations do not have the lobbying track record, pull or money. Dont kid yourself dont buy the crap those out to destroy the NRA for political reasons is dishing out....
Not much need to spin it, Neil. N.R.A. has been against poaching since around the turn of the last century. You didn’t know that, either.
I realize that you’re a pissed-off security guard who can’t even pay the rent in a trailer park, but it’s about time you took a look in the mirror, Neil. You’re a mall cop. No one actually has to obey your authoritay. Your sphere of influence is limited to kids who chew bubble gum in Target.
That’s your life. The reason that you can’t hold a job, the reason that you can’t pay your rent, the reason you hate everything you don’t understand is you. It’s not the N.R.A., it’s not Obama, it’s not the republicans or even the democrats. You’re the common thread. The N.R.A. has no obligation to seek your permission for everything that it does. It is not beholden to provide you with explanations that are beyond your ken.
Yes, Neil, different versions of bills are introduced in committee, and some are preferable to others. If they helped draft one bill, they’re going to oppose a different version. The N.R.A. didn’t call you up and ask your permission to draft a concealed carry bill, nor did they ask you for your input. They’re never going to ask you for your opinion, either. The reason is simple. They know what they’re doing and you don’t.
Shoulda added “...-and other ‘sporting arms’”.
Drink coffee first, then post.
Please define “sporting arms”, I’ll wait!
Just think how much good they could of done had they been really committed.
He brought out that the sniveling shits in the NRA were against "Rifles, shotguns, legally possessed machineguns or destructive devices, could all be carried if the person is not prohibited and the person complies with state law."
Are you trying to say that state laws encourage poaching?
Get your head out of your ass and man up to the fact that the NRA seems to have lost its way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.