Posted on 10/31/2001 4:27:39 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
ALL, I would submit that the "meaning" behind this legislation is NOT "well", or EVEN good. As in education, "mistakes" made in coordinated stupidity at this level are NOT POSSIBLE!!! What are the chances of a FREEP??? Peace and love, George.
(BTW - I searched for posts regarding this canned response before posting, so you multiple post Nazis back off)
____Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:36:51 -0700 (PDT) From: XXXXXXXX
Subject: NRA support for CARA
To: SLamson@nrahq.orgMs. Lamson,
I am an attorney and a member of the National Rifle Association. I have serious reservations regarding CARA and oppose the passage of this bill. You now have at least one member of the NRA voicing opposition to this bill.
I intend to forward my concerns and your email to pro-Second Amendment groups that I am a member of or offer advice to. I will offer my opinions on the bill and advise individuals to contact you with their thoughts, pro or con.
I strongly request that the NRA reconsider its position with regard to this bill. If the NRA continues to support this bill I will drop my membership in this organization.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX ______
From: ILA-Contact [mailto:ILA-Contact@nrahq.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:41 AM
To: XXXXXXX
Subject: CARAThank you for contacting NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. As for your concerns regarding NRA’s support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), we appreciate you sharing your opinions, and we are happy to explain our position.
First, our support of CARA is based on a provision within the bill known as Title III—Wildlife Conservation and Restoration. NRA helped to author Title III, which provides additional funds to state fish and wildlife agencies through the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) trust account. Congress established the P-R trust in the 1930s with the strong backing of sportsmen, and the trust account assists states in conserving and restoring wildlife and habitat, which is a benefit to hunters and other sportsmen.
Because NRA has a long history of promoting and defending hunting as a shooting sport and as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation, and wise use of our renewable wildlife resources, it is clearly appropriate for NRA to support Title III. And since Title III is one of 10 different sections of CARA, it is necessary for NRA to support CARA in order to ensure the passage of Title III. In addition, all major hunting and conservation organizations support CARA.
While NRA’s support of CARA is based solely on Title III, we also understand that there are some organizations and individuals that object to CARA because of Title II, which creates a land acquisition trust account for the federal land management agencies. NRA certainly appreciates the views of those opposed to federal land acquisition in general, and as it relates to CARA, and NRA is very sensitive to the fears expressed by some of our members that CARA may pose a threat to their interests that fall outside NRA’s purview of defending our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and hunting.
But it is also important for all concerned to remember that NRA’s strength is based on its narrow focus on protecting the Second Amendment and our hunting heritage. This strength is enhanced by not being involved with other matters—including the issue of federal land acquisition per se—that might distract or divide our supporters. NRA has an obligation to its members to remain focused on defending our firearm freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, and on preserving our hunting heritage. As you can appreciate, the NRA’s constituency is universal. In protecting the right to arms and the future of hunting, our Association draws allies from every point of the political, social, racial, religious, geographic and economic spectra. Since our members are powerfully united on firearm and hunting-related issues, our strength is enhanced by not being involved with other issues that could split our base of support.
Unfortunately, several organizations and individuals that are primarily concerned with federal land acquisition issues have launched a campaign against NRA because of its support of CARA’s Title III. These opponents of CARA appear to have an overall objection to the federal government acquiring any private land—even land that may later be used to expand hunting opportunities or establish ranges for the general public. Because these organizations and individuals have failed to convince lawmakers to remove Title II from CARA or amend it to their satisfaction, they recently resorted to launching attacks on NRA in an attempt to convince NRA members to urge their Association to take up their specific cause. The NRA has openly supported Title III since CARA was introduced in 1998, leaving one to wonder why these organizations and individuals did not raise their concerns earlier.
This deceptive tactic by CARA’s opponents has led to confusion among some NRA members, leading some to question NRA’s support of CARA. And even though opposition to CARA has been based on issues that fall well outside NRA’s purview, NRA is still a membership-driven organization, and we are always very responsive to the concerns of our members. While we support Title III of CARA, we are keeping close track of the comments from those NRA members who have expressed their opposition. This issue will likely be discussed in several committees during NRA’s Board Meeting in November, and you can rest assured that the voice of those NRA members who have expressed their concern regarding NRA support of CARA will be heard.
Again, we appreciate you sharing your concerns, and we hope that NRA can still count on your support. Even if we cannot see eye-to-eye on this particular issue, it is important for the pro-gun community to continue to work together and present a united front. Of course, the ultimate decision regarding the outcome of CARA will come from Congress, so we encourage any NRA member with strong views regarding this legislation to contact your federal lawmakers.
Sincerely,
Katherine A. Twardon
_______
Dear Ms. Twardon,
Thank you for your response. There is no confusion on the part of this NRA member regarding this legislation. I note that the Board of Directors of the NRA is not confused either. It would appear for the first time in history that the Board will override the ILA.
As I stated, I am not confused. I am disappointed. I would have thought that the NRA was not immune to the dangers of a bureaucracy, but it appears that the ILA and its paid employees has gotten too cozy with the politicians. Seems to me it is time for a shakeup at the ILA and THAT will be a focus of many of the NRA members.
CARA in no way supports our hunting heritage or our Second Amendment rights. Federal Lands are being acquired and closed off from use every day by the EnviroFascists that infest all levels of the Federal bureaucracy. That is the type of individual that is drawn to that work and is the long term plan of the anti-hunting crowd: control the government agencies that administer land programs from within and without. The NRA would be better off creating a non-profit organization that gave out money to private landowners to help them keep their land from being acquired by the Government in exchange for allowing hunting access to NRA members.
What a novel idea – keep government out of the equation.
Think hard about this issue – and don’t you dare accuse this member of being confused again.
Bump for liberty and freedom.
The NRA is a democratic institution. Any Life member can run for the Board. Sure, a noboby like me would have little chance, but I could still try. Anyone out there that belongs to NRA should let them know how you feel about this CARA thing! NOW!!!
Ms. Lamson,
The organizations {NGOs} that benefit from the land grabbing effects of CARA are historically anti-hunting. Many even to what might be considered a rabid effort. The Klamath Basin Farmers are a good example of collusion between godgov and NGOs to drive people off their lands and deprive them of a livelyhood that has been maintained for many years and through many generations by family concerns. Most {if not all} of the environmental concerns that will benefit from CARA desire "wilderness areas" and the like to be set up by government dictate. NO "new" implements {firearms} are allowed.
It would do NRA well to remember that farmers, ranchers, and other folks who live out in the "boonies" have supported the NRA for years. Yet, today, the NRA would support legislation that would drive them off their private property. This is NOT good. A good article concerning NRA's support of CARA can be found at the address below. Along with a discussion on the Free Republic forum. Peace and love, George.
======================
AB, I just sent this to [SLamson@nrahq.org,ILA-Contact@nrahq.org]. I hope these folks that are being snookered wake up. peace and love, George.
Yeah, right. I dare say that not one acre of land that will be acquired under CARA will be made into a shooting range. The environmentalists in govt. will never allow that! They will also close more lands to hunting, not open them up. How can these people be so blind as to not see that they are being used as a weapon against their own objectives!
If not too late, be sure to email your state NRA affiliate. They need to know that the common folk are firmly against this hideous piece of legislation. The NRA has done many things that I disagree with over the years, but never stooped to the level of prostituting themselves to the greens for a few federal pork dollars.
In case you are wondering, Ms. Lamson does read her email. I was shocked when she responded to mine. I doubt she ever will again. I rattled her cage pretty hard.
Abundy -- I received an identically worded letter, signed by 'Catherine A. Haggett, NRA-ILA Grassroots Division'. Her point that the NRA has supported this since 1998 with no opposition is wrong, as I went on record having opposed it as did lots of other folk. I suspect that then the mutterings of us few were not enough for them to respond to.
A question -- if the NRA Board passes on the support of this bill, do the Members have any legal recourse to force a vote be taken of the voting membership outside of the normal procedures for the next Annual Meeting? Thanks in advance.
Be well, FRiends.
PLEASE, Everyone! Contact your representatives on this and the NRA!
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.