Why? What are Sklar's convictions on gun rights? From his website:
NRA: "A" RATEDGreat. His pro-Second Amendment platform is “enforce existing gun laws.” That and he’s a “sportsman.” One endorsed by, from among a laundry list of left-leaning political powerhouses, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the National Education Association...
September 29th, 2006
SKLAR IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE IN TX-14 TO RECEIVE THE NRA'S "A" RATING.
PAUL GETS ONLY A "B."
VICTORIA, TX -- The National Rifle Association-Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) announced today that Shane Sklar, Democratic candidate for Congress (TX-14), has received an "A" Rating, while Republican Ron Paul received a "B."
"I am honored to receive this designation," said Sklar. "I grew up hunting with my family and intend to pass down those traditions to my children. As a member of the National Rifle Association, I'm proud that the NRA has recognized that I will stand for our values in Congress."
According to the NRA-PVF, an "A" rating indicates a "solidly pro-gun candidate" who "has expressed strong support for NRA positions on second amendment issues."
"I will not support any new gun laws," said Sklar. "We have more than enough laws on the books to pursue criminals who obtain guns for illegitimate purposes. We should enforce the laws we have."
Incumbent Rep. Ron Paul's "B" rating indicates past votes for restrictive legislation.
What Sklar is about is revealed in this claim:
Our current congressman’s record is one of rhetoric, not results. Many of his views about government and Texas are dramatically out of the mainstream and fly in the face of what most of us believe.Translation: Vote for me and I'll bring home the pork.
And here's another translation Sklar probably never intended to have made: He's squeezing that A-rating for all its worth, hoping gun-owning constituents will construe it as an NRA endorsement--but NRA isn't on the above-linked endorsement page, is it? If you look at the PVF Endorsements, you'll see Sklar's name is not highlighted. And if you go to the last page of the brochure, in the bottom of the "What the Ratings Mean" column, you'll find: NAMES IN BOLD ARE CANDIDATES ENDORSED BY THE NRA-PVF.
But Sklar is counting on most gun owners not making that distinction.
So what's going on? After all, Dr. Paul is arguably the best friend Second Amendment supporters have in Congress. Rather than "enforcing existing gun laws," he is one of the exceptional few working to repeal them:
"Ron Paul has introduced bills to wipe out most federal gun-control laws. It is pretty hard to get more pro-gun than Ron Paul," Pratt said, a position Paul made clear in his House statement.Gun Owners of America has given Dr. Paul an "A+" rating: "A+ Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation."
"I rise today as a firm believer in the Second Amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws," Paul told lawmakers. "In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals misguided federal gun-control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban. I believe the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties."
So what's the reason NRA considers Shane Sklar a more ratings-worthy candidate than Ron Paul? It's because Paul did not support the bill to exempt gun manufacturers from lawsuits:
As Paul explained in a 2003 speech, he is unambiguously opposed to lawsuits that demand compensation from the firearms industry for the damage caused by gun crimes. But he concluded that federal preemption of such suits cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's limits on congressional power, which leave the writing of tort law to the states.Candidly, I could argue with Rep. Paul on this point, as the lawsuits seem clearly designed to infringe on the Second Amendment. I'd be interested in seeing the point-counterpoint of such a debate, but now is not the time with the election less than a week away.
Paul seems to be the only member of Congress who took this position on the bill, which President Bush signed into law on Wednesday, Oct. 26. In fact, it's so rare for legislators to draw a distinction between their personal policy preferences and their constitutional responsibilities that Paul's stand must seem quaint, if not downright puzzling, to most Americans.
One thing is certain: Ron Paul has made his stands based on convictions, and a desire to stay true to the intent of the Founders. Paul has worked to roll back oppressive edicts that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. He is clearly the superior gun rights candidate in the Texas 14th District.
Rep. Paul needs our help. His campaign does not have enough money to finish the race. I don't live in his district, but realize the value of having such an ally in Congress, so I've sent in a contribution. I urge you to do the same, and to get the word out to gun owners in his district, particularly NRA members:
Don't be fooled by yet another misleading NRA rating, or by Shane Sklar's empty rhetoric on guns. Vote for Ron Paul.
14 comments:
Excellent post David.
Ron Paul is the staunchest defender of the Constitution we have in congress right now.
Good find and research, David!
Unfortunately, we're probably going to be seeing much more of this type of spin in the next two years.
The spin machine is well oiled and geared up for 2008. And the demonrats are convinced they will win everything back. The republicans seem determined to make it happen for them.
It would be nice if we were left with some viable options....
Yet one more example of how worthless the NRA is. They'll sell out their supposed principles whenever it's convenient for them. Gun Owners of America is a REAL 2nd Amendment supporting organization and, naturally, they give Ron Paul their highest rating.
But you guys don't understand the bond that develops between hunting brothers. LaPierre and Slar share that bond. Sklar is hunting votes so he can hunt for dollars with LaPierre.
So what if they gun down the constitution, they're hunters.
I would like to bitch slap LaPierre, but that is a higher compliment than he deserves.
I continue to be utterly ashamed of the NRA leadership - I am a life member of the NRA, GOA and JPFO - guess who gets my finacial support - that's right - the money goes to GOA in Springield and not those fat whiners with entourage in Fairfax.
Ron Paul is a GIANT - and for the NRA to even pretend to favor anyone else running in any race, any where with a more favorable rating just shows me (again) how pathetic a band of beltway insiders they have become.
Wayne and company shold be ashamed.
RP's the only reason I've held out hope for the system. If crap like this wins out, I give up.
The NRA has never liked Ron Paul. They have never, to my knowledge, endorsed or supported him, even though he is arguably the most pro2A member of the House. What does this tell us about the NRA?
"RP's the only reason I've held out hope for the system. If crap like this wins out, I give up."
Damn skippy! Help us Dr. Paul, you;re our only hope. I'd rather see every gun law repealed and have more money for ammo then to have to contribute to defense funds and "pro-gun" groups. Oh how I hope the NRA calls me soon asking for money.
Ron got a B rating because he would not compromise on a bill that the NRA wanted to pass. This bill would not allow a gun dealer to be sued for liable when their guns were used in a crime. It was a great bill in the original form but Nancy Pelosi added the regulation that would require gun locks to be issued with each and every gun by the manufacturer.
The NRA compromised and endorsed the bill with the Pelosi amendment which would basically be a tax on guns and render the weapon useless in emergency situations.
Sklar only filled out a form. He has never cast a vote in his life. He is a lobbyist and knows exactly how to scam these guys. He has ambition and
would have to do exactly as his UN gun grabbing leadership tells him to.
Candidly, I could argue with Rep. Paul on this point, as the lawsuits seem clearly designed to infringe on the Second Amendment.
I think the Second Amendment argument would be weak. Lawsuits may be suitably dismissed or ruled unfavorably upon due to a provision of the Constitution, but not prevented from being filed in the first place or dismissed arbitrarily without any review of merits or standing.
I think a better argument would be regulation of interstate commerce. I know that is used as a catch-all for Congress to exert control on almost anything under the sun, but, in this case, it applies because the manufacturers typically are located in states other than those that the lawsuits are filed in. The lawsuits are an attempt to impede interstate commerce in firearms and, therefore, are regulatable (is that a word?) by Congress.
Even better than that, however, and where I think Rep Paul was going with this: isn't it a bit limiting to restrict the new regulations to one industry? If tort reform is needed (and it desperately is) why not pass global reform to prevent frivolous suits against ANY industry?
One of the most basic, demonstrably effective and easy measures to implement would be a "loser pays" system. People would be much less apt to file frivolous lawsuits if they know they would be required to pay the defendents legal expenses if they lost. Also this system would limit the damage done to the defendent. As it stands, even if the plaintiff loses, they damage the defendent through the legal expenses of defending the case. This is one reason why settlements are so common. The defendents know that they can probably settle the suit for much less than defending it even if the suit has no merit. This is also why tort lawyers (and their Democrat benefactors) fight so hard against this change...Tort lawyers tend to get percentages of awards and settlements. Partly because of the aforementioned reduction in frivolous cases, but also because defendents would become much less inclined to settle, thereby increasing the lawyers risks (they may lose) and reducing profits.
The fact that frivolous lawsuits cost consumers huge amounts of money each year matters little to the bloodsucking tort laywers (Can you say "John Edwards"? Sure you can).
how could the NRA be so...PATHETIC.
They KNOW Ron Paul is on their side.
They are going against him WHEN HE AGREES WITH THEM.
The NRA wants him to honor the constitution only when it benefits them (in this case the 2nd amendment) and go against the constitution when it would be to their detriment (with the bill Paul opposed).
Why couldn't they see it was the responsibility of the state?
Why would the NRA promote laws that are unconstitutional when the one law they/we are most concerned with is the one most in danger of being amended?
All NRA members who are Pon Paul supporters should tell them: If you dont endorse Ron Paul please cancel my membership.
Found this thread as I was trying to discover who NRA is pushing this time around.
NRA is magically silent on Ron Paul.
NRA lost me earlier this year as they fuddled away about the "Veteran Disarmament Act."
Well, I take that back: I walked away a couple years ago, but it became more or less permanent as a result of that legislation and the sneaky process they tried. And the blinkin' stupid rationalizations they sent me in response to my protests.
NRA will probably endorse anybody but Paul. Here's what I think about why:
It was implied above, but let me be explicit: Follow the money. There is money in fighting slowly and weakly against injustice. We've seen lawyers do it, and now (if not always), lobbying organizations are doing it too. NRA appears to be milking gun owners and the threat to our liberty. For money. And leaving us dangerously close to bans and confiscations. Intentionally. Keeps that money coming in...
But maybe it just seems that way. But it sure does seem that way, doesn't it?
And Ron Paul would ruin all that. And he'll ruin lots of other disnational (businesses who would be kings even above nations) business special advantages, too.
Ron Paul: great for the honest; lousy for the corrupt.
This is a letter I wrote TODAY to the NRA. I encourage all of you to do the same. Lets turn up the heat on these people! RON PAUL 2008!!!
National Rifle Association, 12/22/07
My name is Josh Pipolo, membership number 009135738. I have been a proud, card carrying life member of the NRA since 1993. It is with deep conviction that I am writing this letter to request that you terminate my membership status immediately. If possible I would also like a full refund of my life member dues. I became a life member 15 years ago. To this day I am an avid outdoorsman, hunter, shooter as well as a member of the local SWAT team as a tactical paramedic. For years I promoted and supported the NRA. My support however began to wane with the obvious support the NRA began to offer the totalitarian and anti-constitution regime of George W. Bush. President Bush has done more to erode civil liberties and the constitution than any president in United States history, initiating the Patriot Act, and eliminating Habeas Corpus to list merely two examples. I believe that every amendment in the Bill of Rights is sacred and that not just the second one deserves protecting. It is because of these assaults on my rights and those of my countrymen, endorsed by the NRA that I wish no longer any affiliation with your organization.
More recently; I became furious yesterday when I opened my “American Hunter” magazine to page 68 only to see pictures of Giuliani, McCain and the other media created candidates, without mention of Ron Paul. This itself sent me over the edge with my disgust in the NRA. Giuliani who is a known anti-gun liberal was speaking to the NRA instead of Ron Paul? How was this possible? It was apparent that the NRA had joined up with CNN, FOX news and the other mainstream media deciding to ignore the campaign of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has perhaps the most consistent record in congress of supporting gun owners’ rights and the second amendment. Ron Paul voted NO to the National ID/Backdoor Gun Registration, the assault weapon ban, and mandated trigger locks. He also voted NO to tax dollars going to the anti-gun United Nations. His list of staunchly supporting the second amendment goes on. Ron Paul is by far the best candidate running and the best advocate for our rights as a nation. Ron Paul understands the value of the constitution and stands up for it, regardless of the attacks he receives from the media. The NRA's lack of judgement is nauseating.
If the NRA would wake up, they would see the ground swelling grass roots movement for Ron Paul. He has had the most hits on his website of any candidate of either party. Ron Paul was the most “Googled” name of 2007. Ron Paul broke the all time fundraising record for a single day of any presidential candidate, bringing in over 6 million dollars in 24 hours, raising 18 million dollars in one quarter. Hundreds of thousands are joining his campaign. I myself have never supported any candidate ever. Ron Paul has sparked a movement and the NRA is missing this train completely. You have sold out to corporate America and the military industrial complex.
This decision comes out of my loyalty to the constitution and to this nation. You have now forever lost my support and the future support of my two sons, and my wife (all of which we were going to get life memberships). I wish no longer to receive you magazine and to never be contacted by the NRA again. Please read the enclosures and find my card, patch and sticker, all cut-up and returned.
Sincerely,
MY NAME
Post a Comment