Word is (and word fits with what's happening), that the NRA has unofficially informed Senators that confirmation of extremely anti-gun Eric Holder as attorney general will not be held against them. That's why there has been almost no resistance and Holder sailed through committee with only two "No"s. In fact, more "A rated" Senators voted for Holder in committee than F-rated Senators, once again revealing the perennial fraud of NRA's black box system of unearned "A" grades for gun grabbers and squishes, top-secret candidate questionnaires, and endorsements of anti-gun candidates over viable pro-gun opponents. Had all the "pro-gun" senators in committee stuck together and opposed Holder, he would've lost the vote and the momentum and it would've been a new ball game. They didn't because it was not requested.
This is a battle that will be lost because one side didn't fight. Perhaps a Holder confirmation is not the worst outcome gun owners face with the new "change" government. But that doesn't seem like a good reason not to resist and at least make the enemy pay for the turf. The games being played here are the kind that have cost gun owners dearly in gun control legislation in past decades. If the gun rights community continues to tolerate them, it may lead to far worse losses in the future than this nomination battle.
See articles by David Codrea of the War On Guns and Examiner.com, Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation, Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition, etc. Links here and below.
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d28-Holder-approved-by-Senate-Judiciary-Committee
http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/01.29.09%20alert.html
www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Itemid=1
There was little resistance mainly because the NRA did not demand resistance and let the senate and their own members know that blocking Holder is important. "Pro-gun" senators still have the numbers to block him by filibuster -- if they actually tried, if senators knew that voting for cloture would be punished in grading and support. The enemy must bring 60 hard votes to kill a filibuster, even if only one senator shows up to support it. But the NRA will let Holder go to the floor, where he will be confirmed by majority.
Also see:
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d30-A-certain-outcome-for-Holder
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/28/ldt.01.html
'If enlisting beltway insiders who approved pardons for payoffs is "change", it's change we can do without.'
- Sample letter from Oregon Firearms Federation
http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/01.29.09%20alert.html
OFF Alert] Eric Holder. Janet Reno Reborn.
http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/01.24.09%20alert.html
www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/14/sullivan_atf_confirmation_blocked/
"Under Senate rules, a single senator can put a hold on legislative action for months."
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2009/01/sometimes-saying-no.html
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d6-How-to-hold-Holder-without-using-guns
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d8-Another-reason-to-hold-Holder
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d25-Holder-clutches-at-gun-rights
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m1d24-A-progun-pick
I suppose blocking Holder is not as important as blocking an assault weapon bill. Perhaps that explains why even GOA's alert yesterday doesn't mention the word filibuster http://gunowners.org/a012909.htm , though it says "if confirmed, [Holder] will be in a position where he will be able to use the force of government to discourage or outlaw gun ownership in America." If Holder is that dangerous, isn't it worth pushing for filibuster, where he could be stopped with a minority? I don't know.
The public defection of two "pro-gun" A rated Quislings and a near unanimous committee vote occurred in the absence of pressure, encouraged by absence of pressure. To assert that what happened is a reasonable indication of what the numbers would've been had there been a clear commitment to fight with our strongest tools, seems like self-fulfilling prophesy.
If there really was no chance of keeping the enemy from getting 60 votes and we're not demanding a filibuster, then why write letters to try to keep them from getting 51 votes on the floor?
My instinct is Americans should make the enemies of constitutional liberty pay dearly for every inch of turf. Since when is it great strategy to roll over and not even try unless we're guaranteed to win, or because we're short a couple votes before serious pressure is applied? The battle itself is a vehicle to make our case against the other side and galvanize resistance. For several years running, immigration sanity groups have fought comprehensive immigration "reform" (amnesty, "guest" workers who never leave, etc.). They demanded filibusters and fought cloture votes even when it didn't look like they would win. The battle helped grow and focus the resistance. In at least one case they managed to beat "reform" after losing on cloture, because so much heat was the heat was growing before, during and after the filibuster.
In any case, consider this:
"…The single strongest argument against new federal gun bans is history: Democrats controlled Congress from 1948 to1994 when Clinton forced a passle of very reluctant Democratic members of Congress to vote for his "assault weapon" ban. In the ensuing election those reluctant supporters were defeated and the Republicans captured Congress for the first time in 50 years. Clinton attributed all this to his disastrous AW bill.
The Republicans are praying for the Democrats to enact a new AW ban."
-Howard Nemerov; forwarded cover note to his 1-30-09 examiner.com article "400 Years of Gun Control ... Part 1"
www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-RIghts-Examiner
(Article, link and cover note forwarded by Dan Gifford)
"The Republicans are praying for the Democrats to enact a new AW ban." If NRA members don't force the NRA to start holding senators accountable with honest grading and smart grade-weighting, then we are much more likely to get another AW ban and other new controls. Even though "pro-gun" senators have the power to block and filibuster a new gun control bill, enough of the phonies will flip to kill the filibuster, then the pro-gun side will cast a phony prearranged losing vote against the bill on the floor. They will help it pass while appearing to oppose it, and use the new law to force gun owners to increase donations and support to the very politicians who intentionally let it happen. The NRA will help them do it by covering it up with dishonest grades and endorsements. The NRA will also use it to get more money. It's like "protection".
The gun rights community needs a tough, honest, smart, weighted grading system that counts filibuster and similar maneuvers as more than one vote and withholds points for phony pre-arranged "pro-gun" floor votes.
12 comments:
I am a little confused at the outrage over the NRA not trying to block Holder. I'm surprised they even said they disapproved of his positions. This is the lobby who came up with, along with Senator Dodd, the GCA of 68. The NRA was demanding more control, and lying to their membership about it. And really, they weren't upset about the Clinton AWB. Beretta shotguns weren't affected so what's the big deal? Their purpose, as established by the feds, was to make sure the military and police were trained enough to be able to destroy the peoples' liberty. Now they've extended their mission to hunting privileges and ensuring we have licensed, registered revolvers in our nightstand for the underclass down the street.
I have one more thought to add. I agree that another AWB will not be passed in the manner of the one in 94. There will have to be some "emergency." Economic collapse or a terror attack could trigger this. Prohibition instigated NFA 34. If there are riots with the coming depression, I'd look for Rahm to tell Obama to suspend the sale of "semi-automatic assault weapons", this would then become a permanent fixture, just like that piece of shit Bush I's Import Ban on "foreign semiautomatic assault weapons." It was so drug gangs, couldn't get them, you see. In this manner, Congress could dislcaim all responsibility.
you know what? the grade rating system is miserable, no matter who is handing out the grades. i think GOA should abandon it and just list each congressman's infractions, with details. they can include some kind of severity index, perhaps, but the most important point is that you never can give the F-rated idiots a pass when they come up with some ridiculous gun ban scheme -- yet it seems to be implied that that would be just fine, because they can't get any lower rating.
let zero infractions be an "A" and everything else be worthy of derision.
Also see:
http://reason.com/news/show/131352.html
-RH
Infuriating:
www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d1-The-riddle-of-Steele
That kind of BS just makes me more militant.
To the NRA, and their Quislings-
Go ahead sell us out. We expect it at this point, just be prepared to live with the consequences.
We can all craft our own ratings by watching the votes. Not easy and definitely time consuming. The procedure votes sometimes tell a different tale than your CONgresscritter does at his/her nonsense town hall meetings. Voting to cut off debate when keeping debate open would damage a bill's chance of passage is more important than the 'no' vote on the floor. In such a case your guy just screwed you and then postures that he's on your side. GOA probably has the more accurate rating plan, but we have all got to watch for ourselves.
"To the NRA, and their Quislings-
Go ahead sell us out. We expect it at this point, just be prepared to live with the consequences"-anon
only one word I would change in that observation. Can you guess which one? Are you listening, Snowflake?
Oddly the word verification for this comment is "pookie".
At gun shows I see too many old farts walking around with NRA caps on. Kind of makes me want to grab them and try and shake them to rattle some sense into them. But I know I can't because they refuse to use their brains but to keep their heads inflated to wear that stupid cap.
On grading lawmakers. There is no such thing as A, B, C, D and F. Its passing or failing. They get a Star or an X. You support the United States Constitution as the supreme and highest law of this country or you don't. There is no such thing as particle pregnancy.
This grading system is nothing more than a sham created by the shysters of the NRA to keep the members off balance.
Considering the post below on Michael Steele, I'd have to say that the Repubs actualy would support the new AWB--not hope that it would drive the Dems out of power.
A pox on BOTH their houses!
The solution to grading fraud is not to abandon grading or go to pass-fail.
The solution is to force the NRA to grade honestly and transparently, by letting everyone know what a fraud it is and withholding donations and support.
First, not everyone has time to research every vote and make their own grade. That's one reason we have organizations.
As to pass fail, it's a bad system: You need gradations of grades to distinguish pols who vote the right or wrong way more often than others, to distinguish critical votes from show votes, and to distinguish various levels of commitment on both the pro & anti side (key movers).
There's no simple formula that will allow members of the gun rights community to shirk their responsibility to hold their organizations accountable.
It's like term limits, which lazy voters still think will solve everything, let them shirk their responsibility to be informed, and let them keep re-electing their own incumbents while whining about everyone else's. They still think term limits is the answer for federal problems, even though the clear evidence is that it does nothing to improve our situation in states. e.g., California has had term limits for well over a decade.
RH
Post a Comment