The Fix is In: Ron Paul Must Go

NRA has given democrat challenger Shane Sklar a higher rating than Rep. Ron Paul in the congressional race for Texas' 14th District.

Why? What are Sklar's convictions on gun rights? From his website:

NRA: "A" RATED
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.

Great. 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...

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.

"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."

Gun Owners of America has given Dr. Paul an "A+" rating: "A+ Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation."

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.

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.

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.

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.

The "NRA Shill"

Sketching a likely general election theme, Gov. Blagojevich came out swinging Tuesday against GOP gubernatorial front-runner Judy Baar Topinka, accusing the state treasurer of being a shill for the National Rifle Association and the right wing.

"The NRA just gave her an A rating -- an A rating -- and if you get an A rating from the NRA, you're basically taking their talking points and doing their bidding," Blagojevich said. "And I would urge her to forget about the NRA, stop pandering to the right wing and join us and help us pass a ban on assault weapons."

Actually, I can't find a current NRA rating for Topinka, just one from 2002, where, indeed, she got an "A."

As correspondent HZ observes, "I would love to know the NRA's response to their A rated candidate's responses to this questionnaire."

I have supported efforts to strengthen our FOID card program with a system to rapidly check backgrounds of people before they can obtain a FOID card. We must keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to society. My position on assault weapons legislation will depend on the specific definitions in the final bill.

The governor has spoken out against Uzies and AK 47s, weapons that are already prohibited. While they are illegal, I certainly agree with keeping Uzies and AK 47s off the street. If the final language of a bill that passes the legislature includes language to ban weapons similar to Uzies and AK 47s, I would have no problem. If the language is broader and includes weapons currently in use by law-abiding citizens, then I would have concerns. The key will be in the definitions.

I see this as a huge and continued credibility problem for NRA management. An "A" should be measured against a "shall not be infringed" benchmark.

NRA members and other gun owners are sophisticated enough to handle the truth and to make their decisons accordingly. Certainly, when compared to the wretched Blagojevich, Topinka is far less oppressive on rkba issues. But don't blow smoke at us and tell us someone who supports prior restraints, licenses, fees and functional gun bans based on "definitions" deserves an "A".

That is, unless the criteria is something other than "shall not be infringed," and if support for an agenda takes precedence over the Second Amendment...

Why is NRA Ignoring Santa Barbara Gun Owners?

I've been compiling "testimonials" from Santa Barbara area gun owners concerning their attempts to contact NRA about their A rating and endorsement of anti-gun Sheriff Bill Brown. Note that in some cases, I do not have permission to use full names, but I would be able to produce evidence via emails should I ever be required to do so--plus many of them were copied to NRA reps, and phone records of calls exist.

This will be a long post, but I think you'll get the gist pretty quickly. Also note that I have not edited the original emails for spelling or grammar.

From Larry Rankin:

Just so you know Ed Worley has been contacted about this issue many times, by many people in and out of Santa Barbara. Ed Has not responded to one person! Many have called his office three times. Also your Fairfax office has been contacted by many of the same people, because Ed has not returned there calls. NRA's response...call Ed. I have a Friend who call Ed a least three time and ended up calling Fairfax, he would not take, "call Sacramento", as an answer. After going through four or five people, he found someone that listened and even said they will contact me. He gave them all of my information. I was wise enough not to hold my breath! That was well over three weeks ago.

To be very honest, I do believe the NRA would like this to go a way by not addressing the issue! The only way this will go away at this point...is NOT with just an apology and we will not support Sheriff Bill Brown with an "A" as we did to help him get into office! They were warned by me and by David Codrea about this before he was elected!

Now NRA head quarters needs to call me and I can set up a game plan with them. This needs to be on a conference call, with the group, "Santa Barbara CCW United". Any thing less will not be accessible!

From BL:

R: Ed Worley _ I called and left a message - result: NADA! I called Virginia, was told to call Sacramento, I replied that was useless and the woman in Vir said, "We don't know about that," or words to that effect. What a load of crap.

From Gerhard Paul:

David, i was a paid voting member of the NRA but decided not to renew my membership because of the very same problems we are having now regarding Ed Worley! This is not new from the NRA in regards to giving "A" rating that should be "F".

You can use my name. Gerhard Paul former paid voting member of NRA

From JS:

My confidence in the ability of the NRA to defend the Second Amendment has been sagging for years , while my support of Gun Owners of America has increased . My vote for Sheriff Brown was based strictly upon the NRA recommendation and went against the advice of more informed local citizens!

One can only wonder how the NRA ever came up with its recommendation !! ??

From Jim Berkley:

Larry Rankin forwarded me your request for experiences calling the NRA to report Brown’s “anti” policies.

I was a holder of a CCW permit for 6 years prior to Brown’s election. I received an orange card from the NRA before the election endorsing Brown.

Although nothing changed re my “need” for a permit, Brown did not renew my CCW permit when I came up for renewal in Feb. I met with Brown and he stated allegiance to the NRA and the 2nd amendment, but that he didn’t want people carrying guns. Not sure how you reconcile those two ideas but he didn’t seem to have any trouble with it.

I called the NRA in Fairfax and told them what the situation was. I was told to call the Sacramento office which I did. A receptionist answered the phone and I told her that we had a new Sheriff, Mr Brown, and that he had been endorsed by the NRA and duly elected. The purpose of my call was to notify them that something had gone terribly wrong because he was actively denying existing permit holders and when I got together with him he made it clear that he did not want people carrying guns.

She said that the lobbyist, Ed Worley, would be very interested to hear this and took my number and said he would call back.

Two weeks passed without a return call, so I called the Sacrament office again. I left a message on Worley’s voice mail and also one on Steve Hellsley’s e-mail. Both messages were very nice and basically said you guys need to know what this man is up to so it doesn’t happen again.

It has been over a month since I left those messages.

Hope this helps – feel free to email me or call if you have any questions or need further info.

From RD:

I don’t know why the NRA does not support its members.

They do not return calls and the only people you can find at the NRA is those who will take your money!

From TB:

I wish to add my voice of protest to the NRA's policy of giving high pro-gun ratings to political candidates that have not proved themselves worth of our support.

I can understand how this could happen if a candidate falseifies his response to the NRA questionnaire. But there is no excuse for the NRA's maintaining their support and not informing the voters that the candidate misstated his positions and changing their rating to a a far lower grade.

Sincerely

TB
NRA member

From KD:

David - I recently dissolved my association with both the NRA and FNRA committee. My reason for doing so was the NRA's lack of response to my repeated requests for a return call to discuss Sheriff Brown's position on concealed carry in Santa Barbara County. I can no longer support an organization which, in the light of clear evidence, will not step up and recognize its mistake in endorsing Sheriff Brown. I will neither renew my NRA membership, nor will I assit in FNRA fund raising, until the NRA publicly decries Sheriff Brown's tactics and reassigns an "F" rating, as is
appropriate.

From Steve:

i called worleys office a few minutes ago. the lady i spoke to was very nice, but said she didn't know why he isn't returning calls. she gave me randy kozuch's number. he is director of state and local affairs. worley's boss. the first lady said to go up the chain of command. randy is supposed to call me back.

More from Steve:

I called Ed Worley Tuesday morning. I asked his secretary after stating my business in regards to the above subject, why hasn't or doesn't he return the calls people have asked him for? She said she didn't know why, but I could call HIS boss. Randy Kozuch is the Director of State and Local Affairs, and is a name I had not seen or heard of in my correspondence with Larry . Kozuch's "secretary" said he was out to lunch (approx 1100hrs-I didn't believe her) and would return my call when he came back. I left my number, and have not heard from him.

From PS:

I called the office of the NRA Manager of Governmental Affairs Executive Director Ed Worley 5-15-07 at 9:45 am PST.

I spoke with Intern Dan Reed who is a good 2nd Amendment proponent, and is law student at McGeorge Law School.

I stated that many people whom I know had called his office in the last 2 months and were upset that the NRA had given an A rating to then candidate Bill Brown for Sheriff of Santa Barbara County, CA. He said "This is about Mr. Rankin, right?". I said that many NRA members will not renew, nor will they contribute another penny to the NRA, including life members. I said that everyone whom I know who is informed about the rating, and once Sheriff not renewing Carry Concealed Weapon permits to long time holders, and not providing a questionnaire to then incumbent Sheriff Jim Anderson, is upset and will stay upset about the NRA misleading them. And that those persons will communicate loudly and clearly to all their friends, family and co workers and tell them to re-direct the funds they had given the NRA for years, to GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, JPFO and other actually pro-gun organizations with backbone and accountability.

Dan said that he'd been there 5 months 3 days a week and that all he could do was make notes in the call log and forward the message to Ed Worley. I said that many people of my acquaintance had called Ed already, multiple times, and that NO ONE had been called back by Ed Worley. Dan said that he had the call log, and "only a couple" of people had called, which I know personally to be untrue. The call log may not have been entered to reflect the calls, but people have told me they've called. I told Dan that people had also called Fairfax to complain, and been promised return calls, and again no one had ever been called back, in spite of repeated calls (as many as 4 from the same person within a 2 week period). Dan told me that it concerned him to hear people disgruntled and not supporting the NRA. He said again that all he could do was forward the subject and message of the call to Ed Worley. I told him to leave the NRA and get a position at an organization that had integrity.

Dan said I could also call Fairfax, which I did, immediately. I spoke with a mature sounding woman who didn't provide her name. I relayed the same story and message. She said that candidates must request a questionnaire, and that I should call the lobbyist (Ed Worley) in charge of the my area. I said that I just had, and that Ed Worley hasn't returned any of many calls from many people, and in fact has been completely uncooperative, unresponsive, irresponsible and people feel totally insulted. I then stated that the same people had called her office (the office of Chris Cox) and been promised return calls, and that calls would be made to Larry Rankin, and those people provided his phone number, and called back and been re-promised and again, no calls returned to them or calls to Larry Rankin.
She said that she'd pass on the message to Chris Cox.

From WT:

I had already decided not to donate this year as well as not contribute dues to the Golden Eagles. No one at the NRA acknowledged my letters (to three different officers) that were sent in April.

Too bad the principals stated by the NRA are not followed. For any years they have been at the forefront defending the rights of gun owners, but have apparently become an unwieldy bureaucracy.

It's evident the powers that be are hoping this will go away. Too bad.

It can't--not until the political "experts" come clean with why they misled their members on Brown's stance on their right to keep and bear arms, and come up with some way of ensuring they deserve credibility on future ratings and endorsements.

One thing is for sure--ignoring all these requests is no way to endear grassroots supporters to an organization that purports to represent their interests.

There will be a "Friends of NRA" dinner on June 2. Mr. Rankin is contacting Santa Barbara gun owners to boycott the event and sponsors not to donate to it. It's a shame it's come down to this, but it's also understandable. I'll keep an eye on this and report any developments that merit attention.

One final word: I also tried contacting NRA before my first post on this matter, and got the same runaround and lack of response as the people above. I repeat the offer I made last October:

If anyone authorized to speak for NRA wishes to post a response, I will be happy to post it in its entirety.

UPDATE:

Well, we got somebody's attention (click to enlarge)...



Come on out fellas. Talk to us.

A Strong and Consistent Voice

"Congressman Chet Edwards is a strong and consistent voice for freedom and for defending the rights of Texas gun owners, hunters and sportsmen,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman for the NRA Political Victory Fund.

Yep, here's the rating and endorsement.

That must be why Chet supports this guy, you know, the guy we're told will be "the most anti-gun president in American history."

That doesn't even shave a point off the "A" rating?

And why does GOA give Chet a "D"? Some would tell us it's because they're NRA wannabe malcontents who exist by siphoning off funds from our true gun rights leaders. Is there any objective way we can see which rating should have more credibility?

Well, Chet's opponent, Rob Curnock (rated "AQ"*), is none too happy, claiming:

“The NRA gave Edwards a grade of A, but a few years ago they gave him an F,” Curnock said. “It goes up and down. If it’s an election year he does what he needs to do to make the votes to get their support. But, if you look at his overall record, Edwards consistently votes against many of the key values the NRA espouses.

“He voted for the Brady Bill, voted to restrict gun magazine clip sizes. That’s one of the perks of being a longtime incumbent, but his voting record is very spotty.”

Not quite. I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't find where he voted for the Brady Bill. But what kind of spots are on his record? How "strong and consistent" has his "voice" been?

He voted the Brady way:

• For final passage of "campaign finance reform."

• Against the "Pickering Amendment to provide exception for gun lobby campaign ads."

• Against "reducing the amount of time for law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun sales."

• For the McCarthy/Blagojevich/Roukema "Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act."

• Against "Final Passage of H.R. 2122...now including the weakened gun show background check amendment and the reinstatement of the pawn shop redemption exemption."

• Against "Repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban."

• For "The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, containing a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and a ban on juvenile possession of handguns."

• For "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) that bans the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. This measure is similar to the amendment to the Senate-passed crime bill, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein."

• Against the "McCollum Amendment...to the Brady Bill...that would have preempted all state and local gun laws when the national instant check system went into effect."

• Against the Volkmer/Sensenbrenner Amendment, that would have deleted "a provision banning the manufacture of 22 semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (over 7 rounds)" from The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1991.

That's some "strong and consistent voice," Mr. Cox.

See, NRA is into access. And they're into backing incumbents who look like sure winners, so they can claim electoral success in races they back. That's the only guarantee you have on how the dollars you donate to PVF will be used.

Does anybody seriously think Chet Edwards will deny President Obama's call to ban "assault weapons"?

But if we don't continue to follow along, it will be our fault. Besides, questioners are just "principle freaks."

And we wonder why we're in the mess we're in, and how we got to this point with such poor choices, as if years of this MO don't give us a clue. Is anybody else sick and damned tired of being played like this?

* (Federal Candidates Only) A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate’s responses to the 2008 NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.

De Facto Carry Ban in Santa Barbara County

By Larry R. Rankin, Santa Barbara, California

Life member NRA, Life member GOA, Life member JPFO, Life member California Rifle and Pistol Association, Life member Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Past President of the Grassroots, NRA members’ council, Chairman of the First Friends of NRA dinner in Santa Barbara, Current Chairman of the California American Pistol and Rifle Association for the County of Santa Barbara.

I am to this day licensed to carry a loaded weapon in all of the states below:

1) Alabama, 2) Alaska, 3) Arizona, 4) Arkansas, 5) Colorado, 6) Delaware, 7) Florida, 8) Georgia, 9) Idaho, 10) Indiana, 11) Kentucky, 12) Louisiana, 13) Michigan, 14) Minnesota, 15) Mississippi, 16) Missouri, 17) Montana, 18) Nevada, 19) New Hampshire, 20) New Mexico, 21) North Carolina, 22) North Dakota, 23) Ohio, 24) Oklahoma, 25) Pennsylvania, 26) South Dakota, 27) Tennessee, 28) Texas, 29) Utah, 30) Vermont, 31) Virginia, 32) Washington and 33) Wyoming

You might not like what Sheriff Bill Brown of Santa Barbara County has to say, but he is honest and direct about it. Which makes you wonder why the NRA gave a “A” rating to a man who makes it clear he's proud that he has given out only three concealed carry permits in his many years of service. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Sheriff Brown claims to be a life member of the NRA. Perhaps it is because Sheriff Brown is bright, well spoken and endowed with a certain measure of conceit that so often seems to be the inevitable attribute of a successful politician. It seems that there is something about a successful politician that the NRA finds hard to resist.

When I met with Sheriff Brown this March the 9th, to appeal my denial of my application of my active gun permit that I have had for over ten years (unsuccessfully) he was diplomatic enough to hear me out. He then very clearly and unambiguously laid out a policy of a de facto concealed carry ban in Santa Barbara County. A policy that does not recognize the right of self defense. A policy based on the model of a sovereign who knows what is best for his subjects, not a public servant elected to protect the rights of the citizens who elected him. A policy reminiscent of King George's government that was rejected by our founding fathers, not the constitutional model of government they bequeathed to us. A policy that supports the continued efforts to redefine the Second Amendment in sporting terms rather than in terms of a right of defense of self and property. And finally, if the NRA lawyers are listening, a policy that violates California law on concealed carry, which at least acknowledges that there might be someone qualified to receive a concealed carry permit other than persons associated with law enforcement. While California was careful enough not to craft an outright de jure ban on concealed carry, Sheriff Brown's policy is a ban as a matter of fact, if not of law.

Twenty years ago I might have understood how Sheriff Brown can state "I am a Life member of the NRA, a hunter, a gun collector and we have enough laws, without creating new ones" and yet prohibit concealed carry. But many years of data are available today from states that have allowed widespread concealed carry. Data that show a reduction of crime. Data that show that concealed carry holders are overwhelmingly safe and law abiding. These are facts especially important to the discharge of his duties as Sheriff. Facts that he should have made an effort to investigate before adopting a concealed carry policy. Facts that any NRA member knows. To continue a policy that he has followed for many years with no consideration of contemporary evidence is to demonstrate an arbitrary and capricious exercise of his power as Sheriff.

If enough sheriffs abuse California's concealed carry law in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the argument can be made that California's concealed carry law violates either the California of Federal constitutions. Is the NRA counting?

There is, additionally, another legal reform that the NRA should champion. One concern Sheriff Brown identified, and I have heard this from other sheriffs, is fear of personal legal liability if someone with a concealed carry permit commits a crime with the permitted weapon. Law enforcement is second only to the teachers' unions in political influence in the California legislature. Would not California law enforcement almost unanimously support the NRA were it to lobby for a law protecting sheriffs and police chiefs from liability for issuing concealed carry permits? Would you issue CCWs if it meant you might lose your job, your house, your kids' college money, and a lifetime of savings? If it meant declaring bankruptcy to avoid having a multi million dollar verdict haunting you for the rest of your life?

Sheriff Brown is no Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death"). But then how many of us are? We have to work with the men and women we have as law enforcement leaders. If the NRA were to lobby for the legal protection California police and sheriffs' needs, perhaps they might not be afraid to take an honest look at success other states have had with concealed carry.

NRA's "A-Rated" Citizen Disarmament Enforcer

Per Larry Rankin:

I just sent the short e-mail to the NRA, see below. Hope some of you will also e-mail them. Bill Brown says he wants a new direction...the question is which direction. Bill Brown told me that anyone in the city should not carry and that he has only given one permit to carry. That person was a federal trapper. I told him there were more wild animals in the city that were far more dangerous. The interview with him went down hill after that. Anyone in Santa Barbara County please forward this to someone you know...that believes in the right for a citizen to protect themselves and their family or friends. Thanks in advance,
www.NRAPVF.org lrr

NRA-PVF,

I received your election alert this evening in the mail and see you are endorsing Bill Brown for Sheriff...and you gave him an "A". I called Bill Brown and talked to him for some time a few weeks ago. He does not believe in citizen having the right to carry with a permit/CCW. I have seen in the past too many "A" given out by the NRA that are not deserved! I know hundreds of gun owners and NRA members in the county and I will let them know your outstanding bad judgment. You really need to talk to local people that are involved and that can ask tuff question to the folks running for office or change the questionnaire or have the simple understanding that there are other letters besides "F" and "A".
Regards, Larry R. Rankin
Past S.B.NRA President the grass roots group for two years...many years ago

Bill Brown said to me when I interviewed him on the phone, that he does not believe any citizen living in the city should have the right to carry a gun. He does believe that people out in the rural areas that really need one should have one...if they can REALLY prove to him it is needed. He has only allowed one and that was a federal trapper that could not carry a loaded weapon while traveling in is vehicle.

So he sees owning a gun not as self protection, but for hunting sports. That is the way I see it.

Bill Brown's contact number 805 757 3960

------------------------

I was ready to post this story yesterday, but felt obligated to hold on to it and do my own fact-checking. Not that I don't trust Larry Rankin--I do, completely. I've been corresponding with him for years, and have found him to be a most trustworthy and reliable colleague. But I was also curious as to why NRA would do this.

I left a voice mail on candidate Brown's campaign answering machine, explaining who I was and that I wanted to ask him some questions about his NRA endorsement. At this posting, my call has not been returned.

I called NRA ILA at their "800" number. I explained who I was (also that I'm a Life Member) and that I was calling to speak to the people responsible for giving Mr. Brown an "A rating" and endorsement. The associate gave me the number for California grasssroots. I spoke to the associate there, repeated everything, and he told me all statements to the media needed to go through their office back in Fairfax, and gave me a direct number (I left my number with him anyway, and asked him to pass everything on to NRA state lobbyist Ed Worley, and asked for him to call me back). I called and spoke to a lady at the media office, explained everything a third time, and told her about Mr. Rankin's conversation with Mr. Brown and the fact that he is against private citizens bearing arms. I also told her the results of my scouting around the internet--and finding that Bill Brown supports Jerry Brown for attorney general:

Showing considerable political chops, Brown, a conservative Republican, garnered the endorsement of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly and many key Santa Barbara progressives while managing to convince a majority of California police chiefs to endorse former Democratic governor Jerry Brown --now mayor of Oakland --in his race for Attorney General.

and that Jerry Brown is basing a large part of his campaign on attacking NRA's endorsed candidate, Chuck Poochigian, for his opposition to gun control laws.

She said she'd pass my request on to the people who could answer me, and I let her know I was holding up posting on this, and would be willing to delay it another day if someone would be willing to talk to me. No one returned my call, so here we are.

If anyone authorized to speak for NRA wishes to post a response, I will be happy to post it in its entirety. The same offer goes for the Bill Brown campaign.

In the mean time, we gun owners are presented with yet another example of NRA rating credibility erosion. I won't presume to be able to read the unstated intentions of others, but it's my opinion that silence from ILA-PVF is unacceptable--particularly if they expect us to donate to support their endorsed candidates.

If you agree with me, please pass a link to this post far and wide, and contact NRA yourself to request an explanation.

Larry Rankin just emailed me, and said "I will be surprised if I get a response. If I did or do I had already planned on forwarding it to you."

If so, you'll see it here.

Distrust and Verify

The nation’s most respected Sportsmen association has endorsed Senator Emmett Hanger on his re-election campaign and for the June 12th primary this coming Tuesday...

The NRA Political Victory Fund has publicly endorsed Hanger and is encouraging all its members to vote June 12 to return Hanger to the Virginia Senate.

Why? What does Hanger really believe about gun ownership and use rights?

From his website:

Gun Rights

As a rural legislator, I have long been a leading advocate for the protection of 2nd Amendment rights.

From consistently opposing legislation intended to chip away at gun owner rights, to patroning key legislation to afford statewide protection of this constitutional right, I am regarded as a leader in the Senate on this issue.

I am proud of my A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and have a clear record of consistency on this issue over the years. I also am pleased to be a Republican co-chair of the Sportsman Caucus in the General Assembly.

I don't see much in terms of specifics here. And the problem is, what with the Sheriff Bill Brown 'A' rating endorsement fiasco-- and NRA's refusal to address numerous, oftentimes multiple sustained efforts by members (for months) to find out how that happened and what's to prevent it from happening again-- the Association has created conditions where its credibility on political endorsements is-- and should be-- questioned.

Candidly, why should we trust people who have let us down? Do we accept their endorsement on blind faith, or do we maybe peel back a few layers and examine things a bit more closely?

We might ask why, for instance, the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition gave Hanger a "C minus".

We might ask why he ignored a 2003 Virginia Citizens Defense League survey altogether. We might also ask why Hanger's independent (libertarian) challenger in the November 2007 election Arin Sime, issued a press release stating "that he agrees with the VCDL’s position stating that SB827 would greatly burden gun sellers and is a step in the wrong direction for second amendment rights."

And what about Hanger's Republican challenger for the June 12 primary, Scott Sayre? Apparently, gun rights aren't important enough to list on his "Issues" page (interesting he posted a Virginia Tech memorial black ribbon logo--I wonder what his solution for preventing future massacres would be?). A Google search for the terms "Scott Sayre" + gun doesn't give us much insight, either, although there is a link to a VCDL post, indicating that as of a few weeks ago, he had not returned their questionnaire. It doesn't look like he's all that interested. But he is, according to a support blog, "an avid turkey hunter," for what it's worth.

And what about Democrat candidate David Cox? Perhaps it's not fair to make assumptions based on the fact that he's an Episcopal priest, but I just can't find anything about his position, or even how to ask him--searching for his name doesn't result in any readily-accessible campaign website or blog.

Look, I don't mean to malign Sen. Hanger--I really don't know that much about him, and what I do see is vague. He may be a fine politician and the best hope for Virginia gun owners. But what I know--from bitter experience--is not to automatically accept NRA ratings as the final word. And since Mr. Sime looks very good on RKBA, there ought to be a more credible way to determine who will best serve the interests of Virginia gun owners.

There is. I developed this political questionnaire some years back. It would be interesting to see if any of these candidates would respond, and if so, how:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans, and that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed?

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? How?

3. Who are the Constitutional militia?

4. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Please share as many as you can think of.

5. Please give some examples of gun control laws you consider unconstitutional.

6. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?

7. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?

8. Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? Why?

9. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?

10. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?

11. If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

13. If brief clarification is requested for any of your answers, will you provide it?

I'll send a link to this post to both campaigns, and report back on any responses or lack thereof...meanwhile, if anyone has knowledge to share about any of these candidates, feel free to educate us in the "Comments" section to this post.

UPDATE:

There’s a Reason Why They Call Us “Gun Nuts”

NRA Backs Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill

“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”

“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”

How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?

How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?

The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.

Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”

Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”

Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.

So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?

Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:

“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”

Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:

Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?

Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?

Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?

While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?

What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?

What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.

Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?

Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?

What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?

It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.

How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?

If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.

These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.

So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?

Banned Forever!

[More]

As a rule, I stay away from forums. While there are some notable exceptions, I've found too many of them are simply places where the closed-minded congregate to insulate themselves from anything that challenges their preconceptions. Too much nastiness and not enough thought go into many of the posts, and it's clear that many comments are the results of hip shots based on other posted comments rather than actually considering what the original source of the discussion had to say about a subject. That's why you'll find--in some of the forums discussing the Bush administration approving the "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment as justification for its new space flight security rules--the major premise is ignored in favor of people ridiculing guns on spacecraft--a debate topic for another day, to be sure, but only incidental to the topic I was writing about.

But then you get acts of actual sabotage, where the poster knows damned well what he's doing, and whether out of fear or hatred, lashes out with lies, ad hominem attacks, and proclamations that are simply and demonstrably wrong.

Meet NRA grassrooter Mike Haas, someone who has been vocal at attempting to derail just about every Second Amendment activism effort I can recall being part of over the past 10 years. I'm not sure if it's pathological with this guy or if he simply views any new ideas that don't come from his camp as threats, but the guy's a Fairfax worshipper of the first order. Fortunately, he's also incompetent and dishonest, so his attacks are easy to defeat simply by presenting the documented truth.

Because I've been banned for "insulting" him from CalGuns forums, (and from accessing the website itself--at least from my home computer) and because CalGuns.Net will not allow a man who's been attacked to defend himself, which is pretty telling about their mindset, I'm presenting my rebuttal to Haas' baseless attack here:

Response to Mike Haas

I note Haas has not addressed what I actually wrote, just went straight into character assassination. That's one of the oldest deflection tactics in the book. I see some of you have opted to take his side just because, which is your choice and your right. If anyone here is interested in looking a little deeper, read on.

I've never joined a forum before, because they are typically not the most effective means of using limited time if my goal is to reach a wider audience--and the only reason I'm posting here is to defend myself against an unprovoked attack. I probably won't be back, but in any case will not even be able to check for a few days because I'm heading to the mountains with no computer access. We'll see if open minds are receptive to a counter to Mr. Haas' peculiar venom. And for the record, he never contacted me first--something I've done and documented numerous times when I've had differences with NRA.

Stick to the topic I actually wrote about if you're going to "debunk" what I said, Mike. Yes or no, did the FAA cite the "collective rights" theory of the 2nd Amendment as their legal justification for imposing their rules, and yes or no, did the Sr Counsel for the FAA say that this was approved by the executive office of the president? You don't have to be a legal scholar or have some sort of special qualifications to "interpret" that, Mike. Answer those basic questions.

Where to start? How about me being "one of the most anti-NRA entities one can encounter." Note he hasn't given you an actual example of one of these "attacks" because, then you might have to look at the uncomfortable fact of whether or not what I said was true--for instance giving anti-CCW sheriff candidate Bill Brown in Santa Barbara an A rating. The fact is, I AM the NRA--life member,former members council officer, long-time volunteer and financial contributor--you can read my position on that here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/08/im-nra.html

Then there are the fabricated LIES, yes, I said "lies"-- about our petition effort. It's still online on KABA. Go ahead, Mike--out of all the entries at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/, please point everyone to the fundraising appeal--that's what you told them we were trying to do. Good Lord--coming from an NRA management apologist with their interminable fundraisers, that sounds kind of like a pimp calling me a slut. The point of our petition was also well explained, and we never pretended it was one of those "official" ones Mike wants to belittle us for not being--gee, kind of like those appeals and cards and things NRA management sends its members to contact our representatives--along with a plea for more money. We were pretty proud of our effort, actually, Mike--got some national press, got mentioned twice by Wm F Buckley, writtten up several times on WorldNetDaily, and got responses from every state in the union--over 30,0000 of them, which, while a number you might laugh at in your superiority, ain't bad considering IT WAS ENTIRELY SELF-FUNDED and with all work done by basically 3 people. I personally spent a couple hundred out of pocket. I do recall one or two people enclosed 5 bucks or so. And, oh, keeping names and addresses is now "illegal"? So NRA management will destroy their lists? Hey Mike, you missed again--we kept no names and addresses--we sent them all to Mr. Ashcroft. How can I prove that? Not directly, but indirectly--find ONE Ashcroft petition signatory who says we then used the petitions to send him junk mail or spam. You can't Mike, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Oh, and a "PS" I almost forgot--you know who else supported the petition--publicly--wrote me a nice letter, wrote about it in his column, and even signed up supporters at his class? The late Col. Jeff Cooper. So I'm pretty comfortable with the company I kept on that effort. Mike.

You want to talk Silveira now? How it had such a losing streak? As opposed to the winning streak on 2A Mike and his friends have achieved? Take a look at why the 9th circuit said it didn't have standing--gee--couldn't have anything to do with PRECEDENT established in prior losing efforts that those friends engineered, could it? We had a unique effort and we were right--and we had a lawyer doing the scholarly work who had actually been part of a winning Supreme Court effort, and who, unfortunately, died shortly before cert was denied. We can't rehash the whole thing in this forum--if any of you have the time, the whole thing is still over at KABA and you can see for yourself what we said and did, and again, I'm proud of that effort and the people I worked with as an unpaid volunteer, as was Angel, who Mike hates, which may explain some of this, and Brian Puckett. But here's the one thing I want those reading this to walk away with: Silveira established no new precedent, as Mike seems to indicate with the "damage" he accuses us of almost doing--and for someone who questions MY legal acumen and talent, "the defendant" who "was hardly the ideal gun owner" in the Silveira case was the state of California, Mike, via AG Lockyer and Grey Davis, and Sean Silveira et al were the PLAINTIFFS. So you again don't know what the hell you're talking about. But let's take a look at the character of these "defendants" Mr. Haas would have you doubt just based on his say-so--you know, the "less than ideal" gun owners. It's copied directly from the complaint.
33. Plaintiff JACK SAFFORD is a resident of Corning, California, husband and father, and owns substantial acreage/farm land. He owns his own insurance agency and is a model citizen. He is a graduate of California State University, Chico.
34. Plaintiff SEAN SILVEIRA is a resident of Marin County, California, husband and father of two, and owns real property in Marin. He is a civil engineer, model citizen, and a graduate of California State University, Chico.
35. Plaintiff PATRICK OVERSTREET is a resident of Marin County, California, husband, and owns real property in Marin. He is employed by the San Francisco Police Department as a S.W.A.T. officer, and a graduate of California State University, San Diego.
36. Plaintiff DAVID K. MEHL is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband, and owns real property in Sacramento. He is a chemical engineer, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
37. Plaintiff SGT. STEVEN FOCHT is a resident of Placer County, husband and father, and owns real property in Placer County. He was a Marine Corp sniper who performed military functions in Desert Storm, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Thailand, in addition to Mogadishu,Somalia. He was honorably discharged, and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
38. Plaintiff SGT. DAVID BLALOCK is a resident of Sacramento County and owns real property in Sacramento County. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division who is a Purple Heart recipient from combat injuries (AK 47 round through his arm) occurring in the Noriega police operation (invasion of Panama) and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
39. Plaintiff MARCUS DAVIS is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband and expecting father, and real property owner. He is mortgage broker, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
40. Plaintiff VANCE BOYCE is a resident of Colusa, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He is a of California State University, Fresno.
41. Plaintiff KEN DEWALD is a resident of Paradise, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He was honorably discharged from the Air Force, and is currently employed as a California Correctional Officer and a model citizen.

Go ahead, Mike, you ignorant fraud. Tell your admirers on this board how these "defendants" are "far from ideal gun owners".

Now we can get into my recommendations of "civil disobedience"--you know there's no tradition of that in forging freedom for this country--no, I'm sure Thoreau and others would have applauded NRA grassroots having DOJ reps come before their membership to tell them the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and then demand they fill out registration forms for property they already lawfully purchased and owned. Yep, guilty as charged, and proud of it--because we've seen through the Bill Doss example how NRA's lawyer provided the escort service to surrender that registered weapon to the state. I don't know what the hell good Mike thinks 2A is if it means we're just going to obey every order the govt issues to us--including surrendering our firearms to the state on demand. If that's your idea of skillful activism, Mike, go for it. Me, I'll defy and resist and disobey, and live with the stinging pain of having incurred your bitchy and impotent scorn.

I guess we could now get into a debate on what kind of talent I AM close to possessing, but you know what, Mike? I really don't care what you think about me. I play damned well with others--that is, with men and women whom I respect. And I don't consider us on the same "side" Mike--You publicly lie about people and their efforts, and you don't know what you're talking about. I want as far from that side as I can get.

I'll be back in a few days. Feel free to use it to your best advantage. Someone who lies and doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't worry me too much.

Just see if you can nail him down to address the specific points I made in the article he used as the catalyst for his stupid, ineffectual attack.

David Codrea

One final word to those who are members and supporters of CalGuns Forums: Do you like being fed demonstrably false information, and then having what you're allowed to see and comment on manipulated and censored? Do you think it's fair to attack a person, his efforts and his reputation, and then prohibit that attacked party from presenting the truth? Then you've found the right place. Enjoy your association with such transparent and malicious propagandists.

Me, I'm not afraid of entering the lion's den, alone and against all they can muster, but surface appearances indicate they're afraid of me--even on their own turf. And unlike those cowardly gatekeepers who manipulate what they will allow you to consider in a debate, comments here at WarOnGuns are open--I think with the exception of some spam, a few pornographic comments and some ill-advised statements that might be construed as threats, I've never interfered with anyone saying anything--including comments highly critical of me.

I'm even going to be gone for a few days without computer access, so now's the time to get your cheap shots in, boys, and I use that term deliberately. You have something to say? Go for it.

That includes you , Mike.

Check Out The Handgun Club of America!

Some of the gun blogs are mentioning a new group, Handgun Club of America, and encouraging us to check it out.

I just took a cursory glance at their site, and will need to learn more before I can recommend joining.

They say they’re not a “politically-charged grou[p] like the NRA and other firearm organizations.” Instead, they say they “are, if you will, a calm, rational alternative for the 60 million households who lawfully choose to own a handgun.”

Fine. Not everyone can be an activist. There is room for recreational/educational clubs, and they can do much good in promoting an interest in shooting handguns, which can result in an interest in defending the right to own one. But claiming to be a “calm, rational alternative” implies those fighting for the right to keep and bear arms are agitated (fair enough) and irrational (hey, wait a minute...).

This raises a flag for me. An unequivocal statement of support for the Second Amendment--along with some examples to demonstrate their understanding of "shall not be infringed"--would help alleviate concerns.

Just who is behind HCA? Who are the people who want us to send them money? A register.com WHOIS lookup identifies one Josh Manheimer of J.C. Manheimer & Company as the registrant—although it’s not clear if he’s the principal behind the effort or an agent of those who are. I’ve never heard of him—either in the gun rights community or as someone of note in the field of handgun expertise. A Google search on his name turns up nothing in terms of any kind of "street cred" in the firearms community—although I do note he raised $100 for Howard Dean in 2004.

Yeah, Dean used to have an NRA "A" rating (for what that's worth), but he's on record supporting the "assault weapon" ban, the Brady Bill, and ending the "gun show loophole." He also has no problem with states ignoring the Bill of Rights--at least as far as the Second Amendment goes. Manheimer's support--if he is a principal behind HCA as opposed to a paid pr guy-- raises another flag for me.

What Manheimer is is a direct mail copywriter, a pro at crafting words so that people in his target market will want to buy the product or service he has contracted to promote.

That's great. If you want to attract people, you have to know how to do it. His advertising expertise is impressive and the HCA site reflects this.

But that's all style--I have another concern--another flag--about substance: On their “Gun Safety Rules” page, HCA tells us to:

"Store firearms and ammunition separately. When cleaning a firearm, put ammunition in a separate room or locked up out of reach.

"Stored firearms should be unloaded to prevent accidents when removing from their storage location. Ammunition, especially while cleaning a firearm, should be stored separately."

Well, sorry, but if I do that, it becomes useless for emergency defense. This seems to be the same advice we get from Andrew McKelvey’s Americans for Gun Safety, which tells us to: “Keep your ammunition as safe and inaccessible as your firearms.”

And it's the same position adopted by the Brady Center, which has initiated a Legal Action Project because they say “a majority of gun owners living with children do not store their guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.”

We see that when applied uniformly in the real world, such one-size-fits-all policies can result in nasty, brutal things--like pitchfork murders--where minors couldn’t reach a gun to save their lives.

I think HCA needs to address this.

Bottom line: HCA may turn out to be a fine organization. Mr. Manheimer may turn out to be a handgun enthusiast who has created something that will benefit gun owners. He may turn out to be a hired marketing consultant for someone else.

But until we find out who is behind HCA and whether or not they really support the Second Amendment--and how they do so--I can’t recommend giving them any money. Some sport shooters almost got burned by the American Hunting and Shooting Association until some curious folks started checking up on them.

I'll go this far in joining the other gun bloggers who recommend checking out HCA:

Yes, by all means, do so.

New Examiner "Review" Criteria May Explain What Staff Refuses To

Long-time readers who have supported my work deserve an explanation, so here's an update for those of you who have been wondering what's going on with Gun Rights Examiner. Sorry it's so long -- there are many pieces to consider.

I've been writing for them since 2008, and never had a column pulled before. Now they've sunk two in a row, and have clammed up on their reason, to boot.

A full week after Examiner.com "unpublished" my Hastert column, and five days after they torpedoed my follow-up column about a media subscriber news service including that story in an alert to members, they still have not responded to multiple inquiries asking why. That's in spite of their instruction to "Contact support with any questions."

That they would  let a content provider spend hours researching, writing, publishing and publicizing an article, pull it, and then go into hiding, is indicative of the "leadership" routinely endured over the years, and leads to natural speculation as to what "offense" against "standards" could have possibly occurred this time. If tough to know what's allowable when anti-gun "progressives" are permitted to outright lie and call gun owners who believe in their rights "ammosexuals" (that's actually a keyword tag on the Examiner site).

It looks like that assumption was wrong -- albeit with no explanation followed by the silent treatment, it was an understandable conclusion to jump to. They just sent out an email to their list defining new criteria for both acceptability of an article as "newsworthy," as well as general editorial criteria for all articles.

Understand that Examiner does not submit all articles to the Google news feed. They have requirements, like the story must be under 48 hours old, you have to link to sources they consider credible, you can't reference other Examiner links, you can't use the first person, etc. That's been understood, even if it's self-defeating for those of us who actually dig out stories on our own, as opposed to linking to what someone else has uncovered and rewording it to take advantage of keyword and topic trending. In other words, those of us doing investigative journalism, where we are the ones breaking stories, and where we have nothing else to refer to as a source but our own prior work, are penalized for deviating from the content farm model.

They now appear to be extending that to all articles, not just the ones submitted to the news feeds. And it appears not complying with "review criteria" they just sent out today may be the reason behind "unpublishing" articles published a week ago.

Their criteria, incidentally, corroborate the valuing of search ranking manipulation over content. Case in point, from the Examiner Support Center "Basic Editorial Requirement writing Tips":

Please refrain from using one-sentence paragraphs, paragraphs consisting of only a few short sentences or paragraphs made up of incomplete sentences whenever possible. Google rejects pieces that are formatted that way.

Compare that to Purdue University's Online Writing Lab, teaching journalism students how to write:

Tips for Writing a Lead ... Brevity: Readers want to know why the story matters to them and they won’t wait long for the answer. Leads are often one sentence, sometimes two.

The "review criteria" also list some of the "sins" committed in my Hastert and follow-up articles:

Self-promotion: Not allowed in article content. No click-baiting or product marketing is permitted ... Third Person: Avoid first-person references ("I," "me," "my," etc.) The focus of the article should be on the story, not on the person writing it.

That depends on the meaning of the term "self-promotion." and the qualifications of  the person making that assessment. My columns never contain "click-baiting or product marketing." What they do contain are references to original work that no one else has uncovered, and if not called to reader attention, will remain unknown to everyone but me. We certainly know the "mainstream media" has no interest unless it's to take a story uncovered by small fry, bigfoot it, and claim it as their own.

Yes, my Hastert story contained a link to one of my articles from 16 years ago, an open letter I wrote to him (that was subsequently published in a Libertarian Party publication at the request of one of their officials), and that necessitated a first-person reference. It couldn't be helped.

Everybody and his brother are "reporting" on the Hastert scandal and charges the guy's got himself embroiled in. Not one writer was informing gun owners about his betrayal of their interests when he was Speaker, and how in spite of that, he was still given an "A" rating from NRA. That's legitimate information for a gun rights advocacy readership to be aware of. It's not my fault no one else knew about and was reporting that. I guess the Examiner solution for original and unique offerings is to "unpublish" and suppress them.

Using that criteria, that reference to self or to prior works of original investigative journalism is verboten, let's look at some of the other stuff, allowed in the past, but now evidently in violation of the new criteria:

My FOIA-based exposé on the fake Ceasefire "PSA" that yielded a permit saying “Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store” comes immediately to mind. It included my email correspondence with the Mayor's Office and also linked to my piece at The Shooters' Log. Is that "self-promotion" or is that telling and expanding on a dimension of a national interest story no one else is? And for that matter, if they're going to be consistent why hasn't that article been "unpublished"?

How about my other stories resulting from FOIA requests I filed? Who is going to report on those if not me? We know the "partial response" I got from ATF proved a whistleblower had been called on the carpet for talking to the Senate. We also know the Senate was publicly pressured -- by me -- to interview and protect Gunwalker whistleblowers in the first place.

As a matter of fact, look at all the reporting Mike Vanderboegh and I did on this before anyone in major media said word one about Fast and Furious. By Examiner's "review criteria," this all needs to be pulled from the site. And future stories -- and Mike has arranged to share documentation with me on a huge one -- cannot, as a matter of their "rules," appear there.

So what else, just off the top of my head, must go?

It looks like I can't tell readers how ATF claimed -- to me -- an Administrative Procedures Act exemption from their recent ammo ban "framework" trial balloon. Nor can I tell them how -- after my reports -- the "real reporters" discovered the B. Todd Jones leaving ATF for NFL story, or the Armatix management split story, or how an anti-gun "filmmaker" broke the law regarding bringing imitation firearm onto school premises without permission, or...

Nor can I include links in future articles to information vital to understanding a complex and ongoing story that appears nowhere else, such as the series of reports I have done containing exclusive information on the Reese family case, John Shipley, ATF's Vince Cefalu and Jay Dobyns, the '68 GCA and other legal challenges, and those are just off the top of my  head as topics where I have to refer and link to earlier reports I posted in order to validate claims. And who knows what this will do to the innumerable source documents I alone have archived on Scribd? How is linking to my account there not "self-promotion"?

I guess I can forget about telling you things I'd like you to help be a force multiplier for. That's a major reason I do this, to provide information that no one else does or will, and to then rely on activist readers to help me bypass "legitimate media" gatekeepers. And sometimes, the action just happens to center on my activities. So if I interview Rand Paul, or appear on a television panel, or get interviewed on a network show, or help write lyrics to a song for a political video produced by a multiple-award winning filmmaker and premiering on a nationally-syndicated radio program, or give a speech in front of a state house, those are all things I'm evidently no longer allowed to tell regular readers about in my column -- a column I started and expanded to a national presence on the premise and promise that I could.

That's in spite of a pledge made to me by Examiner only three months ago after one of their reviewers had rejected my ATF ammo ban piece from news feed submission on the grounds that I did not link to a recognized news source.

"As for the main premise of my story having no link, what am I supposed to do when this is original investigative journalism based my telephone conversation held today with an ATF official identified as the point of contact on a new proposed rule?" I asked. "There IS no other source to link to, as no one else has this development but me. I repeat: What am I to do?"

This was the last official word received on the matter:

Click to enlarge

I guess the "welcome" has been pulled back, or at least my being able to identify myself as the one who made the story happen in the first place, and to reference and link to an exclusive in follow-up reports.

Several of you have reached out to me, asking if I want you to do anything, maybe write to Examiner. Thanks, but no. These conditions are intolerable. I'm probably going to need to post a bare minimum article once a month just to keep them from declaring my account inactive and not sharing page view revenues from past articles, but it looks like their rules will no longer allow me to do much of the original stuff that requires self-referencing and linking.

How this will play out and if I'll land anywhere else is anybody's guess, but it doesn't look promising. Ultimately, I have to admit the failure to figure a way out of the box is mine, as my stuff is unacceptable to big boy media as well as to "lobby groups." That's because I do this to say what I want to say.

I'll keep writing for the magazine as long as they want me, and also do occasional contract assignments that don't dictate information-stifling restrictions, but without a replacement gig, this is probably going to require stepping back and refocusing energies on something that values my efforts enough to actually pay the bills. For now, look for this blog and all of my social media activity to be limited to dreaded "self-promotion."

UPDATE: Well, that was quick. At least it shows they can move when motivated. They fired me, and warned me not to show anyone the termination notice because that would violate a confidentiality agreement.  I'll match their agreement violations over the years against mine if they want to pursue this, because I maintain this is definitely in the interests of pursuing a story about cheesy Examiner.com practices:

[Click to enlarge]

"Unpublished" Examiner Article

This is what has been removed from the Examiner.com site. I am posting it here to keep the information from being suppressed. I'm also going to continue tracking down why it was torpedoed in the first place.

---

Embattled Hastert was no friend to gun owners despite ‘A’ rating

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert has been indicted on “one count each of structuring currency transactions to evade currency transaction reports and making a false statement to the FBI,” NBC News reported Friday. Further reports citing “two federal law enforcement officials” suggest the politician-turned lobbyist has been paying hush money to cover up sexual abuse accusations dating back to when he was a high school teacher and wrestling coach.

That the charges come now, when Hillary Clinton’s star is rising amidst allegations of her past improprieties, is perhaps to be expected as a politically smart way to take such focus off the presumptive Democrat front-runner. In any case, it illustrates that the greatest danger to Republicans comes not from principled conservatives criticizing betrayals by party elites, but from those elites’ own actions. It also makes it fair to wonder if anyone else in the leadership is similarly vulnerable and compromised – a theory some have suggested as a potential explanation for a succession of seeming surrenders following last November's political polarity shift.

In any case, gun owners with long memories will shed no tears over Hastert being in the hot seat. Many of us still remember May, 1999, when, per CNN, “House Speaker Dennis Hastert entered the fierce debate on gun control ... saying he favored raising the minimum age for owning a handgun to 21 and requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows.”

It was especially “puzzling” at the time, as “[a]n aide from [then-Senate Majority Leader Trent] Lott's office told CNN that ... the gun control issue is not slated to come up in the House of Representatives anytime soon.”

“Where the hell is it within the Constitutional powers of the federal government to enact any kind of gun control legislation at all?” I asked in an angry open letter response to Hastert. “Where the hell do you get off endorsing a handgun ban for a segment of our population that is old enough to vote, to marry, to parent and to go to war and die protecting your sorry politically opportunistic @$$?”

Adding insult to injury, the following month, Hastert refused to use his position of influence “to ‘whip’ members into a unified party line” on guns, The Los Angeles Times noted. “Hastert has spoken favorably of new gun safety measures since the Littleton, Colo., high school massacre.”

Curiously, even after those betrayals, NRA still gave Hastert an “A” rating. Evidently giving them some of what they wanted, including access to his office, was enough to induce Fairfax to overlook the infringements he favored imposing. In any case, with the triumphant attacks on Republicans that are certain to come (and the “progressive” braying has already predictably started), principled “no compromise” gun owners can at least prove a substantial level of separation from the inevitable guilt-by-association conflation.

UPDATE: Indications are the allegations concern sexual misconduct with a student.

SUGGESTED LINKS

• Gun group warns against continuing resolution surrender by Republicans
• Republican 'leaders' block and derail campus carry in Nevada
• Koch money and GOP access may discourage pairing amnesty with gun rights
• Republicans leaving anti-rights restoration provision in appropriations bill
• Precinct Project provides blueprint to ‘take back Republican Party’