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.

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.

"Thanks for Your Email to NRA-PVF"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bradey, Jennifer
Date: Nov 6, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: New website submission
To: [edited for privacy-DC]@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Hofnann [sic*],

Thanks for your email to NRA-PVF.

We have been receiving a bit of communication from NRA members after the latest publicity campaign from GOA regarding Ron Paul's NRA-rating. [1] GOA does this to encourage folks to join their organization rather than NRA. Think about it: if they said NRA was doing everything right, they wouldn't have any members. Only in trying to stir up disagreement among our members, do they reap the benefits.

NRA has accordingly graded Congressman Ron Paul a "B". We have NOT endorsed against him - as widely MISreported.[2]

Congressman Paul is a staunch libertarian, and as such, would not vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on countless occasions over the past decade. Although he opposed it on libertarian grounds, he still voted against us on one of our top legislative priorities for over a decade. We cannot make exceptions for the reasons WHY Members of Congress don't vote for a bill because they will all come up with some reason not to be supportive. This bill was critical in protecting our firearms heritage in this country, and NRA very successful shephered its passage through the Congress in 2005.

Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.

Thank you.

___________________________________________
Jennifer Bradey
Manager, Political & Legislative Activities
National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
(800) 392-VOTE / (703) 267-1195

There's only one problem, Ms. Bradey. GOA says it is "unaware of any publicity campaign" on this. If this is true, someone owes someone else a sincere and public apology. I have forwarded the NRA email, including the header information that validates it is "authentic", to GOA.

[1] All I can even guess that Ms. Bradey is referring to is an article by Kevin Smith that appeared on Alex Jones' website where Larry Pratt defends Ron Paul upon learning of the NRA rating. But Pratt does not mention NRA. This is hardly a GOA "campaign," and certainly not one conducted with a hidden motive to skim off NRA members to swell GOA's ranks, as Ms. Bradey accuses.]

[2] Ms. Bradey is correct and the Smith article is in factual error on one point. NRA never "endorsed" Shane Sklar, and WarOnGuns took care to point this out--along with how the Sklar campaign's presentation of their rating blurred the distinction so that it would be likely to infer an endorsement. Besides which, give one candidate an "A" and his opponent a "B" and the average person will understandably assume a preference has been expressed. But technically, she's right.

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

* "Mr. Hofnann" is Kurt Hofmann. He's the activist who initially wrote to NRA and reported their response on the 1911 Forum, so this story is really his. Kurt is new to blogging, having recently created Armed and Safe, which I am adding to the blogroll as soon as I get done posting this. Go on over and check it out.

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...

"Ron Paul- Asked and Answered"

Thanks for your email to NRA-PVF.

We have been receiving a bit of communication from NRA members after the latest publicity campaign from GOA regarding Ron Paul's NRA-rating. GOA does this to encourage folks to join their organization rather than NRA. Think about it: if they said NRA was doing everything right, they wouldn't have any members. Only in trying to stir up disagreement among our members, do they reap the benefits.

NRA has accordingly graded Congressman Ron Paul a "B". We have NOT endorsed against him - as widely MISreported.

Congressman Paul is a staunch libertarian, and as such, would not vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on countless occasions over the past decade. Although he opposed it on libertarian grounds, he still voted against us on one of our top legislative priorities for over a decade. We cannot make exceptions for the reasons WHY Members of Congress don't vote for a bill because they will all come up with some reason not to be supportive. This bill was critical in protecting our firearms heritage in this country, and NRA very successful shephered its passage through the Congress in 2005.

Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.

Thank you.

Uh, yeah, I have a few other questions.

I understand why you gave Ron Paul a "B"--it's your rating system, and if voting for lawsuit protection was a priority, that's your call.

The real question is, why did Shane Sklar get an "A"? Aside from trumpeting his "sporting purposes" affiliation and advocating that we "enforce existing gun laws", his position on specific details has been carefully left obscure. Why should we give Sklar's rating any more credibility than we would give, say, Bill Brown's?

Oh, and one other question--why the slam on GOA, with the accusation that their motive is to compete with NRA for members, rather than having a principled difference of opinion? As the email came from an NRA staffer, I'm assuming that tactic has been authorized by Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Cox?

GOA "Unaware of Any 'Publicity Campaign'"

I informed Gun Owners of America about the 1911 Forums thread where an email reply ostensibly from an NRA representative about the Ron Paul race was posted.

Here's what I sent:

Please note the following (scroll 2/3 way down the page to comment by ‘kjhof]):

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=157138

“We have been receiving a bit of communication from NRA members after the latest publicity campaign from GOA regarding Ron Paul's NRA-rating. GOA does this to encourage folks to join their organization rather than NRA. Think about it: if they said NRA was doing everything right, they wouldn't have any members. Only in trying to stir up disagreement among our members, do they reap the benefits.”

I haven’t seen this publicity campaign the NRA rep refers to. Have you sent out alerts on this, or is there a web page you can refer me to?

Also, will you give me a “for the record” comment on the NRA allegation?

Thank you,

David Codrea

Here's what I got back:

David,

We are also unaware of any "publicity campaign" on this issue. Other than publicizing his GOA rating as we do with all candidates we can identify, we have not been active in Paul's district this election. (No alerts, no postcards, etc.) And of course, we gave Paul his usual A+ rating.

Regarding a "for the record comment," we consider all of our responses to e-mailed questions to be on record unless specifically stated otherwise. We don't have any idea what the quoted passage is referencing, if anything.

I also feel obligated to point out that it is by no means uncommon for forum threads to include inaccurate information, misattributed quotes, and even outright false or manipulated posts. Do not interpret that to mean I'm at all suggesting such has been the case in this instance. I'm pointing it out because, since GOA has been unfairly tarnished in those ways more than a few times over the years, we are obligated to give NRA-PVF every last bit of the benefit of the doubt. So I suppose the sound bite would be: "I would be interested in seeing the original e-mail -- with all header information included."

In liberty,

--Craig.

Craig Fields
Director of Internet Operations, GOA

I have not been able to access the 1911 Forum site since yesterday afternoon. I'll keep trying with the intent of contacting poster "kjhof" about this.

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.

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.

Guest Editorial: NRA Ratings Sham in Georgia

By Matt Knighten

I have sent you emails a couple of times in the past about NRA ratings in Georgia that are similarly confusing as that of Bill Brown's own rating.

Well I don't think I have updated you on the latest ordeal with the NRA and Georgia legislation.

Georgiacarry.org (link already on your website) had been pushing a bill called HB 89 that would allow a person not ineligible for a carry license to be able to carry a firearm anywhere in a car without a license (our thinking being if you left your license elsewhere or left your firearm in the car with a unlicensed family member driving, that it would not be illegal). Our current law makes it illegal unless an unlicensed person puts it in a glovebox, console, or open to view (licensed people can carry anywhere in the car).

HB 89 had already passed the House Committee, Full House and Senate Committee (GCO showed up to and spoke at all public meetings, no other pro-gun showed up for any), all that was waiting was a vote by the Senate which we expected it to pass by a good margin.

The NRA had its own bills (2 identical, one for the house HB 143, the other in the senate SB 43). Basically they both were to prohibit certain employers from prohibiting employees from lawfully carrying and possessing firearms in locked motor vehicles; to provide for immunity for employers who allow employees to possess firearms in locked vehicles on the premises of such employer.

They both were strongly opposed by Georgia Chamber of Commerce and other similar powerful lobby groups (GCO was not opposed or in support of it as our membership had mixed feelings). As the crossover day approached, the NRA pushed hard for passage. It failed. Only our bill HB 89 was passed before crossover day and could continue. So the only way for the NRA to get their bill back in the running was to tack it on to HB 89.

So without asking the author of the bill or GCO (its only defender in the house and senate), the NRA got HB 89 pulled from the calendar and amended it. HB 89 went from near certain passage to near certain failure.

So we started asking Senators to make sure the amendment was not officially added (full vote needed) and leave HB 89 as it originally was.

The NRA got wind of what we were doing and they released a threat (published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution "Political Insider" column) that said if anyone voted against adding the amendment or the bill itself, would be given an F. We contacted NRA's rep and said that they were killing HB 89 with their threats. The threat remained, so support for HB 89 dried up.

It almost came to a vote, then the Virginia Tech shootings happened and so they had an excuse to bury the bill with the amendment and not incur the wrath of the NRA.

So thanks to the NRA help and threats, instead of getting one pro-gun bill passed in Georgia, we get none.

The absurdity is, without the unfortunate deaths at VT giving legislators an excuse, the NRA would probably have given the original author of HB 89 as well as many others a F.

Anyway, just thought you would like to know.

Matt Knighten
Owner GeorgiaPacking.org
Secretary and member of the Board of GeorgiaCarry.org

PS - We have now learned that an 800 lb gorilla is great if it does what you want, however there are times when all it ends up doing is smashing your own hard work to bits.

First Responder

The first response to my NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire has been given by Joel Friedman. It’s posted over at The High Road.

That’s a good start, and I appreciate his not only meeting the challenge, but being the first to do so. As I mentioned in my earlier article, the questionnaire was adapted from one I have sent to politicians in the past, and with very few exceptions, most of them have ignored, evaded or weasel-worded.

If you’re a voting member, you’ll need to decide if his answers match how you would have responded, or if there are any you’d like to have clarified. I encourage you to take him up on his offer to answer more questions. After all, the NRA is the most influential of the "gun groups"--policies they set and endorsements they make end up affecting all of us.

Clarifying questions that immediately come to mind:

* Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?
* Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?
* Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?
* What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?
* If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

You can learn more about Mr. Friedman, including his contact information, at:
http://www.joelforboard.com/.

Addendum since first posted:
From Mr. Friedman's Mission Statement: "I fully support the successful NRA Winning Team philosophy that has been responsible for NRA's unprecedented growth and effectiveness and promises to continue throughout the next century. I look forward to being elected to the NRA Board of Directors and helping NRA leaders, like Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Kayne Robinson, and Sandy Froman, preserve the Second Amendment."

Just in Case There are Any Doubts...

...about this mudderfudder being a subversive Fifth Columnist in the shooting world...

Please, Let it be Grijalva for Interior Secretary

Ah, yes, Grijalva!
GOA rating: F-
NRA rating: F

He’s also co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus...

Bill Schneider, you say that like it's a good thing...

Caucus Member List: GOA/NRA GRADES
Co-Chairs
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)F-/F
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-9) F-/F
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) F-/F
Hon. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) F-/F
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5) F/F
Hon. Hilda Solis (CA-32) F-/F
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-2) F-/F
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17) F/F
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT) F/¹
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1) F-/D-
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2) F/F
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) F/F
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)²
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-1) F-/F
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-3) F/F
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-8) F/F
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)²
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) F-/F
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-1) F-/F
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-9) F/C
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14) F/F
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-7) F
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-7) F/F
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-4) D
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) F
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-5) F
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17) F-/F
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-2) F-/F
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51) F-/F
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-4) F-/F
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4) F
Hon. John Hall (NY-19) F/F
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) D-/C
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15) F-/F
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2) F/F
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) F-/F
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) F/F
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-4) F-/F
Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) F-/³
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) F/C
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) F/F
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) F-/F
Hon. John Lewis (GA-5) F/F
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-2) F/F
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) F-/F
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-7) F-/F
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-7) F/F
Hon. James McGovern (MA-3) F-/F
Hon. George Miller (CA-7) F/F
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-4) F/F
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) F-/F
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)²
Hon. John Olver (MA-1) F-/F
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-4) F-/F
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10) F/F
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15) F/F
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37) F/F
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-1) F/F
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47) F/D⁴
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9) F-/F
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-16) F/F
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) F-/F
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13) F/F
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-2) F/F
Hon. John Tierney (MA-6) F-/F
Hon. Tom Udall (NM-3) F-/C-⁵
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) F/F
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35) F/F
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12) F-/12
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30) F-/F
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL) D-/A-⁶
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19) F-/F

I think it's safe to say this useful idiot couldn't get a job doing gun/hunting writing for a non-leftist rag or he'd be "Zumboed"/"Coopered"--as would be our right, despite his huffs and puffs of what-kind-of-people-are-these? indignation. I also think this whole New West venture bears looking into. I note the founder has been an LA Times writer, journalism professor and globalist who has partnered with a product of UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism... with everything that implies for bringing urban "progressive" thought to the last bastions of pioneer country under the guise of conscientious environmental stewardship.

You know: watermelons.

But backed by rich watermelons nonetheless:

New West Publishing is backed by a group of angel investors, including Boulder-based venture capitalist Brad Feld, former Microsoft CFO John Connors*, and television personality Maury Povich.

Thankfully, when the agenda is complete, the elites will still be able to enjoy Rocky Mountain resort living amidst pristine wilderness (that would be off limits "wildlands" to the rest of us). Heck, we won't even have to do any new drilling, and they'll still be able to jet in! And if you play your cards right, well, I'm sure they'll need servants and support staff, for those of you in ranching, mining, logging, etc. who can't move away and get city jobs.

¹Sanders not rated by NRA for 2008 cycle. Last rating (2006) was C-.
²At Large delegates for Guam, US Virgin Islands and Washington, DC--not rated.
³ Tubbs Jones died before the election. New candidates unrated by NRA.
⁴Based on their list, the Progressive Caucus doesn't even know their own members. Linda Sanchez is District 39. Loretta Sanchez is District 47. Linda has F grades from GOA and NRA. Loretta has an F from GOA and a D from NRA.
⁵Udall has been elected to the US Senate.
⁶GOA's rationale per below graphic (click to enlarge).


* Apparently Connors is more of a Bush RINO...but Feld is a rich democrat contributor, and Povich is, well, Mr. Connie Chung.

"Bill Brown-Asked and Answered"

I received the following forwarded email reply by NRA-ILA regarding Bill Brown from a friend in Santa Barbara:

Thank you for your email. Our lobbyist has carefully evaluated Bill Brown's stand on the Second Amendment. In fact Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol. As for his opponent Sheriff Anderson, he never returned the questionnaire that the NRA-PVF sent to him. We assume that is because he is hostile to gun rights.

Well, NRA's lobbyist wouldn't return my call on the matter, nor would their PR department. Incidentally, what do they mean by "Brown...worked with the NRA...at the State Capitol"?

Which bills? What did he actually do?

As for Anderson not returning a questionnaire, the implication is that Brown did.

Did he? Why won't NRA tell us how he responded?

Why won't NRA tell its voting members, who are being asked to support Brown, what his stances are on specific issues, such as concealed carry, the semiauto ban, the .50 ban, and other "anti-gun legislation"?

Why should we believe that Bill Brown's A-rating is a credible assessment of his "stand on the Second Amendment," when NRA is deliberately withholding this information, and refuses to explain Brown's documented position on the bearing of arms:

"With regard to CCWs, I don't believe in a blanket policy, i.e. I feel that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs need to have and should exercise discretion in issuing CCWs. Circumstances vary. What works in a rural setting may not be appropriate in an urbanized area. I would continue my current policy, which is to issue CCWs sparingly if there is a valid reason (such as a credible threat against life, requirement due to profession, or similar circumstance)."

This is what it takes to get an "A", and these people only gave Ron Paul a "B"?

Don't look for these questions to be answered. But do look at that evasion when assessing the credibility of NRA political ratings.

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?

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.

The Usual NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire- 2007

Voting members have until March 25 to get their ballots for NRA Board of Directors mailed in and received. As usual, the Nominating Committee has selected a group of candidates to perpetuate "The Winning Team." As usual, another faction is urging us to vote for outsiders. And as usual, some opinion makers are urging us to vote based on their personal experience with or devotion to particular candidates.

So what to do?

As usual, The War on Guns has prepared a questionnaire, designed to separate the Freedom Fighters from the Fuddites. And as usual, I don't expect any candidate to put their stance in the public record for scrutiny, so as usual, I don't expect I'll be voting (again) this year.

Here it is. If you're a candidate who wants my vote and endorsement, fill in the answers, send it back to me, and if you get them right, I'll do what I can to support you.

To those of you who are voting members and would like to see candidates answer these questions: Use them yourselves. One of the reasons these are ignored is because I'm the only one asking them. If each candidate received numerous demands, do you think they'd be so quick to discount any need to respond? If you get a reply, let me know about it.

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

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?

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

3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.

4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.

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

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

7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?

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

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

10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

11. Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?

12. Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?

13. Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?

14. What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?

15. If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

16. Do you agree with Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, who stated: "[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel"? If not, what do you plan to do about it?

2006 Questionnaire
2005 Questionnaire

2006 NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire

NRA Board of Director elections are upon us again. If you're a voting member and have complete faith in "The Winning Team," there's no need to read further--just mark your ballots with any of up to 26 of the 29 Nominating Committee recommendations.

If you have concerns about the direction current management has taken the organization, if their method of assigning political ratings seems less than straightforward, if you believe we should repeal, rather than enforce existing gun laws, if you are troubled by perceived compromises, and if you share the concerns of many in the gun community over "Project Exile" and its spin-offs, perhaps you'll want to see how candidates would answer the following questions before giving them your support.

Ballots are due back no later than April 30, so there's not a lot of time to elicit responses, nor can I find a centralized resource to communicate with these candidates so we can learn more about them than the brief bios printed in the magazine.

It probably doesn't matter--I do this as an exercise to demonstrate what I think an involved and activist membership should be demanding--I don't really expect this to be more than a curiosity among a handful of ornery dissenters like me.

And the world keeps on spinnin'.

Let me know if you can get any to respond.

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?

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

3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.

4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.

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

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

7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?

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

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

10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

11. Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?

12. Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?

13. Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?

14. What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?

15. If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

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.

How About Some Straight Answers (For a Change)?

My friends in Santa Barbara got another reply from NRA in response to why the Association endorsed Bill Brown for sheriff:

Thank you for your response. When a candidate does not return a questionnaire, we do assume that it is because they are hostile to gun rights. There is always a possibility the candidate did not receive the questionnaire or forgot to return it. But in Sheriff Anderson's case, according to individuals who talked to him and know him, he was aware that he had not returned the questionnaire and he still never did return it.

Sincerely,

Erik Eckberg

NRA-ILA

Here's what I sent back:

I believe the correct question is not why Anderson was unrated. That’s a diversion from the real issue in this race. I would like someone from NRA HQ to go on record about what Bill Brown did, said and promised to receive an A rating. This nebulous “Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol” does not tell me why Brown deserves an A, AND AN ENDORSEMENT, which in anybody’s book ought to mean he’s a gun rights leader.

What bills did he help defeat? Specifically.

What work did he do for NRA to help defeat these bills? Give details.

What is Brown’s position on the Second Amendment and why won’t he state it for the record?

What is Brown’s position on “assault weapons”?

What is Brown’s position on concealed carry?

What is Brown’s position on .50 caliber rifles?

How does Brown define the militia?

Why did Brown endorse Gov. Moonbeam, who made gun control ads a centerpiece of his campaign?

What does Brown think “shall not be infringed” means?

People are catching on to NRA HQ duplicity. As a life member, I am sick of arrogant staffers equivocating, weasel-wording, avoiding giving direct answers to direct questions. I am sick of phony ratings. I am sick of slick talking.

How about a “for the record” reply to each of my specific concerns, Mr. Eckberg?

And when we’re done with Brown, we can move on to Shane Sklar and Judy Topinka.

I will, of course, post any response I get, unedited.