The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 29, 2010, 02:41 PM   #1
arcticap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,973
NRA Discourages Board Members From Testifying Against Kagan

See the closed thread in the General Discussion forum for background info.:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=414824


Quote:
NRA Discourages Board Members From Testifying Against Kagan

On the eve of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan -- and for the second time in two weeks -- the National Rifle Association (NRA) is under fire from conservatives.

According to RedState's Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative blogger, "internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association's management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA's board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues" during the Kagan hearings.

It turns out that during the confirmation hearings for then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the testimony of former NRA President Sandy Froman angered current NRA leadership, because she didn't obtain permission to appear at the hearing – and because she appeared as former President of the NRA (she's also a Harvard Law grad a practicing attorney). The situation worsened when several members of the NRA board of directors also signed a letter opposing Sotomayor.

As one prominent board member (who asked not to be named) told me, Chris Cox, the executive director of the association's lobbying arm, NRA-ILA, "was livid because he didn't 'authorize' them to speak directly to Congress." After the Sotomayor hearings, a letter was sent to all NRA board members reminding them they did not speak for the NRA or the board.

Of three NRA board members I contacted, only one confirmed "explicitly and directly" receiving any sort of directive that could be interpreted as a "gag order" regarding Kagan. But all three sources confirmed that NRA board members actively opposed to Sotomayor's confirmation have been severely chastised "to the degree that they would not speak out against Kagan" (as one board member – who requested anonymity – told me).

Because most members of the NRA's board of directors are also heavily involved in numerous other conservative organizations, it seems unusual the NRA would expect board members to remain silent on the Kagan nomination (in fact, many have already spoken out).

More likely, the NRA, which is heavily involved in lobbying in Washington, does not want board members representing themselves as speaking for the organization without its approval. And it's reasonable to assume that testifying in a Senate hearing against Kagan would be frowned upon more than simply writing a column that does not mention any affiliation with the gun group.

But even that explanation is not likely to satisfy a growing number of conservatives who believe the gun group should vehemently oppose Kagan's nomination based on the fact that as President Obama's Solicitor General, she did not weigh in on what they consider a landmark Second Amendment case involving the constitutionality of the city of Chicago's gun ban.

These conservatives also see the NRA as having become too much a part of the "Washington scene" in recent years.

It is also important to note that it was only after pressure from conservatives that the NRA agreed to "score" the Sotomayor vote. Deciding to score a vote is important because it means Senators who voted for confirmation received a lower grade on the powerful gun lobby's scorecard.

And this perception was reinforced just a couple of weeks ago when the NRA came under heavy public criticism from conservatives – including a member of their board of directors -- for working with Democrats on a "carve out" exempting the NRA from proposed campaign finance disclosure rules that conservatives view as limiting free speech. The conservative critics say the NRA protected itself but left other, smaller advocacy groups subject to the law because the exemption applies only to groups that have been in existence 10 years or more and have more than a million members.

Regardless, it appears obvious a major schism has developed between the NRA-ILA executive director and several members of the board of directors. As one board member told me, "The bottom line is Chris (Cox) wants to have all decisions go through him and have no board involvement in decisions about or communications with Congress. He was the problem with the DISCLOSE Act. He's the issue re the SCOTUS nominees."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06...against-kagan/
arcticap is offline  
Old June 29, 2010, 02:45 PM   #2
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Didnt this one get closed already as being untrue?

WildoramiblindAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 29, 2010, 02:48 PM   #3
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,327
This has already been debunked by Tom King, sitting member of the NRA Board of Directors, and I guarantee you I'm going to take Tom King's word for this before I take politicsdaily's word for it.

It has also been explained that NRA Executive Staff cannot prohibit board members from doing anything - the executive staff WORKS FOR the NRA Board of Directors; not the other way around.

Sure, the Executive Staff can ask Board Members not to do something, but the last time an NRA EVP went hammer and tong with the board over what he felt the board couldn't do he found out that unemployment isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

This one is closed for the same reason as the previous one -- the idiots at these rumormonger crap festival sites don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06482 seconds with 7 queries