Obama Moves to Silence Gun Groups !

[Chee-to]

I sure hope GOA alerts are appropriate here. This should bring out the "boo birds."

Obama Moves to Silence Gun Groups and Other Political Opponents
-- Bill clears committee hurdle, going to the House floor soon

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 8, 2010


Fresh from his efforts to seize government control of the health services sector (ObamaCare) and the financial markets ("finance reform"), Barack Obama has a new priority: silence his political opposition.

As satisfying as it was for Obama to seize control of one-sixth of the economy, he has had to suffer protest from the "little people" (like us). So he is pushing the Orwellian "DISCLOSE" bill (HR 5175) to make sure gun groups and other pro-freedom forces cannot mobilize their members in the upcoming elections.

When Obama says "disclose," what he really means is "disclose gun group membership lists"

Not surprisingly, these efforts to shut down free speech don't apply to Obama allies, like Democratic-leaning labor unions. They only apply to groups which are not reliable Obama allies, like Gun Owners of America.

But, for those groups whose free speech is targeted for Obama's wrath under this bill, the consequences are severe:

* Under Title II of the bill, GOA (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures -- potentially including their membership lists.

* Also under Title II, GOA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government's snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here's an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court's defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn't he apply his sleazy new rules to his political allies, as well?

ACTION: Please urge your congressman to vote against the anti-gun HR 5175. This bill has moved out of committee and has now been placed on the House calendar.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose HR 5175, a bill that will deny the free speech rights of all Americans. Under Title II of this bill:

* Groups like Gun Owners of America (and other groups, as well as many bloggers) who merely mention public officials within 60 days of an election could be required to file onerous disclosures -- potentially including their membership lists -- even though the Supreme Court has previously ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that membership lists (like those of GOA's) are off limits to government control.

* Also, groups like GOA and the NRA could be required to spend as much as half of the time of a 30-second ad on government-written disclosures.

* In addition, Sections 201 through 203 would potentially put the government's snooping eyes on any American who voices a political opinion, despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, declared that Americans have a right to voice their opinion to an unlimited extent, if unconnected with a political campaign.

Here's an idea: If Obama is so irritated at the Supreme Court's defense of political free speech by groups like GOA, why doesn't he apply the new rules in HR 5175 to his political allies (like the labor unions), as well?

Suffice it to say, if you care anything about the First or Second Amendments, you will vote against HR 5175. GOA will be scoring this vote on their rating of Congress.

Sincerely,

Read More

 

[Minisocks]

That is, seriously, one of the most hysterical (and misleading) emails I've ever read.

<broken link removed>.

 

[56kninja]

I suggest doing your research. I have found that gun owners of america is a simple propaganda machine that abuses their supporters by reporting flawed or untruthful statements and then having them copy a prepared letter to alter the political situation in ways they don't understand.

I stopped reading them last year when they reported many flawed facts over an unreleased health care bill, and when it was released, there was no evidence to support their claims.

And this was the bill released by Inhofe. Want to guess who is related in the writing of 5175? Yes. Inhofe.

 

[CEF1959]

I don't get this. Why would a group called the Gun Owners of American put out such a blatantly misleading description of a bill with all that irrelevant stuff about Obama and health care?

Is it possible that without any real anti-gun legislation on the horizon pro-gun groups are scrambling to remain relevant and to keep their base sufficiently rabid to keep sending money? I'd find them more credible if they came right out and said, "Things are going well for gun-rights advocates right now. We're doing our jobs well. No credible threats on the horizon right now. We've got Obama under control on gun issues."

But I guess that's not how you energize the base to send you checks.

So maybe I do get this.

 

[Minisocks]

But I guess that's not how you energize the base to send you checks.

So maybe I do get this.

If you're not panicking and hiding in your bunker right now you clearly don't understand the magnitude of the threat.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

It's not that 5175 is specifically anti-gun. It's anti-anonymity. What the bill is saying is that if, for example, the NRA pays for a political ad with general membership funds, then they will have to report who all is a member. If they use legislative-action funds, they will have to disclose who all contributed to that fund. But it is equally true that if the Brady Campaign pays for an ad, those contributing members will have to be disclosed as well.

 

[deen_ad]

It's not that 5175 is specifically anti-gun. It's anti-anonymity. What the bill is saying is that if, for example, the NRA pays for a political ad with general membership funds, then they will have to report who all is a member. If they use legislative-action funds, they will have to disclose who all contributed to that fund. But it is equally true that if the Brady Campaign pays for an ad, those contributing members will have to be disclosed as well.

the the gun control groups will be allowed to have a "loop hole" that gives them an out.

 

[el gringo loco]

the the gun control groups will be allowed to have a "loop hole" that gives them an out.

Read the bill. It doesn't. This is about making sure that political advertising is linked to the funder as a way to keep people on both sides of the aisle from putting out misleading statements to submarine a candidate on lies.

 

[Trlsmn]

Wow after reading the bill and reading that email I have zero respect for GOA. Here is the summary and I'm no lawyer but I just don't see where they draw their conclusions from. The bill requires disclosure of who is financing politicians, isn't that a good thing? Their claim of saying that lobbyists like the NRA, GOA etc.. having to list every contributor is bull!

<broken link removed>

Why would they care if a candidate is shown to be supported by the GOA? Perhaps they're worried that people will find that no money is is given out to support candidates by GOA and it's all staying in their pockets?

 

[Gunner3456]

Some of these non-profits find it advantageous to panic the membership into giving money. When they do, I drop them.

I dropped OFF a couple of months ago for posting what I thought were lies and unsubstantiated rumors on their website which ended in, guess what, oh shock, a plea for money.

I don't mind being asked for money and I'll give, but they'd better have a real cause and they'd better have their facts straight because they get just one chance to try to fool me into giving money.

 

[U201491]

I cannot believe what I am reading here.
There is more badmouthing of Pro Firearms groups on this forum than there is on Sarah Brady's home page.
Constant badmouthing of the NRA, GOA, which are the two biggest pro 2nd amendment organizations in the United States.
Un...... believable.
To the one that spoke of money requests, there wasn't any mention of $$ in that Alert that was sent out.
Also organizations like that do not operate for free. What they do is extremely expensive.
What gives with this forum... I am really beginning to wonder.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Their claim of saying that lobbyists like the NRA, GOA etc.. having to list every contributor is bull!

It's not complete bull. It appears from section 211, that they would only have to disclose contributors who paid or donated $600 or more in the year.

 

[el gringo loco]

I cannot believe what I am reading here.
There is more badmouthing of Pro Firearms groups on this forum than there is on Sarah Brady's home page.
Constant badmouthing of the NRA, GOA, which are the two biggest pro 2nd amendment organizations in the United States.
Un...... believable.
To the one that spoke of money requests, there wasn't any mention of $$ in that Alert that was sent out.
Also organizations like that do not operate for free. What they do is extremely expensive.
What gives with this forum... I am really beginning to wonder.

I am pro-NRA for the most part. They are effective and pragmatic. As for the GOA, I really appreciate that they sponsor this site. And, my appreciation ends there. In my experience, the GOA seems to confuse their role as gun rights advocates for a role of blanket right wing advocacy (see healthcare). The GOA tends to make statements that are a bit disingenuous and play fast and loose with the facts. This e-mail is a prime example. Our cause is just and the facts are on our side. There is no reason to stoop to mischaracterizations and half-truths like the Brady Campaign and Mayor Bloomberg do.

In the last few decades, Larry Pratt, the founder and executive director of GOA has been involved in the militia movement, several anti-immigrant groups, and has spoken at Aryan/Neo-nazi events. From an article on Huffington Post (and, yes, you can find this info elsewhere):

GOA executive director and founder Larry Pratt also founded English First, U.S. Border Control and the Committee to Protect the Family. He was a key player in the formation of the militia movement in the 1990s. Pratt was one of only a couple of non-racist speakers who appeared at an important anti-government three day conference convened by neo-Nazis and Christian Identity adherents in Estes Park, Colorado in October, 1992. The gathering is viewed as the starting point of the militia movement. Christian Identity is the racist religion of white supremacy that in its most traditional form promotes a segregated white homeland and a belief that the Jews are Satanic and blacks subhuman....
....
....Aryan Nations founder Richard Butler offered a Hitler salute while proclaiming himself to be a "100&#37; bigot." Another sought after speaker who shared the stage was none other than GOA founder Larry Pratt. He railed, on gun rights grounds, against the 14th Amendment, which in 1868 guaranteed former slaves citizenship and equal protection of the laws. Using the 1992 Los Angeles riots as ammo, he vigorously encouraged the formation of armed unregulated civilian militias. After his Estes Park hijinks were exposed in the Washington Post he quickly resigned as the national campaign co-chair of Pat Buchanan's 1996 presidential bid.

When you have friends like this, who needs the Brady Campaign?

Lastly, I disagree with a no-compromise approach to legislation. It may feel good and sound good, but it is very rarely productive. That does not mean that one does not hold true to one's principles, but many of our advances in gun rights over the last decade have been done incrementally through compromise. The fact that GOA is tied up in so many other right leaning issues muddies the waters even more and makes it even more unlikely that they will be given a seat at any negotiating table. Democrats, even those who rate an A with NRA, hate the GOA, and the feeling is pretty much mutual. Very rarely will there not be a need for some amount of bi-partisanship on gun legislation.

 

[Trlsmn]

I am pro-NRA for the most part. They are effective and pragmatic. As for the GOA, I really appreciate that they sponsor this site. And, my appreciation ends there. In my experience, the GOA seems to confuse their role as gun rights advocates for a role of blanket right wing advocacy (see healthcare). The GOA tends to make statements that are a bit disingenuous and play fast and loose with the facts. This e-mail is a prime example. Our cause is just and the facts are on our side. There is no reason to stoop to mischaracterizations and half-truths like the Brady Campaign and Mayor Bloomberg do.

In the last few decades, Larry Pratt, the founder and executive director of GOA has been involved in the militia movement, several anti-immigrant groups, and has spoken at Aryan/Neo-nazi events. From an article on Huffington Post (and, yes, you can find this info elsewhere):



When you have friends like this, who needs the Brady Campaign?

Lastly, I disagree with a no-compromise approach to legislation. It may feel good and sound good, but it is very rarely productive. That does not mean that one does not hold true to one's principles, but many of our advances in gun rights over the last decade have been done incrementally through compromise. The fact that GOA is tied up in so many other right leaning issues muddies the waters even more and makes it even more unlikely that they will be given a seat at any negotiating table. Democrats, even those who rate an A with NRA, hate the GOA, and the feeling is pretty much mutual. Very rarely will there not be a need for some amount of bi-partisanship on gun legislation.

I'm a zero compromise guy myself, you bargain away your rights until there's nothing left, ask the Indians about compromise with the Feds.

Please enlighten us on what gains we received through compromise over the last decade.

 

[Trlsmn]

I could be reading it wrong as my eyes are tired this time of night but it looks like the donor would have needed to specifically earmarked the money donated to such organization as GOA as going to the politician only, in which case I really don't have a problem with knowing who is sending money to finance any politician, it helps to know who's pocket politicians are in, at least that's my perspective.

 

[Riot]

I cannot believe what I am reading here.
There is more badmouthing of Pro Firearms groups on this forum than there is on Sarah Brady's home page.
Constant badmouthing of the NRA, GOA, which are the two biggest pro 2nd amendment organizations in the United States.
Un...... believable.
To the one that spoke of money requests, there wasn't any mention of $$ in that Alert that was sent out.
Also organizations like that do not operate for free. What they do is extremely expensive.
What gives with this forum... I am really beginning to wonder.

Yes, heaven forbid we hold both sides accountable for their actions...we should only be complaining at what the Brady Campaign does or other abuses of power from political people we don't agree with.

This is a pro-gun forum dangit! We should only be critical to anti-gunners! Not pro-gunners! The NRA, GOA and the SAF would NEVER abuse their power or use their donated funds in any unethical way...only the left-wingers do crap like that.


Sarcasim aside...both sides dish out the cool-aid...sometimes you've got to see through it and make your own decision.

 

[Minisocks]

I'm a zero compromise guy myself, you bargain away your rights until there's nothing left, ask the Indians about compromise with the Feds.

This bill has nothing to do with gun rights, calm down.

 

[Trlsmn]

This bill has nothing to do with gun rights, calm down.

Way to follow the conversation there Sherlock! Perhaps you might want to read who and what I was commenting on.

 

[U201491]

Yes, heaven forbid we hold both sides accountable for their actions...we should only be complaining at what the Brady Campaign does or other abuses of power from political people we don't agree with.

This is a pro-gun forum dangit! We should only be critical to anti-gunners! Not pro-gunners! The NRA, GOA and the SAF would NEVER abuse their power or use their donated funds in any unethical way...only the left-wingers do crap like that.


Sarcasim aside...both sides dish out the cool-aid...sometimes you've got to see through it and make your own decision.

The Rhetoric I have been seeing here gives me the feeling I Stumbled into the Brady, Pelosi, Kennedy, Obama War room.

United We stand, divided we fall and all I see here so far is mass division.
I have never seen this kind of commentary against the top Pro firearms organizations on ANY PRO firearms forum prior to this and am becoming extremely suspect of the motives behind this forum. That kind of rhetoric on a public forum does only harm to any pro second amendment cause, so..................... puzzled as to what I walked into here is the least I can say.
Are you or are you not, aware this forum is viewable by the world?????????? As such the rhetoric against organizations like the NRA or GOA is far more damaging than anything the anti gun backers could ever pull off.
So I really question the motives of some that are here.
I do not see many of the comments doing anything but serious harm. Others are asking the same thing outside this forum. The NRA and GOA have more political influence than all the other gun organizations combined and they have that clout because of their membership and it grows by great numbers every day and will continue to grow.

 

[el gringo loco]

I'm a zero compromise guy myself, you bargain away your rights until there's nothing left, ask the Indians about compromise with the Feds.

Please enlighten us on what gains we received through compromise over the last decade.

First, we need to remember that a lit of what needs to be done on the gin rights front involves repealing or modifying existing law. Any movement in the right direction is a victory and compromise does not mean you are losing anything, just not gaining as much.

The push for national concealed carry has been pragmatic and incremental. Each piece of legislation in each state or at the federal level has contained compromises. Police officers can carry in all 50 states now. We would not even be talking about national reciprocity for Joe citizen if that were not the case. Many state laws involved compromises as to where a chl holder can or cannot carry (ie bars, government buildings, etc.). The GOA's approach has been to be more bombastic and ask for the whole kingdom rather than graciously take each small fiefdom and then come back for more next year.

As for compromise when we are losing ground, the NRA knew that they were going to lose the Assault Weapons Ban battle. They negotiated (some say compromised) and got a sunset provision in the law and made many of the provisions in the law sound tough but mean virtually nothing to ghe average gun owner (ie bayonet lug). That was not a victory, but it allowed us to retreat, regroup, and re-engage from a stronger position.

When it comes to compromise, everyone has their threshold. Repeal the NFA in exchange for eliminating the gun show "loophole." Who wouldn't consider that one? Allow post-86 manufacture and sale of machine guns but increase the tax stamp to $1000? We all compromise if we want to get somewhere. The problem with the GOA is that Pratt confuses his hate of all things liberal with gun advocacy. What does a gun advocate care if we get reciprocity and a Democratic Senator gets some social service program in exchange? Pratt would see that as compromise, even though it is on a non-gun issue.