Obama Moves to Silence Gun Groups !

[U201491]

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.

I don't know why the misleading information is spread like that.
All people have to do it go to the site and see for themself what they are.
The same for the NRA.
Spreading negative inflamatory rumors only harms the person spreading them.
I will tell people to go and read and decide for themself.
Both for GOA and the NRA and for any pro gun organization for that matter, and not accept the word of anyone
as unknown motives never stand to truth.
More coments at the end.

About Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/protect.htm
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue.

GOA was founded in 1975 by Sen. H.L. (Bill) Richardson (now retired). Richardson continues to serve as the Chairman of Gun Owners of America, bringing his many years of political experience to the leadership of GOA. Richardson is also an avid hunter and outdoorsman.

The GOA Board of Directors brings over 100 years of combined knowledge and experience on guns, legislation and politics. GOA's Board is not satisfied with the "status quo." Americans have lost some of our precious gun rights and WE WANT THEM BACK! This is why GOA is considered the "no compromise" gun lobby.

From state legislatures and city councils to the United States Congress and the White House, GOA represents the views of gun owners whenever their rights are threatened.

GOA has never wavered from its mission to defend the Second Amendment -- liberty's freedom teeth, as George Washington called it.

Over the last 30 years, GOA has built a nationwide network of attorneys to help fight court battles in almost every state in the nation to protect gun owner rights. GOA staff and attorneys have also worked with members of Congress, state legislators and local citizens to protect gun ranges and local gun clubs from closure by overzealous government anti-gun bureaucrats.

As an example, GOA fought for and won, the right of gun owners to sue and recover damages from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) for harassment and unlawful seizure of firearms.

Associated with GOA are: Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners Foundation.

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is the political action arm of GOA. It raises funds to support the election of pro-gun candidates at all levels of government. GOA has a record of helping pro-gun candidates defeat anti-gunners in hundreds of races across the country over the past 30 years, and will continue to do so as long as our supporters provide the necessary financial resources.

Gun Owners of California operates solely within California, where it was also founded by Senator Richardson to address the pivotal gun issues arising in that state.

Gun Owners Foundation is a non-profit, tax-deductible education foundation. It is the research arm of GOA. Among the activities sponsored by GOF are seminars which inform the public, the media and government officials about key issues affecting the Second Amendment. GOF also publishes books and articles concerning gun issues as they affect people throughout the world.

Strength comes with numbers, and the more concerned Americans join Gun Owners of America, the more we can do to protect the Second Amendment and our freedom. We need you! Shouldn't you become a member of Gun Owners of America? Join here.

© 2010 by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 - Phone: 703-321-8585 - Fax: 703-321-8408
The information contained herein may be disseminated for non-commercial purposes as long as credit is given to GOA.


To add your link, please contact us via our web form.

GOA kindly asks that you honor the following policies:

1. Links must be reciprocal, and an invitation to "fill out your links form" does not count as a reciprocal listing. Nor does parking your links directory on another domain specifically designed to host such directories.

2. We can't link to the campaign sites of candidates for public office.

3. Links must fit one of the categories listed above (be of interest to gun owners), as this is a single-issue site.

4. Search portals aren't accepted, even if the link is to the portal's "gun" category.

5. Discussion forums are fine, but must have a reciprocal link visible to non-members.

6. Any site that loads invasive spyware or adware onto user machines will be deleted from this directory (GOA web surfers are encouraged to report such sites).

7. If two or more of your desired links lead to substantially the same site, please choose only one to list. Redundant listings are discouraged.


All above is directly from GOA website itself. I see no off firearms topics there whatsoever.

Yes they are hard core and the NRA compromises, but we NEED both tactics in full operation 24-7 .

Also the anti's have been creating anti gun organizations
for some time that for all intents and purpose look like, smell like and camoflage themselves as pro gun groups, and they are deceptive and underhanded in doing so.

The NRA and GOA are non faultering one issue organizations dedicated to protecting the 2nd Amendment !!!!!!!! FACT !!!

 

[Minisocks]

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

Seems I'm tired tonight too and misread your comment.

Anyway, my main problem with his kind of "fund raising" is that it makes gun owners look like paranoid, shrill reactionaries. If GOA is responsible for that email then they are doing a poor job representing firearms owners and I agree with CEF that a more positive message "guys, everything is cool so far, no major threats on the horizon, gg everyone" could be even more effective. Would you be more likely to donate to someone who is constantly crying wolf or to someone who brings you good news everyone once in a while to tell you how your contributions have been effective?

I'd rather hear the latter.

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.

Well put.

 

[smithmax]

Taku, if you don't like what you're reading here, there are plenty of other gun forums. Just because the NWFA member base have guns in common, that doesn't mean that we share political views, or share views on groups like the NRA or GOA. I like this forum because many of the members use critical thinking and are capable of discussing gun matters without bringing up things like health care reform. After reading through several of your posts it seems like you feel like everyone who owns a gun needs to toe the line with the Birthers and GOA.

If you believe that "united we stand, divided we fall" then we have no choice but to fall, because many of us refuse to be associated with people who believe everything they get in an e-mail from some group or see on tv.


PS - this bill isn't related to guns, shouldn't it be locked?

 

[Chee-to]

PS - this bill isn't related to guns, shouldn't it be locked?

Typical Liberal Progressive tactic, if you don't like the topic attack and try to shut it down. "if you don't like what you're reading here, there are plenty of other gun forums." Maybe you should take your own advice...

 

[2zuks]

Typical Liberal Progressive tactic, if you don't like the topic attack and try to shut it down. "if you don't like what you're reading here, there are plenty of other gun forums." Maybe you should take your own advice...

X2!

By the way, does this also make groups like ACORN and the left groups disclose the same information?

 

[Minisocks]

By the way, does this also make groups like ACORN and the left groups disclose the same information?

Yes, it's a transparency bill. This affects everyone.

 

[Gunner3456]

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.

Well you appear to use this site for free even though it costs money, and don't appear to have a problem with that.

If you don't like my comment about OFF crying wolf to ask for money, don't read my posts. I don't have a problem paying where I believe - I just paid another $60 last night to renew my Gold membership here!!!

Why don't you put your money where your bubblegum is?

 

[2zuks]

Well you appear to use this site for free even though it costs money, and don't appear to have a problem with that.

If you don't like my comment about OFF crying wolf to ask for money, don't read my posts. I don't have a problem paying where I believe - I just paid another $60 last night to renew my Gold membership here!!!

Why don't you put your money where your bubblegum is?

What was the OFF alert regarding? I am a member and I didn't notice anything like that. I was under the impression that OFF didn't do that kind of thing.

 

[Chee-to]

Originally Posted by 2zuks View Post
By the way, does this also make groups like ACORN and the left groups disclose the same information?

Yes, it's a transparency bill. This affects everyone.

Not labor unions and their political action committees (Hmmm, not sure who they support ?)

"The bill imposes no comparable restrictions on labor unions that receive federal grants, negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the government, or have international affiliates, even though unions and their political action committees are the single largest contributor to political campaigns and claim to have spent nearly $450 million in the 2008 presidential race."

Interesting read from the The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ya I know another dangerous ultra-right conspiracy organization...

<broken link removed>

 

[Minisocks]

Interesting read from the The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ya I know another dangerous ultra-right conspiracy organization...

There's nothing conspiratorial about their total support of corporate interests. They're quite open about it

Also, if I remember correctly, labor unions are already covered by another law over disclosure so aren't covered by hr5175 because of redundancy. Though, correct my if I'm wrong as this isn't my field of expertise.

 

[Chee-to]

There's nothing conspiratorial about their total support of corporate interests. They're quite open about it

They are also quite open about not embracing socialism......

 

[Chee-to]

Originally Posted by Minisocks View Post
Also, if I remember correctly, labor unions are already covered by another law over disclosure so aren't covered by hr5175 because of redundancy. Though, correct my if I'm wrong as this isn't my field of expertise.

Not to my knowledge, maybe you should supply a source other than "correct my if I'm wrong as this isn't my field of expertise" when you post ?

 

[Minisocks]

Not to my knowledge, maybe you should supply a source other than "correct my if I'm wrong as this isn't my field of expertise" when you post ?

I hope you do the same.

Here's the relevant info: Communication Workers of America v. Beck. (1988). 487 U.S. 735, 101 L. Ed. 2d 634, 108 S.Ct. 2641.

The Court ruled that workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act can withhold forced dues from the union for everything but the documented cost of collective bargaining. That is, members do not have to pay dues when they go for political action. Paying for political campaigns must be a willful decision and cannot be compulsory part of union dues.

And since labor organizations are actually covered by HR515

&#8216;(ii) Any labor organization (as defined in section 316).

And that the donation/payment is made expressly for political uses:

Sec.211(a)(5)(A)(i) If any person made a donation or payment to the covered organization during the covered organization reporting period which was provided for the purpose of being used for campaign-related activity or in response to a solicitation for funds to be used for campaign-related activity--

Sec.211(a)(5)(A)(i)(I) subject to subparagraph (C), the identification of each person who made such donations or payments in an aggregate amount equal to or exceeding $600 during such period, presented in the order of the aggregate amount of donations or payments made by such persons during such period (with the identification of the person making the largest donation or payment appearing first); and

Labor unions are covered just like any other group. If they don't want to report donators, then donations need to be below a certain threshold. The rules apply equally to everyone.

BTW, does anyone need a researcher? I'm underemployed until my clinical internship starts ( )

 

[Chee-to]

Here's the relevant info: Communication Workers of America v. Beck. (1988). 487 U.S. 735, 101 L. Ed. 2d 634, 108 S.Ct. 2641.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs...friends-government-spending-and-union-support

Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C

 

[Minisocks]

I see you posted very one-sided information. At any rate, how does your information refute my argument that labor unions are, in fact, covered by HR5175?

A recap:

Me: this affects everyone
You:

Not labor unions and their political action committees (Hmmm, not sure who they support ?)

Me: Yes it does (see post above yours)
You: but they gave like millions to democrats

Ok, yes, they did, and Oil tends to support the GOP. How does that change the fact that this bill is about increasing transparency in re first amendment speech rights for corporations and organizations (it affects all of them, btw)?

 

[raftman]

If the GOA wanted more cash, they shouldn't be sending out misleading emails about threats that aren't really threats. Maybe if there's not a major attack on gun rights impending, then it could be time to go on the offensive so to speak, that is lobby to restore the many rights that have been lost over the decades. Doesn't it seem more productive to try to gain ground, than to waste time, money, and effort defending against trumped-up attacks?

 

[Chee-to]

I see you posted very one-sided information. At any rate, how does your information refute my argument that labor unions are, in fact, covered by HR5175?

A recap:

Me: this affects everyone
You:
Me: Yes it does (see post above yours)
You: but they gave like millions to democrats

Ok, yes, they did, and Oil tends to support the GOP. How does that change the fact that this bill is about increasing transparency in re first amendment speech rights for corporations and organizations (it affects all of them, btw)?

Political speech by labor unions would not be covered by the legislation:
Although unions and their political action committees are the single largest contributor to political campaigns and claim to have spent nearly $450 million in the 2008 presidential race, their political speech would effectively not be covered by H.R. 5175. The legislation would require corporations and labor unions to report donors who have given as little as $600 during the year. Because an average union member pays annual dues far beneath that threshold, most unions would not be required to disclose their donors even when they spend millions of dollars on political advertising.

The blanket restrictions on political participation by government contractors are effectively inapplicable to unions. The legislation would prohibit government contractors from making any independent expenditures or funding any electioneering communications if the contractor has a government contract valued at $50,000 or more. Although a number of unions hold government contracts, few – if any – hold contracts valued at more than $50,000. That strategically selected threshold, which would encompass tens of thousands of corporations, would largely exempt unions from the government-contactor prohibition. Importantly, unions and their members benefit tremendously from government largesse. Last year for the first time ever there were more union workers in the public sector (federal, state, and local government) than in the private sector. This large union stake in government jobs means that, more than ever, unions will support candidates who increase the size of government, hire more unionized government employees, and agree to union contracts with lavish pay and benefits in appreciation for unions’ political support. Yet, despite this broad and direct monetary interest, H.R. 5175 aims its government-contractor restriction only at businesses.

The legislation’s prohibition on political speech by “foreign-controlled domestic corporations” is also inapplicable to unions. The bill would impose on domestic corporations the speech restrictions that now apply to foreign nationals when, for example, a foreign national owns 20 percent or more of the corporation’s voting shares. Thus, a domestic corporation that is 80 percent owned by United States citizens could lose its First Amendment right to engage in political speech. In contrast, H.R. 5175 would not establish a threshold of foreign membership or control that would strip a union of its corresponding right to speak on political issues.

<broken link removed>

 

[Minisocks]

Ugh, I'm not going in circles with you.

 

[56kninja]

That's absolute BS Taku. They get involved in non-2nd Ammendment issues all the time by making up some lie about the issue to make it SEEM like a gun issue.

They did it with health care. Regardless of your feelings on the health care debate, they went out of their way to make up lies and influence others based on their lies.

 

[2zuks]

See that is my problem. If the liberals are trying to stifle money from conservative contributors while keeping all of their liberal sources, we have a major issue. The labor unions pour money into politics. Look at the teachers unions in Oregon for gods sake. They spend a fortune opposing anything that would take state funds, and backing anything that would raise taxes. That is a small example.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that big corperations could contribute to politics. I know a lot of people don't agree with that, and at the root I don't agree with it either. I don't think ANYONE should be allowed to buy a politician, or pay to push through their political agenda. The problem is that unions and other sources have been allowed to do so already. If ANYONE is allowed purchase their political agenda, then EVERYONE should be able to. If the SEIU is allowed to put in $6,500,000 into the democrat party in 2002, which they did, then a conservative source should be able to do the same thing for the republican party.

When laws are made that allow one party special favors, there is a major problem. Unfortunately that seems to be the trend these days. Before anyone complains that this isn't gun related I want to say it is. Many of the liberal groups that contribute to the liberal cause are anti-gun. If the liberal side is given the advantage in campaign finance over the conservative side, it could HUGELY impact gun rights.