Statement from the national rifle association on h.r. 5175, the disclose act

[Chee-to]

Yup, it's all about money, nothing to do with gun owners and free speech. The NRA having worked out a deal to exempt themselves, plan no opposition to this bill. Small pro-gun organizations like OFF and GOA will be silenced. Now go ahead and attack the NRA, It's all BS, it's all BS, the liberal battle cry.


<broken link removed>

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

---nra---

Read More

 

[deen_ad]

Yup, it's all about money, nothing to do with gun owners and free speech. The NRA having worked out a deal to exempt themselves, plan no opposition to this bill. Small pro-gun organizations like OFF and GOA will be silenced. Now go ahead and attack the NRA, It's all BS, it's all BS, the liberal battle cry.


<broken link removed>

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA's opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA's first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America's lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

---nra---

It's not just the NRA that is exempted from those rules, it is any other group that has been incorporated for over 10 years with over 1 million members. That includes groups on both side of the fence.


Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[Chee-to]

It's not just the NRA that is exempted from those rules, it is any other group that has been incorporated for over 10 years with over 1 million members. That includes groups on both side of the fence.


Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

No problem, just confirming that H.R. 5175 is about the second amendment and free speech, not what has been parroted over and over by the libs here that it's all BS. Are you OK with with the fact that it silences all pro 2nd amendment groups with less than a million members ?
"the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American." If this really is their stance why not oppose the bill ? I'm a member in good standing with the NRA, have been for years, and I have the right to ask that question. As a "NRA Benefactor/Recruiter," maybe you can tell me ?

 

[U201491]

No problem, just confirming that H.R. 5175 is about the second amendment and free speech, not what has been parroted over and over by the libs here that it's all BS. Are you OK with with the fact that it silences all pro 2nd amendment groups with less than a million members ?
"the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American." If this really is their stance why not oppose the bill ? I'm a member in good standing with the NRA, have been for years, and I have the right to ask that question. As a "NRA Benefactor/Recruiter," maybe you can tell me ?

Hi Chee-to,
Even as a life member I criticized them today to their board, but asked for a better explanation. I still support them 100% but also ram them when it needs to happen.
I think they did what was necessary, but not exactly what made them happy. They are still the main organization that fights for 2nd Amendment rights, and also the one that has done the most for us in this country. I did tell them that regardless of the organization ALL 2nd amendment groups need to hold together. All of us as life members also have voting power there also, but there is always a shortage of great choices. I believe they did what was in the best interests of everyone in the organization. Some of these things may pass now but after November if we all do our part will just get burned back to square one. These Social Communist, Marxists (alias = democrats) know their days are numbered.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

I'm not trying to start a political debate here;


I don't know how many people actually read bill texts for these things, but as far as it looks, this bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Its centered around restructuring FECA so that large corporations and organizations have less control over political campaign contributions.

It's helpful to do research before listing to propaganda (from any side);
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...Xzvt:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

 

[Karma]

I'm not trying to start a political debate here;


I don't know how many people actually read bill texts for these things, but as far as it looks, this bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Its centered around restructuring FECA so that large corporations and organizations have less control over political campaign contributions.

It's helpful to do research before listing to propaganda (from any side);
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...Xzvt:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

Are unions addressed in that bill? If not, it is about freedom of speech. You can't pick and choose who can support their political cause. Either we let ALL corperations have a say, or we let NONE have a say. That includes Obama's friends at the UNIONS. Nothing else is fair.

 

[Chee-to]

I'm not trying to start a political debate here;


I don't know how many people actually read bill texts for these things, but as far as it looks, this bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Its centered around restructuring FECA so that large corporations and organizations have less control over political campaign contributions.

It's helpful to do research before listing to propaganda (from any side);
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...Xzvt:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

By giving the FEC jurisdiction over political speech, bloggers would be required to fill out massive forms and face civil and even criminal penalties for violations. Interestingly enough, the establishment media is exempted from these regulations."

Eight former commissioners of the Federal Election Commision believe D.I.S.C.L.O.S.E. adds a complicated scheme of arduous and vague rules - with no hope for clarification through the rulemaking process - designed to confuse and intimidate grassroots groups while midterm campaigns are underway. For example,

The bill creates new disclosure requirements for advocacy groups that speak out.
They must provide the government with a membership list, which infringes on the First
Amendment rights of private associations recognized by the Supreme Court in NAACP v.
Alabama.

The bill requires any organization making political expenditures to create and maintain an
extensive, highly sophisticated website with advanced search features to track its political
activities. Grassroots organizations maintain only basic websites.

This bill would discourage GRASSROOTS organizations from making any expenditures for
political advocacy, because doing so would require them to spend thousands of dollars to
upgrade their websites and purchase software to report information to the FEC.

The bill includes an exemption for major media corporations; it does not exempt
websites or the Internet, which means the government can regulate (and potentially
censor) political dialogue on the Web.

Per a former FEC commissioner, "These regulatory burdens fall hardest not on large-scale players in the political world but on grass-roots movements, low-budget campaigns, and *unwitting volunteers.

While the bill prohibits any corporation with a federal contract of $50,000 or more from making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, no such prohibition applies to unions. This $50,000 trigger is so low it would exclude thousands of corporations from engaging in constitutionally protected political speech, the very core of the First Amendment. Yet public employee unions negotiate directly with the government for benefits many times the value of contracts that would trigger the corporate ban.

In fact, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees plans to spend
over $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund "a massive
incumbent protection program." Is it any surprise that the incumbent sponsors of this bill
want to exempt unions from many of its provisions?

The bill also bans expenditures on political advocacy by American corporations with 20&#37; or more foreign ownership, but there is no such ban on unions&#8212;such as the Service Employees International Union, or the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers&#8212;that have large numbers of foreign members and foreign nationals as directors.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

I'm still confused on what this has anything to do with freedom of speech. All this bill does is regulate campaign contributions, and requires groups to disclose with their members where their contributions are going.

I guess the summary link I posted earlier doesn't work, here is the bill summary. If you'd like to point out where there are violations in freedom of speech, go ahead;

Title I: Regulation of Certain Political Spending - (Sec. 101) Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to prohibit: (1) independent expenditures and payments for electioneering communications by government contractors if the value of the contract is at least $7 million; and (2) recipients of assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) from making any contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office, or to any person for any political purpose or use, or from making any independent expenditure or disbursing any funds for an electioneering communication.

(Sec. 102) Applies the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations.

Requires the highest ranking official of a corporation, before making any contribution, donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication in connection with a federal election, to file a certification with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), if this has not been done already, that the corporation is not prohibited from carrying out such activity.

Declares that nothing prohibits any domestic corporation from establishing, administering, and soliciting contributions to a separate segregated fund, so long as: (1) none of the amounts in the fund are provided by any prohibited foreign national; and (2) no such foreign national has the power to direct, dictate, or control the fund.

(Sec. 103) Treats as contributions: (1) any payments by any person (except a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party) for coordinated communications; and (2) political party communications made on behalf of candidates if made under the control or direction of a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee.

Defines "coordinated communication" as: (1) a publicly distributed or disseminated communication referring to a clearly identified candidate for federal office which is made during a specified election period in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party; or (2) any communication that republishes, disseminates, or distributes, in whole or in part, any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents.

Repeals the prohibition against contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

(Sec. 105) Prohibits a communication which is disseminated through the Internet from being treated as a form of general public political advertising unless the communication was placed for a fee on another person's website.

Title II: Promoting Effective Disclosure of Campaign-Related Activity - Subtitle A: Treatment of Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications Made by All Persons - (Sec. 201) Revises the definition of independent expenditure to mean, in part, an expenditure that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

Requires any person making independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 to: (1) file a report electronically within 24 hours; and (2) file a new report electronically each time the person makes or contracts to make independent expenditures in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than $10,000 (or $1,000, if less than 20 days before an election) with respect to the same election.

(Sec. 202) Increases from 60 days to 120 days the period before a general election during which a communication shall be considered an electioneering communication.

(Sec. 203) Requires mandatory electronic filing by persons making independent expenditures or electioneering communications exceeding $10,000 at any time.

Subtitle B: Expanded Requirements for Corporations and Other Organizations - (Sec. 211) Requires corporations, labor organizations, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and political organizations other than political committees (covered organizations) to include specified additional information in reports on independent expenditures of at least $10,000, including certain actual or deemed transfers of money to other persons, but excluding amounts paid from separate segregated funds as well as amounts designated for specified campaign-related activities. Requires certain additional information in electioneering communication reports.

(Sec. 212) Sets forth special rules for the use of general treasury funds by covered organizations for campaign-related activity, including both designated and unrestricted donor payments to an organization.

Authorizes mutually agreed restrictions on the use of donated funds for campaign-related activity between a covered organization and a person who does not want his or her identity disclosed in a significant funder statement or a Top 5 Funders list.

(Sec. 213) Authorizes covered organizations to make optional use of a separate Campaign-Related Activity Account for making disbursements for campaign-related activity. Requires such an Account to be reduced by the amount of organization revenues attributable to donations or payments from a person other than the covered organization who notifies the organization in writing (at the time it is made) that the organization may not use the donation or payment for campaign-related activity.

(Sec. 214) Requires any electioneering communication transmitted through radio or television which is paid for by a political committee (including a political committee of a political party), other than a political committee which makes only electioneering communications or independent expenditures consisting of public communications, to include an audio statement identifying the name of the political committee responsible.

Prescribes additional information to be included in certain radio or television electioneering communications by persons (including significant funders of campaign-related communications of a covered organization) other than a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party.

Prescribes a format for the individual disclosure statement.

Subtitle C: Reporting Requirements for Registered Lobbyists - (Sec. 221) Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registered lobbyists to report information on independent expenditures or electioneering communications of at least $1,000 to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Title III: Disclosure by Covered Organizations of Information on Campaign Related Activity - (Sec. 301) Requires covered organizations to disclose to shareholders, members, or donors information on disbursements for campaign-related activity.

Requires a covered organization that maintains an Internet site to post on it a hyperlink from its homepage to the location on the FEC website containing information required to be reported with respect to public independent expenditures, including disbursements for electioneering communications.

Title IV: Other Provisions - (Sec. 401) Authorizes judicial review of the provisions of this Act by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and on appeal by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Grants Members of Congress the right to: (1) bring an action to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of this Act; or (2) intervene in any action challenging the constitutionality of a provision of this Act, either in support of or opposition to the position of a party to the case.

 

[Chee-to]

I'm not trying to start a political debate here;


I don't know how many people actually read bill texts for these things, but as far as it looks, this bill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Its centered around restructuring FECA so that large corporations and organizations have less control over political campaign contributions.

It's helpful to do research before listing to propaganda (from any side);
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...Xzvt:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

If you don't believe my above post, to be honest I couldn't tell you, that's why lawyers and constitutional researchers are hired by both sides to see what it really means. Everybody has a interpretation depending on their political persuasion on what a law will or will not do. Case in point the 2nd amendment, not nearly as convoluted and full of legalize as this bill is, how long did it take to decide if the "right to bare arms" was a individual right ? Even though it has been decided by the supreme court by 5 to 4 decision
there are those who still disagree (Chicago).........Sorry I couldn't be more help..

 

[U201491]

I'm still confused on what this has anything to do with freedom of speech. All this bill does is regulate campaign contributions, and requires groups to disclose with their members where their contributions are going.

I guess the summary link I posted earlier doesn't work, here is the bill summary. If you'd like to point out where there are violations in freedom of speech, go ahead;

In the whole bill not the summary
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5175rh.txt.pdf
TITLE II&#8212;PROMOTING EFFEC9
TIVE DISCLOSURE OF CAM10
PAIGN-RELATED ACTIVITY
11 Subtitle A&#8212;Treatment of Inde12
pendent Expenditures and Elec13
tioneering Communications
14 Made by All Persons <<<NOTE
15 SEC. 201. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
16 (a) REVISION OF DEFINITION.&#8212;Subparagraph (A) of
17 section 301(17) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
18 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)) is amended to read as follows:
19 &#8216;&#8216;(A) that, when taken as a whole, expressly
20 advocates the election or defeat of a clearly iden21
tified candidate, or is the functional equivalent
22 of express advocacy because it can be interpreted
23 by a reasonable person only as advocating the
24 election or defeat of a candidate, taking into ac25
count whether the communication involved men-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:38 May 25, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\BILLS\H5175.RH H5175 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS28
&#8226;HR 5175 RH
1 tions a candidacy, a political party, or a chal2
lenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a
3 candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness
4 for office; and''.

Note the " AND" making them seperate demands, no funds mentioned in the first part.

5 (b) UNIFORM 24-HOUR REPORTING FOR PERSONS
6 MAKING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES EXCEEDING
7 $10,000 AT ANY TIME.&#8212;Section 304(g) of such Act (2
8 U.S.C. 434(g)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and
9 (2) and inserting the following:
10 &#8216;&#8216;(1) INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES EXCEEDING
11 THRESHOLD AMOUNT.&#8212;
12 &#8216;&#8216;(A) INITIAL REPORT.&#8212;A person (including
13 a political committee) that makes or contracts to
14 make independent expenditures in an aggregate
15 amount equal to or greater than the threshold
16 amount described in paragraph (2) shall elec17
tronically file a report describing the expendi18
tures within 24 hours.
19 &#8216;&#8216;(B) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.&#8212;After a per20
son files a report under subparagraph (A), the
21 person shall electronically file an additional re22
port within 24 hours after each time the person
23 makes or contracts to make independent expendi24
tures in an aggregate amount equal to or greater
25 than the threshold amount with respect to the
VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:38 May 25, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\BILLS\H5175.RH H5175 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS

Then this can be construed to apply to all internet communications unless nothing is paid for the service a person has to use the internet. ie; you

4 &#8216;&#8216;(7) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.&#8212;In this
5 subsection, the term &#8216;applicable individual' means,
6 with respect to a communication to which this para7
graph applies&#8212;
8 &#8216;&#8216;(A) if the communication is paid for by an
9 individual or if the significant funder of the
10 communication under paragraph (4) is an indi11
vidual, the individual involved;

There is nothing but double speak throughout the entire bill which can be used to go after anyone making a political endorsement or oppose a candidate at will.
It is a convoluted upside down bill and it does go against the 1st amendment from beginning to end.

 

[Minisocks]

I'm still confused on what this has anything to do with freedom of speech.

Money = speech.

And the argument is that if someone has to own up to (disclose contributions) their speech (money) then they won't do it because now those cash contributions can't hide behind patriotic sounding PACs.

The argument is pretty flimsy.

 

[U201491]

Money = speech.

And the argument is that if someone has to own up to (disclose contributions) their speech (money) then they won't do it because now those cash contributions can't hide behind patriotic sounding PACs.

The argument is pretty flimsy.

Just confront your reps and senators head on and speak as an individual. There is not need to hide behind anything,,,,, YET. Support organization that speak in your inteests and also do your own speaking.
No American Citizen should ever be afraid to say what they need to. If and when you are afraid to say what you think, you are no longer free.

 

[Gunner3456]

Large outfits are always in favor of burdensome laws. They have the resources to comply, but small outfits don't. For instance, all of the employment laws and taxes are a huge burden to a small business. Just understanding them is almost impossible. However a big company will have an HR department staffed with experts and will have no problem complying.

Take just the family leave act. How does a small business replace a key employee for months? It's easy for a big outfit to have people already in place who can pick up the slack.

The result is that when it gets to be too much, the small business folds. 80% of our jobs are created by small business so this is no laughing matter.

Now, when the large outfits which have been in place for at least ten years get an exemption (through power of membership and money for lobbying) this leaves the small outfits to struggle to comply. They may fold when there gets to be too many laws to learn and to comply with.

Yes this is an attack on free speech because of the requirements of compliance to do the speaking.

Note that the NRA is right there to protect their rights, but not the rights of others including the small pro-gun organizations. Does it take a genius to figure out why?

 

[PMKN_PI]

If there has been any better reason previously to pick up a gun against tyranny in our midst, ive never seen it. Whats it going to take?

 

[Gunner3456]

If there has been any better reason previously to pick up a gun against tyranny in our midst, ive never seen it. Whats it going to take?

Please don't talk like that here. I'll have to quit the forum and I'll bet others will too. I don't want any part of it.

The answer is at the polls.

 

[Doubletap]

"the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind."—Cleta Mitchell, NRA Board member

 

[Sodbuster]

Good article on the NRA Doublespeak found on the American Thinker....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_nras_deal_with_the_devil.html

It's sad, truly sad to see this happening.

Sod

 

[Gunner3456]

Good article on the NRA Doublespeak found on the American Thinker....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_nras_deal_with_the_devil.html

It's sad, truly sad to see this happening.

Sod

Good link, thanks. That should answer anyone's questions about whether this is truly about free speech of even NRA members, and whether we were sold out by the NRA.

 

[Jamie6.5]

It appears, that for the moment anyway, Nancy and friends don't have the political clout they thought they did. The vote, previously scheduled for today, has been cancelled.
The two primary reasons listed, are that conservative Dems refused to support it based on opposition by the Chamber of Commerce and other small business orgs. The Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and other progressive groups opposed it based on the NRA's exemption!

Pelosi summoned the Blue Dogs and CBC to back-to-back meetings this afternoon, but was unable to overcome their opposition to the legislation. The Blue Dogs are concerned that opposition from the Chamber, National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Realtors and other business groups will damage their reelection prospects in the fall.

The CBC, on the other hand, was unhappy about an exemption to the bill granted to the National Rifle Association agreed to by Van Hollen. While the exemption was later extended to other groups, the CBC remained concerned about the bill's potential impact on the NAACP and other progressive groups.

Democratic lawmakers were largely tight-lipped leaving Pelosi's office late Thursday afternoon, although it was clear that momentum was clearly building against a Friday vote.

By early evening, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.) office formally announced that the vote had been cancelled.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38698.html#ixzz0rDDVvplz

Of course, given the history of this Congress, watch for a middle-of-the-night vote to circumvent the public's ability to sort out who's the devil in the details.
I thought it was telling who was opposed based on the NRA's exemption.