Are you a 100% pro-gun candidate
ignored by the NRA for a gun compromiser?
Send us your NRA horror story!

 

NRA gives $ to "Gun Control Baucus"

by Gary Marbut, President, Montana Shooting Sports Association

The California train wreck the NRA will cause

NRA backing wrong horse in California GOP primary

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY?
NO MORE A GRADES FOR GUN GRABBERS
By Russ Howard, NRA Board Member (1995-97; resigned)

In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving undeserved grades to politicians who trample on the 2nd Amendment. My first experiences with this were in California in 1992:

CASE 1. JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL

Flores is an anti-gun Republican who, as an LA City Councilwoman, voted for the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti-gun Democrat. When I heard that Flores was getting an "A" rating, I called NRA staffer Terry O'Grady (now Terry Smith) to express my concern. O'Grady said she’d met with Flores and that Flores "gave us assurances" that "she's on our side". O'Grady said the only problem was that “nobody had educated her.”

I told O'Grady that giving Flores an "A" was a breech of trust with the membership, a deliberate misrepresentation to manipulate NRA members, that Flores had no right to an "A" until she earned it. That got me a hefty ration of beltway contempt.

O'Grady snapped "then why don't you just vote for Jane Harman." Shocked, I said that wasn't the issue: If we wanted members to vote against Harman, we could give Harman an F, but give Flores a "D" and an explicit "lesser-of-two-evils" endorsement. O'Grady said members are too unsophisticated to vote for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. In other words, ILA was deliberately lying to and manipulating NRA members. She said she’d taken it up with the PAC board, they agreed with her, and I could speak with them about it. I didn't. I'd heard enough.

Our reward? After getting the "A" rating, Flores sneaked out of a city council vote where we lost a measure forcing all new gun stores to go through a conditional use permit system, making it possible to effectively ban new gun stores. Soon after that, Flores was back in the press loudly announcing that she still supports the assault weapon ban.

CASE 2: CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)

Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican HCI member who had been mayor of Santa Monica (a city notorious for its control by the Tom Hayden / Jane Fonda crowd). Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills too radical to be enacted. In that sense, he was less dangerous than Reed, whose predictable “moderate” gun bills were more likely to go somewhere.

Californians Against Corruption almost made the mistake of attacking Friedman in his assembly race against Reed with a 50,000-piece re-mail through the activist network. It would’ve used up all of our money and manpower for the season. Volunteers would’ve spent up to $15,000 in stamps alone. We’d been led to believe by ILA that Reed was "not that great on guns", but “wasn't that bad either.” After all, she had a "C" rating. In my book, "C" is a passing grade. I was told that Reed was just “ignorant on our issue” and could be "brought over".

Then we heard Reed was a member of Handgun Control Inc. I called around to confirm this and got a copy of her questionnaire. From her answers, she was a clear "F". In addition, she’d openly admitted her HCI membership! So we switched to the McClintock/Beilenson congressional race, barely in time to get out a 62,000-piece mailer out to swing-voter households.

When HCI heard Reed had "courted" NRA, they threatened to expose her. Reed panicked, told them she was lying to us, and groveled to get back in bed with them. I made a stink about the Reed case and later brought it to Tanya Metaksa's attention. Her response was to prohibit access to candidate questionnaires by NRA members so it’d be harder for members to figure out what's being done to them.

CASE 3. TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-".

When NRA gives a misleading rating, it...

1. Confuses the membership...Does Flores deserve the same grade as those legislators who never betray us and go out of their way to carry our water?

2. Demoralizes members...Would Flores have gotten an "A" had she banned "sporting" guns instead of "assault rifles"?

3. Demoralizes pro-gun legislators...Imagine you’re a legislator who often takes abuse for standing firm with the NRA, and the sellout next door gets an "A".

4. Sends signals to politicians...Tells them we’re fools and it’s safe to sell us out.

5. Corrodes member trust...Can we trust information from people who tell us that HCI members are "C"s and people who support gun bans are "A"s?

6. Corrupts the integrity and informational utility of the rating process.

7. Wastes resources (e.g., our near-mailing against Friedman).

I understand that ratings may be used to bring people around, and that in some cases candidates given an A may try to earn it later. But we can have a ratings system that "brings people around" without misleading members. For example, we could have conditional ratings. Each candidate would have an honest rating based on PAST history. In addition, they could have a Conditional A rating if we think we turned them around based on an A questionnaire. The conditional A would become unqualified after a certain number of years of supporting us on every issue. If they ever betrayed us again, they'd be prohibited from the "A" category for life.

When I brought this up to Tanya Metaksa, I was told it wouldn't work because members couldn't be motivated to support a Conditional A candidate. I disagree. But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't justify lying to NRA members for candidates who betrayed us in the past. That will demoralize NRA's most active members.

I've often supported the lesser of two evils when the need to do so was properly explained and there was no "A" that needed my help more. ILA should give us the facts and let us make up our own minds. We may volunteer for a conditional A for many reasons: Loathing of the opponent, the tightness of the race, or the balance of power in a legislature, for example. Or we may instead donate our time to a real A who deserves support.

In any case, the longer NRA pretends activists are too “unsophisticated” for to handle the truth, the less they will trust NRA and the less effective they'll be. We can't develop grassroots without giving them the bottom line. And they'll appreciate being credited with some sophistication and intelligence.

At the '94 NRA Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, I asked Tanya Metaksa about incidents where candidates were given ratings they clearly did not deserve. She said that there's a new sheriff in town and such things won't be tolerated anymore. Fact is, she never stopped giving undeserved grades to gun grabbers; if anything, the practice has increased and worsened under her watch. Examples:

     · Congressman Elton Gallegly – voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement!

Steve Coombs, Founding President of the Santa Barbara/Ventura NRA Members' Council, put it to me this way:

"I met with Gallegly after he'd turned on us, and he said, 'You should support me. I've always voted with you in the past.'

"Since then, I've called Terry O'Grady, leaving message after message over a two-month period, trying to find out what we're going to do about Gallegly. He should be a D at best. I think this month's Guns & Ammo even has him taking money from HCI. O'Grady (now Terry Smith and still working for ILA) finally called back yesterday (10/12/94) and left this message on my phone mail:

'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him.'

The members here are outraged"...

     · In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted for both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

     · In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

     · In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move unpermitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training.

In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members,

"Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom – a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners...

Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa."

Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.

     · In Virginia in 1996, extreme F rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced A rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message:

"THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS.

NO ENDORSEMENT"

No endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F-rated gun grabber! Like a District Attorney who plea bargains every case, that's how Tanya Metaksa maintains an "82% success rate": Abandoning pro-gun candidates, staying out of potentially uphill races, supporting anti-gun incumbents. Legislatively, the game’s similar: To show more and more "victories" to NRA members, amendments are tolerated which betray fundamental rights and leave gun owners worse off than they were before the "victory". Many CCW "victories" fit that description.

     · In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). 1994, Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

     · In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating. The same A+ sellout rammed through ILA's infamous Act 17 betrayal of PA gun owners. Activists have had to waste years of hard work trying to fix Act 17, but the damage may never be fully repaired.

     · In NC, some A rated incumbents hadn’t cast a single vote in favor of gun rights.

     · Tanya Metaksa presented turncoat John Dingle with a surprise award in front of the NRA Board of Directors after he betrayed us.

The list goes on. Many of us had had enough. NRA Directors Rick Carone, Prof. Joe Olson, Judge Paul Heath Till, and I authored a resolution for the Sept. '96 NRA Board meeting to stop ILA from giving A grades and awards to politicians who trample on gun rights:

RESOLUTION

Whereas, giving our highest ratings to political candidates who have turned their backs on the people's right to keep and bear arms is an insult to those candidates who steadfastly support the 2nd Amendment; and

Whereas, giving our highest ratings to those who oppose the 2nd Amendment, not only damages the credibility of the NRA's leadership and betrays its members, but diminishes the influence and effectiveness of the NRA; and

Whereas, the integrity and influence of NRA ratings are critical to political candidates and to the NRA; and

Whereas, many groups both inside and outside the NRA use or depend on NRA's ratings; and

Whereas, NRA Bylaw, Article X, Section 5 requires the Board of Directors to set NRA-ILA policy and give NRA-ILA specific directions as it deems advisable; and

Whereas, for fairness to all one must be able to know how ratings are made; be it

Resolved, that effective January 1, 1997, for votes taken on or after that date:

1. Any candidate for office who has voted contrary to an official NRA position on any bill, regulation, rule, procedure, or motion shall be ineligible to hold a rating of A+, A, or A-, or receive awards given by NRA or ILA for a period of two election cycles. Specific cases or terms of ineligibility may be waived or adjusted by a committee of the President and Vice President(s). Any adjustments or waivers sought shall be reported at the next regular Board of Directors meeting, at which time any granted shall be subject to Board approval. Should our rating system change, ineligibility shall apply to the new top grade, inclusive of augmentation or diminution (e.g., Strong 2nd Amendment + or -), but no such change shall be made without prior advice and consent by the Board of Directors.

2. Ineligibility shall not be waived by retroactive change or withdrawal of NRA-ILA's position on a vote, or any later change in NRA's position, without specific approval by a committee of the President and Vice President(s). Such waivers sought shall be reported at the next regular Board meeting, at which time ILA shall report official positions on all votes since the prior meeting and waivers granted shall be subject to Board approval.

3. Before rating congressional, state, or local candidates, NRA-ILA shall in a timely fashion use best efforts to (a) consult with appropriate local organizations, NRA Directors, and activists after obtaining completed questionnaires, voting records, prior ratings and other relevant information and sharing that information with them, and (b) keep a readily-accessible record of information gathered. Be it further

Resolved, that no bestowal of any honor or award in the name of the NRA shall be made by anyone without prior consent of the Board of Directors, and be it further

Resolved, that by the January 1997 Board meeting, NRA-ILA shall present to the Board for consideration options for improving the objectivity, credibility, and understandability of the ratings system, including adoption of the standards used by Unified Sportsmen of Florida.

– End Resolution –

Without sacrificing significant flexibility, the resolution injects credibility into the A grade, guaranteeing an extra reward and a real honor for those who stand by us when it counts. The waiver provides for special cases where, for example, a pro-gun legislator opposes a compromise (or "mistake") proposed by our side, or parts ways on an issue that is not directly 2nd-Amendment-related; generally, it provides for any reasonable but unforeseen exception. The resolution also provides for prior consultation on ratings with local activists and others (local consultation on legislation already became policy at the January, '92 Board meeting, though that resolution has been largely ignored. Our resolution extended that basic policy to cover ratings.)

Wayne LaPierre, Tanya Metaksa, and Marion Hammer fought the resolution every step of the way, keeping it from a floor vote by deferring it to the Spring meeting, to be preceded by a February 10th ratings conference. Each of them predicted “dire consequences” should ILA lose any of its flexibility to give A ratings to gun grabbers.

If you’re concerned about the future of the NRA, go to the members meeting in Seattle and demand that the Board of Directors take immediate action to stop ILA from giving its top grades to anti-gun politicians, from threatening and abandoning pro-gun politicians, from publishing phony success percentages, and from selling out your rights to show phony “successes”.

– End Article –

(This article originally appeared in Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s News, Special Edition for 1997 NRA Annual Meeting. Pennsylvania Sportsmen’s Assn, PO Box 1225, Hermitage PA 16148. Membership: $15; subscription-only: $10.)

[Post-print note: The resolution above was written in 1996, a time when it appeared that NRA was “directed” by a board whose majority supported the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment and might at least conceivably stand up to staff, enforce its own policies, obey its own bylaws, and fulfill its moral and fiduciary duties to the membership. Unfortunately, none of that is any longer the case, if it ever was. The board is now controlled by a group that has publicly abandoned its commitment to the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Under the current board composition, for the resolution to potentially serve any purpose at all – and it’s now doubtful that it could – it would have to be toughened up and re-written as a member bylaw change. Among other things, it should,

     · Require timely and full disclosure of waivers, waiver policy, and ILA’s positions on gun related bills and votes, such disclosure to be published in the magazines.

     · Provide for immediate and full member access to candidate questionnaires.

     · Require NRA policy to support the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment.

Russ Howard
1995-97, NRA Director
1992-94, Executive Director, Citizens Against Corruption
1993-94, Executive Director, The Roberti Recall
RussHoward@bigfoot.com
© 2000 Russ Howard