GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: So, last week when I told you there was a bill, there was this bill going through the house, it was going to make people soldiers, for instance, that, you know, had post-traumatic stress syndrome, they were never going to be able to get a gun again, and word was that it would go all the way down to people who had been diagnosed with A.D.D.. So I called Wayne La Pierre on the air. He said, no, Glenn, this is great. Then what happens? Then I get an avalanche of people who are N.R.A. members who are saying that that’s not true and that the N.R.A. is not doing their job, and from people who say, I’ve been a lifelong member of the N.R.A., blah, blah, blah, but they’re selling us out. The problem is, we don’t know who to trust anymore. We’ve got to throw lifelines to each other and know who we can trust. Chris Cox is here from the N.R.A..

COX: Hey, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. I look at the poll numbers. We trust our soldiers, we trust — some of us trust our churches, but then you go down the list and you get into the single digits, the president is on the highest of government. Our congress is at an all-time low. Only 11% have confidence in our government. That’s lower than attorneys. We don’t — media is in double digits and, you know, in the teens as well. We don’t know thousand trust and now, Chris, I’m getting mail from N.R.A. members who have trusted you guys, you know, their whole life and they say that you’re not given the straight scoop on this bill. So give me the straight scoop on the bill on what it was, how you went in and changed it and why it’s good.

COX: Glenn, I appreciate the opportunity, because there is a lot of misinformation coming from a lot of different people on this legislation. If you’ll bear with me, I just want to take you back to how we got here. In 1993, congress passed the Brady bill. N.R.A. opposed it, but we lost it, but we were able to win on an amendment, because the Brady bill had a 5-day mandatory waiting period before anybody would get a gun. We opposed that. We were able to have that waiting period go away after five years and be replaced with what they called an instant check. Well, if you fast forward 14 years, congress has spent half a billion dollars and they still have failed to deliver on that promise of a fair and instant check. We all hear nightmare scenarios about people not getting their guns the day before deer season opens. You hear about people in the system that shouldn’t be, bus there’s more than the Glenn Beck out there who is a felon or rapist and all the people who can’t get guns.

GLENN: I apologize to all the Glenn Becks out there, by the way.

COX: Congress needs to do their job, because 99.99% of the people who go through the system are good, honest Americans, good people who just want to exercise their right to buy a firearm. Okay. So what do we do? The system’s broken, congress, not surprisingly, has failed to deliver on that promise of a fair and instant check. Do we ignore it or do we try to make it better for those 99.99% of the people who do go through that system who are good people? The National Rifle Association has been on record for decades saying that, look, if you are mentally adjudicated by a court as defective, if you’re criminally insane, if a judge has said that you’re a danger to yourself or others because you’re telling people that you’re going to go out and murder someone, there’s no law that congress can pass that’s going to stop a bad person from doing something truly evil. Criminals, by definition, break the law, but we’ve said all along that you should screen those people out and try to prohibit them from getting firearms if they truly are crazy.

GLENN: Sure. If a judge has said they are a danger to themselves or to society, they should clearly never get a gun.

COX: That’s the National Rifle Association’s position. It’s been our position for decades. There are groups out there who are opposed to that position, who believe that insane people should be able to legally purchase firearms.

GLENN: Probably be the insane people.

COX: We disagree with that position. What this legislation would do is it would inject some common sense into a system that has none. The Clinton administration stuck 90,000 veterans who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder into that system. Okay. That was wrong. The worst part of it is, under the current law, there’s no way for those people to get out. So these soldiers who maybe some of them really did struggle when they got back, they’ve gone through their treatment, they’ve taken their medication and now the judge says, thank you for your service, you’re back on both feet, you’re ready to reenter society, there’s no problem here, they’re still banned from owning guns for the rest of their life. Glenn, I don’t care who you are, the American people think it’s wrong to treat our soldiers this way. This legislation would give these guys and girls an opportunity to get their rights back that they don’t have right now. On top of that, it requires all those — I talked about people who were in the system who shouldn’t be, people who have had an adjudication, but the final disposition is that, okay, you took your medications, you’re fine. Those people deserve to be removed from the system. Under this legislation, it would demand that they’re removed from the system. I’ve also heard this talk about, oh, well, if you get a D.U.I. or if you go in for voluntary treatment, you’re going to lose your gun rights, if you have A.D.D. or have some type of voluntary counseling, it’s wrong, and whoever is saying that hasn’t read the legislation or they’re simply lying and trying to bring attention to themselves. The National Rifle Association would never support anything that treats honest people like criminals. The one thing that people, your listeners need to know about this legislation, is there is not one person who is currently legal to purchase a firearm today who would be disbarred — or barred from owning firearms if this became law. Again, not one person who is legally able to own a firearm today would be banned from owning a firearm if this became law. On top of that, there’s a lot of people who are in the system now who are going to get out of the system because it’s going to demand that duplicative names and bad records and old adjudications and all these are going to be required to be removed from the system as it is now.

GLENN: This is not the way this amendment started. How did you so hijack this amendment?

COX: Well, let me just talk about a couple other things we’ve been able to do. Under the last –

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Is that political? I think that was a political answer. Look at that. I think he just said, “I’m going to answer it the way I want to answer it.” “I’m going to answer the question you didn’t and.”

Is that what you’re doing?

COX: Every year, the National Rifle Association has to go to Capitol Hill and lobby and make sure that congress doesn’t stick gun owners with the bill for the system. It is a expensive administration. Clinton administration wanted to charge gun owners a federal fee to pay for all of this. Every year we have to go back to make sure that they don’t do it. Under this legislation, it would become permanent law that gun owners would never be charged. It would also become permanent law that they were going to audit the system every year to make sure that Janet Reno is not buying laptops for security guards with money that’s supposed to be into a system that’s supposed to clear innocent and honest people to purchase a firearm. So this started off as a funding bill. Basically congress throwing a bunch of money at a problem to try and fix it. We were able to encourage some of our friends to make some positive changes to where it really does make the system better for honest gun owners in every way.

GLENN: Chris, I don’t know if you can answer this, and I understand the position that you’re in, there’s going to be a president next and the N.R.A., the last thing I want to do is be on record saying run for your lives from this person because you’re not exactly going to, you know, get a lot of help from that president if indeed –

COX: I can tell you right now unapologetically, the Clinton administration from the ’90s was the most anti-gun, anti-second amendment administration in the history of our country, and if there’s another one, it will probably be worse. And so if you’re asking, are we trying to make sure that we can do everything we can, God forbid we have that, you’re damn right we are.

GLENN: Here’s the thing that worries me. And again, we have nothing to worry about as long as we continue to worry. The thing that frightens me, Chris, is I can see a time where we have financial disorder in this country and we’ve been hit by a major attack and maybe it would be at malls or at schools or something like that, and I could see somebody, even like Rudy Giuliani saying, okay, we’ve got to clamp down and declare martial law or whatever it would take, and I could see us losing rights and really not getting those gun rights back. Are you comfortable with the field of Republican or conservative candidates that they’re not going to take us down a road to where, if God forbid something bad happened, that we would lose those rights? Are you comfortable? You don’t have to name names. Are you comfortable with those people understanding the second amendment and seeing that it wasn’t written for sportsmen, but it was written for defense of the American people?

COX: Glenn, I’ll answer it in two ways. One, there are candidates out there running for president who understand, they get it, they are unapologetic in their support of the second amendment and they know what it means. There are candidates out there who are awful, who actually, like Hillary Clinton, like — you mentioned God forbid one of these things happens again. You and I both know, unfortunately, something bad is going to happen, whether it’s a man made disaster or a natural disaster, we’re going to be faced with an awful situation. People used to say, “Oh, Chris, N.R.A. is crazy, nobody’s going to come and take your guns away, that’s just rhetoric, you’re just trying to raise money.”
That happened. It didn’t happen in San Francisco or New York City where you might expect it, it happened in the sportsmen’s paradise, it happened in Louisiana, they ordered door-to-door confiscation from people. They pointed their guns at people at a point when they needed them most. It happened just a few years ago, and so we know it’s going to happen. So, yes, we need to make sure that we have elect officials at every level who are going to respect us. Hillary Clinton, federal legislation came up that said we are going to prohibit the government from seizing guns during times of an emergency from law-abiding people. 14 people in the senate out of 100 voted against it. Guess who one of them was. Hillary Clinton. Are we comfortable? Absolutely not.

GLENN: Has that been passed?

COX: It was passed. It was passed and signed by the president in 2005. Now, again, it’s a step in the right direction. That addresses the federal issues, but we’re going on the state level and trying to pass it state by state to make sure that that never happens.

END TRANSCRIPT

If you want to understand Vermont’s concealed carry laws, just read the Second Amendment.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

Recognizing that criminals don’t bother to get CCW permits for their crime sprees, Vermont allows peaceable citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights without groveling to government regulators for permission, having their mugshot taken and cataloged as though they were a criminal or have private information entered into a government database.  Vermont’s reward for treating the Second Amendment like the other ten is one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.

So why does the NRA, supposedly America’s vanguard of gun rights, oppose the Constitutional application of gun laws?

Why does the NRA aid and abet in the booking and registration of law-abiding citizens who just want an
opportunity to protect themselves from criminal thugs and exercise a God-given right?

Why does the NRA make sure the right to keep and bear a concealed firearm is the only constitutional right
you need government permission to exercise?

Why do NRA lobbyists regard a vote in favor of Vermont style concealed carry an “anti-gun vote?”

It’s because opposing the original intent of the Second Amendment, the free exercise of firearms rights
without government permission or regulation, is the price of admission into higher political circles.

The NRA figures if they throw you a few bones, you’ll keep the checks coming and look the other way while
gun-grabbing politicians get the main course.

NRA refuses to stop bad CCW bill
by Angel Shamaya, KeepAndBearArms.com

The NRA’s second amendment
NRA-ILA slams Vermont-style carry, calls for government gun training

Gun control: NRA style
by Vin Suprynowicz

Not only has Reid been crucial in the passage of anti-gun Obamacare, he has played a key role in the confirmation of radical, anti-gun liberals to powerful offices. His support for these gun grabbers clearly demonstrates his contempt for the Second Amendment.

Reid voted to confirm anti-gun Eric Holder, who was behind the Brady Bill and the draconian Clinton gun ban. Soon after Eric Holder was confirmed as Attorney General, he pushed for the continuation of the D.C. gun ban as well as the reinstatement of the Clinton gun ban.

Reid was instrumental in the confirmation of Cass Sunstein as “regulatory czar.” Hunting would be banned if Sunstein has his way.

Harold Koh, the top legal advisor at the State Department, also received Reid’s backing. Koh believes that the U.S. should be on board with the global gun control agenda.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor would not have been confirmed if it weren’t for Harry Reid. Had Reid objected to Sotomayor’s nomination, she would have been looking for a different job. As an Appeals Court Judge, Sotomayor ruled that a total gun ban by a state would be constitutional.

And, of course, Harry Reid shepherded the nomination of anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan through the Senate as well.

Reid could have rejected every one of these gun-hating nominees and demand that President Obama select nominees that hold our constitutional rights in high regard.

Despite all this, American Rifleman, an NRA magazine, made Reid look like a gun rights champion for obtaining a $61 million earmark for a shooting range in Nevada.

Additionally, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, was quoted praising Reid for his support of the Second Amendment at the range’s grand opening: “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners.”

Harry Reid deserves an F for his hostility toward gun rights. In addition to Reid’s backing of radical anti-gunners, his list of anti-gun votes is a mile long.

Below is a list of Reid’s anti-gun votes, compiled by Erick Erickson on redstate.com:

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill (i.e. proceed to pass it).

November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill (i.e. proceed to pass it).

November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate (i.e. proceed to pass it) on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted for Mandatory triggerlocks.

May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures. Reid later voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures (July 29, 1999. Vote 224).

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

Sources:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/01/nra-now-leans-toward-endorsing-harry-reid/

From Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights:

I have some good news and some bad news to share with you about the NRA free speech sell out.

First, the good news.

Our pressure is working. It appears the momentum behind the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act may be losing steam.   Grassroots outrage over the NRA’s sickening attempt to cozy up to anti-gun Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is slowing down the bill.

Today, Forbes is reporting that Democrats are feeling the heat over their devils’ pact with the NRA.

That is good news, but the bad news is worse…

Establishment leaders from both parties may very well try to sneak this legislation through when we least expect it.

In my 17 years as a gun rights lobbyist I’ve seen it all.  They may try to change the name of the bill, change the bill number, sneak it through as an amendment to another, unrelated bill, or even force a midnight vote on the legislation.

These sort of back-room histrionics are common place in Washington D.C.

Let me remind you of what’s at stake.

Liberal Democrats want to silence conservative groups like the National Association for Gun Rights.

The DISCLOSE Act is a direct attack on your First Amendment right to petition Congress and mention legislation or voting records during election season.

You and I both know that election season is the best time to hold politicians accountable for their anti-gun votes.  The DISCLOSE Act is designed to silence grassroots conservative activists LIKE YOU and protect the fat-cat politicians in Washington.

Without free speech, our Second Amendment rights are certain to perish.

Understand that the DISCLOSE Act will affect every political organization you belong to, on any and every issue.  It’s destruction of liberties is without parallel in American history, and sure to lead to tyranny.

Now, until this week, the DISCLOSE Act appeared doomed, but the NRA struck a deal with anti-gunners Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer (the Senate sponsor) and Harry Reid.  In exchange for exemptions from the bill’s outrageous and expensive disclosure requirements, the NRA now tacitly supports the anti-free speech DISLCOSE Act.

In exchange for thirty pieces of silver, the NRA has agreed to play Judas and betray the rights and freedoms they have long claimed to support.

This sell-out is so bad that even NRA board members are now calling it for what it is: a vile inside deal.

NRA Board Member Cleta Mitchell told today’s Washington Post: “This is not just ‘disclosure.’ It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.”

We may have temporarily stalled the onslaught against our rights, but the battle is far from over.

If we ease up now, the anti-gun Democrats and their toadies in the NRA will quietly push the DISCLOSE Act through Congress and silence your First Amendment right to defend your Second Amendment rights.

That is why we must redouble our efforts and continue to put pressure on the NRA and your members of Congress to oppose this outrageous attack on our First AND Second Amendment rights.

Here’s what you can do to help:

1. Call your Congressman and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121. Demand that they publicly oppose the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act (H.R.5175)
2. Call the NRA at (800) 672-3888 and tell them to stop pandering to liberals. Tell them to denounce the DISCLOSE ACT for what it is, an attack on both our First and Second Amendment rights.
3. Chip in $5, $10 or $15 to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight against the DISCLOSE Act.

I can’t stress how critical the next 48 hours may be for the future of this legislation.  We may have temporarily stalled this legislation, but this is just a skirmish.  We must continue to press our advantage until we’ve won the battle.

Please call your Congressman and your U.S. Senators and tell them to publicly oppose the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act (H.R.5175).

Your immediate action is invaluable, and vital!

From Dudley Brown, Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights:

Washington is ablaze with news about the NRA’s abandonment of free speech.

Some of you still may not believe the NRA could strike such a gruesome deal with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on the DISCLOSE Act, which is sponsored by the Senate’s most shrill gun-hater, Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Those of you still not convinced need to view this morning’s Wall Street Journal editorial, which jumped into the fray, decrying the NRA’s sell-out and pointing out that their exemption is not only dangerous but abandons their natural allies.

“Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run” – Wall Street Journal, 6/16/2010

Or you can check out this story from Roll Call:

“The National Rifle Association is publicly pledging to uphold its end of the bargain with House Democratic leadership over a measure to roll back a controversial Supreme Court decision on political spending.” – Roll Call, 6/15/2010

The NRA response (which can be read here) is somewhat different than you might get on the phone if you call NRA HQ.

Some members are reporting the NRA is responding with “Who, us??” while others report the response as “We oppose DISCLOSE”. But both of these responses are the type you’d expect from politicians, not allies in the fight for freedom (which they aren’t).

But to better arm you in this battle, here is a supply of fact-tipped ammo:

1. Every news source in Washington, and the NRA itself (in the NRA’s own words, linked above) agree that an exemption for the NRA itself (which would not apply to any other gun rights group) will remove their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act.
2. The existence of the exemption, in the form of an amendment to the DISCLOSE Act, is not being debated by anyone, only whether or not this deal with the Democrats serves their members (again, read the alert).
3. Only a few organizations will be exempted, as is the intention.
4. If gun owners do not have the right to free speech, our firearms freedoms are going away… quickly.

How, after all, can we defend the Second Amendment if we’re not allowed to talk to voters, the general public, or even our own members?

How can politicians be held accountable if organizations cannot discuss their votes?  That’s the ultimate politician protection device.

Though the NRA can say it’s a one-issue group (just as we are), mark my words: if we get rid of either the First or Second Amendment, the other is sure to follow.

What can you do?

Call the NRA again, as soon as possible, and urge them to kill the DISCLOSE Act, not cut a deal to pass it. Call them at 1-800-672-3888 today.

Three prominent Washington D.C. websites are reporting what many capitol insiders warned of: the National Rifle Association has made a deal with the devil (i.e. anti-gun Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) to limit the free speech of Americans in exchange for their carved-out exemption.

While some pro-gun rights advocates may think free speech does not matter or that nothing another gun advocacy group does should ever be questioned, the National Association for Gun Rights and I take a very different view.

Without the right to free speech, we are defenseless in the battle to save our Second Amendment rights.

Let me be clear: restricting our First Amendment rights is the first step to stripping us of our Second Amendment rights, and should be resisted at every turn.

We don’t care who you are or what an organization may have done in the past – we only care about whether your actions will promote or harm our rights.

And frankly, this craven deal by the NRA will damage our gun rights and our free speech rights.  After you read up on the facts, I ask you to give the NRA an earful by calling 1-800-672-3888 and insist they renounce the deal with Pelosi and Reid. Believe me, it is not too late if you will get involved.

• http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/
• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html
• http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/shotgun-sellout-house-democrats-cut-special-deal-with-nra

Though at first objecting to the DISCLOSE Act, which would radically limit the free speech of organizations and thus, gun owners, the NRA has now agreed to an exemption for their organization (and other mammoth, mostly liberal, organizations like AARP and probably Moveon.org) in exchange for support of the Democrats’ bill.

This legislation would place draconian limitations on the ability of organizations to voice their opinions on politicians, and by extension, their legislation.  The chilling effect on free speech would be difficult to overstate.

Along with their tacit endorsement of Senator Harry Reid, the NRA is signaling that they trust the Democrats will spare the Second Amendment from further assaults.

But that’s a strategy of appeasement, and to put it bluntly, it’s insane. It just delays the inevitable.

Winston Churchill addressed this strategy when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Background:

This is not the only time the NRA has cut a deal to harm gun owners and gun rights in the glare of an anti-gun media frenzy.

Just a three years ago, the NRA joined with arch gun-hater Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to pass H.R. 2640, the Veteran’s Disarmament Act.  When gun control advocates saw the Virginia Tech shootings as an opportunity to pass gun control, the NRA immediately signed the documents of surrender and actively lobbied Congress to pass legislation that will disarm tens of thousands of Americans, including veterans.

Why did they do that? Frankly, they were more concerned with what the media and Washington power-bosses were saying than their loyal-to-a-fault members.

Similarly in 2004 when, desperate to pass the Firearms Manufacturers’ Lawsuits Protection bill, the NRA dangled a re-authorization of the Clinton Assault Weapons ban in front of hungry politicians.  The deal was going to be that if anti-gun politicians voted for the Lawsuit Protection bill, the NRA would not oppose re-authorization of the sun-setting Clinton Gun Ban.

Thankfully, a coalition of groups led by the National Association for Gun Rights joined together to kill that deal by exposing it to the light of honest gun owners across this nation… just like we are doing now.  In that fight, after a few weeks of excuses and covering their tracks, the NRA backed off of the deal, the Lawsuit Protection Bill still passed and the Clinton Gun Ban ended.

What can you do?

Tell the NRA you’ve had enough, and urge them to kill the DISCLOSE Act, not cut a deal to pass it.  Call them at 1-800-672-3888 today, as it may be too late tomorrow.

It gets worse: The NRA recently got themselves into very hot water for failing to oppose the anti-free speech DISCLOSE Act. The group agreed to go along with House Democratic leaders and drop their opposition to the bill in exchange for a special exemption. This selfish move gave Blue Dog Democrats the green light to vote for the bill now that they didn’t have to worry about retaliation from the NRA. During the floor debate, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the NRA’s decision demonstrated their willingness to “throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, while requiring everyone else to comply with all the rules outlined in this bill.”

The NRA is more interested in being buddies with politicians on both sides of the isle than being an uncompromising defender of the Second Amendment. “The NRA is all about the NRA — helping their organization and not necessarily the cause,” said prominent conservative blogger Erick Erickson. “A lot of conservatives think the NRA has become much more interested in wooing the bipartisan label than in being really effective Second Amendment fighters,” Erickson added.

Click here to read the full article.

c 2000 National Broadcasting Company, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Prepared by Burrelle’s Information Services, which takes sole responsibility for accuracy of transcription. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce any copy of the material except for user’s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be reproduced, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any manner that may infringe upon National Broadcasting Company’s copyright or proprietary interests in the material.

*****

SHOW: Today

DATE: March 3, 2000

KATIE COURIC, co-host:

Yesterday on this program, President Clinton said the biggest stumbling block
to curbing gun violence in this country is the National Rifle Association.
Wayne LaPierre is the NRA’s executive director.

Mr. LaPierre, welcome.

Mr. WAYNE LaPIERRE (National Rifle Association): Thank you.

COURIC: Nice to see you.

Mr. LaPIERRE: Good to be with you.

COURIC: Let me start by asking you first off your reaction to the two tragic
shootings in this country we witnessed this week.

Mr. LaPIERRE: Well, they were horrible incidents. I mean, unfortunately, what
I didn’t hear the president talk about, though, is parenting in that case in
Michigan. I mean, that’s what the American public’s talking about. Somehow the
president drew a lesson that this is about gun control. And, I mean, here you
have a crackhouse. You have illegal contraband, stolen guns, 40 to 50 drug
sales a day going on, and somehow the president’s answer is to have the federal
government show up and knock on the door and deliver a safety lock. I mean,
we’re for safety locks, but this was about parental negligence and the horrible
conditions that little boy lived in.

COURIC: You don’t think it had anything to do with the easy accessibility of
guns, stolen or otherwise?

Mr. LaPIERRE: No. I think it had everything to do with the fact that we need
to take those crackhouses and we need to put those people in jail. We need to
get every drug dealer with a gun off the streets of America. We need to get
felons with guns off the street. Police all over this country know right now
that when they catch a felon with a gun, a drug dealer with a gun, they call
the Department of Justice, and they say, `Will you prosecute the case?’ It
falls into a black hole. We could dramatically cut violence overnight all over
this country if we would take the Richman program, which is 100 percent
prosecution enforcement of the existing laws, and put it in every major
American city. And that’s what the NRA’s for.

COURIC: This 19-year-old, who was a friend of this little boy’s uncle, has been
charged with involuntary manslaughter. He could serve a 15-year prison
sentence because he left a gun under a blanket in that home.

Mr. LaPIERRE: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

COURIC: Do you have a problem with his being charged with that?

Mr. LaPIERRE: We have always felt, and I feel, that owning a gun is a
responsibility. And the fact that you have young children in the house, you’d
better lock up your guns, and you’d better make them inaccessible. And if
you’re criminally negligent, you should be charged and we support that.

COURIC: You have no problems, also, with trigger locks. I just want to clarify
that.

Mr. LaPIERRE: No. In fact, we’ve supported trigger locks for years. We teach
them every day. We have 40,000 instructors around the country. When people
talk gun safety, they’re talking about the NRA. That’s what we do every day.
We spent 20 million on our Eddie Eagle program.

COURIC: Well, let’s hear what the president had to say and we’ll get your
reaction.

Mr. LaPIERRE: OK.

President BILL CLINTON: They’re basically against anything that requires
anybody to do anything as a member of society that helps to make us safer.

Mr. LaPIERRE: Yeah, I thought that was outrageous. I mean, what happened in
Congress last year is the president didn’t get everything exactly the way he
wanted it, so he had his supporters vote against the bill that provided safety
locks, vote against the bill that provided instant checks at gun shows and vote
against the bill that provided Juvenile Brady. Because he didn’t get exactly
everything he wanted. He was the one that was uncompromising and wanted an
issue as opposed to the NRA. The NRA supported those provisions.

COURIC: What about the juvenile justice bill that currently is stalled in
Congress, which will require things like safety locks on guns…

Mr. LaPIERRE: Mm-hmm.

COURIC: …which you have no problem with, which would ban the import of large
capacity ammunition, and require background checks before buying a weapon at a
gun show? Why has it been stalled? What is the so-called `stranglehold,’
according to the president…

Mr. LaPIERRE: Right.

COURIC: …the NRA has over various congressional leaders?

Mr. LaPIERRE: Well, you know, I had to smile when I heard him say that, because
the logjam was the president. The fact is, the Republicans, along with key
Democrats like John Dingell, offered the president a bill that had safety
locks, every sale provided safety lock, had checks on all sales at gun shows,
had Juvenile Brady, and the president, because he wanted more or for some
reason, had his people vote all that stuff down. It wasn’t the NRA. It was
the president’s people that killed that bill.

COURIC: What do you think about licensing guns? I know you came out against it
when…

Mr. LaPIERRE: Mm-hmm.

COURIC: The president first proposed it. What’s…

Mr. LaPIERRE: I think…

COURIC: …wrong with that? We have to license our automobiles. Why not
license deadly weapons?

Mr. LaPIERRE: We have a Second Amendment freedom in this country under the bill
of rights. The fact is, if the government would provide–would say–the fact
that the federal government would say, `Hey, wait a minute, before you can
exercise a right in a bill of rights, we’re going to have to deem you
qualified, and we’re going to parcel it out to who we judge worthy,’ I think is
very chilling. I mean, what if they did that for freedom of speech? What if
they did that for freedom of religion? The fact is that criminals won’t get
the licenses. There’s already a Supreme Court decision, the Hanes case, that
says that it’s in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to require a
criminal to get a license or require them to register their guns.

What we ought to be doing is enforce the laws on the books. When you catch a
felon with a gun, put him in jail. A violent juvenile with a gun, put him in
jail. A drug dealer with a jail–drug dealer with a gun, put him in jail.
We’re not doing that. We prosecuted in DC two people all last year under the
existing federal gun laws. We only prosecuted 14 people in the entire state of
New Jersey.

COURIC: The bottom line, Mr. LaPierre…

Mr. LaPIERRE: We can be safe.

COURIC: Thirteen children die because of guns every day in this country. And
the US has a higher child gun death rate than the next 24 biggest countries
combined. Doesn’t that seem to speak for itself and say more restrictions are
sorely needed here?

Mr. LaPIERRE: We have–the NRA has a child accident rate of the lowest level in
US history. And it’s 130, but it’s the lowest it’s ever been. And that’s
because of our programs. Those 13 deaths a day the president’s talking about,
they’re not children, they’re violent juvenile street criminals, 15, 16, 17,
18. It’s not a safety issue, it’s a prosecution issue. And that’s what the
president won’t do.

COURIC: All right. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the NRA.

Mr. LaPIERRE: Thank you, Katie.

COURIC: Mr. LaPierre, thanks for coming in.