Minnick’s D+ NRA Rating Update

Bubblehead took issue with my attack on Minnick’s extremely low NRA rating of D+. Bubblehead said, “As Minnick himself says, when he answered the question that got him the D+ rating, he was talking about things like fully automatic machine guns and RPGs.”

Well, I decided to e-mail the E-mail the NRA, Political Victory Fund and asked them about their stance on the issue and why they’d given Minnick the D+ rating. George Dovel of the NRA Political Victory Fund explained:

The two items that were cited in the NRA D+ rating for Walt Minnick were (1) that he did not support the ownership of guns that are not used for sporting purposes and (2) that he supported the Brady Bill. The Attorney General and subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court properly ruled that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting – it is about the right to own and use firearms for protection. Since the ruling that District of Columbia residents, and all others except convicted felons or people judged to be mentally unfit or a threat to someone else (e.g. under a protection order), are entitled by our Constitution to own firearms solely for self-protection, many states, counties and cities have been forced to change their anti-gun laws.

When Australians were given the amnesty period to turn in their guns, those that were used for hunting or sporting purposes were excluded. That resulted in an effective ban on owning or possessing firearms for self-protection much to the dismay of people I have communicated with there who believed it was okay to outlaw so-called “Saturday night specials” and weapons that may permit the use of extended magazines.

Unfortunately many well-intentioned U.S. politicians believe that affordable handguns or other firearms intended solely for self-protection should not be made available to Americans, especially including those who are less affluent. In the 15 years or so that I have acted as an NRA election volunteer I have never known of a candidate for office in Idaho that did not claim to support the Second Amendment.

Minnick has cited his support from American Hunters and Shooters Association, which from all accounts seems to be a front group for gun control activists according to the Gun Owners of America:

“Walt Minnick claims to support the Second Amendment, yet he is endorsed by a new breed of anti-gun radicals masquerading as friends of gun rights.

“The American Hunters and Shooters Association — a group supporting Minnick — has a name designed to appeal to gun owners and sportsmen, but it is nothing more than a front organization for the Obama campaign and gun control extremists.

“Anti-gun activists know the American people do not support their radical agenda. The old gun control groups that enjoyed their heyday during two Clinton administrations are shrinking or are out of existence. So they’ve come up with clever new packaging, using images of hunters instead of criminal street gangs as illustrations on campaign literature. But a picture of a hunter on a website is not going to pull the wool over the eyes of gun owners.

“Just look at the candidates AHSA’s president Ray Schoenke has contributed to in the past: Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy, not to mention Handgun Control, Inc. This list represents the Who’s Who of the anti-gun movement!

“This year AHSA is touting Barack Obama, who would be the most anti-gun president in the history of this country.

“If congressional candidate Walt Minnick cared one bit about the Second Amendment, he would publicly denounce the radical AHSA.

“Rep. Bill Sali stands in stark contrast to his anti-gun opponent, earning an ‘A+’ rating from GOA for his efforts in Congress to protect and defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Rep. Bill Sali for reelection, and urges gun owners and sportsmen to vote on Tuesday.”

We’re seeing the success of both the second Amendment and pro-life causes with Democrats creating fake groups to pretend to support those things, even if they’re working against them. The NRA has an article on their website fully explaining their view on the organization. Any group that claims to care about guns and supports Barack Obama is a little nuts.

Obama served on the board of the Joyce foundation, which used its deep pockets to push anti-gun research. According to PJM, here’s how it went down:

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

Their efforts almost worked. Those who dissented from the court’s decision decision upholding the second Amendment as an individual right cited articles that the Joyce Foundation funded. Again, how could any group seriously concerned about firearms back Obama?