WILD BILL
NRA Supports Conrad Burns, Proving Again it Doesn’t Represent Hunters
By Bill Schneider, 11-02-06
Back in July, I managed to rile up the National Rifle Association when I wrote a column about the largest gun rights organization--and perhaps the nation’s most powerful lobby--not representing hunters. In the column, I wrote that the NRA does a superb job of representing gun owners and should stick to its core mission, protecting the Second Amendment. The NRA should not pretend to represent hunters because the group’s political endorsements conflict with the best interests of hunters. This idea gives a few people severe heartburn. If you want to see for yourself, check out the comments on the column.
Now, four months later, in the midst of our general big game season, we hunters here in Montana are due to receive--on election day morning no less--vivid proof that it’s true. The NRA is only about guns, not about hunting, and the group does not and can not represent both gun owners and hunters. You can argue that the two are connected at the hip because most hunters use guns, but in reality gun ownership and hunting are separate issues.
When we roll out of bed on November 7 and stagger out on the front porch to get our morning newspaper fix, we’ll find it wrapped in a “poly bag ad,” as it’s called in the trade, supporting republican Conrad Burns who is locked in a tough battle with democratic challenger Jon Tester for U.S. Senate seat in Montana.
That ad was purchased by none other than the NRA. All Montana dailies will come in NRA poly bags that morning except the Great Falls Tribune, which has a policy against running election-day ads.
The Tester campaign folks have protested the ad as trying to imply newspaper endorsement, but to me, that’s only political-speak. The real point is that the NRA is showing its true colors again by supporting the candidates least likely to protect the interests of hunters and others who enjoy outdoor activities, which of course, means most Montanans.
During the past six months while the Burns-Tester battle has been building up its current crescendo of campaign negativism, perhaps the lowest point ever for politics in the Big Sky State, I’ve been talking to conservation leaders about the race. They can’t talk out loud without affecting the tax-exempt status of their organization--or they won’t out of fear that Burns wins and erases the ultra-slim chance they now have of getting him to support any meaningful conservation efforts in Montana. They all want Tester because of his stellar record of supporting conservation issues such as protection of wildlife habitat and promoting hunting access programs. If he did it in Montana, he can do it back in the Beltway, right? And they’re tired and frustrated after 18 years of getting nothing but grief from Conrad Burns--or in many cases, trying to defeat his efforts to destroy prime wildlife habitat in Montana and elsewhere. The only green group out front with an endorsement is the League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed Tester and named Burns to its national “Dirty Dozen” list of the “most anti-conservation politicians in Washington, D.C.”
Conrad Burns supports selling off our public lands or transferring them to local governments, promotes massive fossil fuel drilling of public lands, and opposes any and all efforts to designate even one single acre of Montana as Wilderness. Burns also routinely sides with motorized recreation groups, which pose the greatest threat of all to our remaining roadless lands.
Newspapers won’t release the contents of the ad in advance, nor should they, so nobody will see the ad until election day. But I’ll go out on a limb and bet it doesn’t point out that Tester has been a champion of conservationists in Montana, supporting protection of wild habitat and the interests of gun owners. I’m sure the NRA will say they gave Burns an A-plus rating, but will the ad mention Tester’s A rating. You’d think the NRA would want a senator with an A rating for his record in voting for the rights of gun owners who would have also have an A rating for his efforts to protect the rights of hunters. Instead, the NRA wants a senator with an A-plus record on gun rights but an F (or lower) rating on conservation issues. That translates into a C average at best for Conrad Burns.
Ditto, incidentally, for the other major Montana race, for our lone congressional seat, where democratic challenger Monica Lindeen is trying to unseat republican incumbent Denny Rehberg. Again, Rehberg deserves a zero or less rating for supporting conservation issues, while Lindeen deserves an excellent rating. The NRA gave both candidates an A rating, but still endorsed Rehberg. Same deal, we could have a U.S. Representative who supported both the best interests of hunters and gun owners, but the NRA does not care about the best interests of hunters.
As a side note on Lindeen, she was the only one of the four major candidates to show up at a shooting range event sponsored by a NRA proxy, the Montana Shooting Sports Foundation (MSSF), to show off her skills and experience in using large handguns and talk about her hunting heritage. Her opponent, Rehberg, and both Burns and Tester, failed to show up to prove they were “straight shooters” like she was. But that didn’t stop MSSF from endorsing Rehberg.
(Again off on a little side issue. It’s hard to escape the obvious. If you want an answer to the accusation that the NRA is little more of a front group for the republican party, check out the list of candidates endorsed in Montana and count up the number of democrats endorsed compared to republicans.)
Anyway, is it clear enough that the NRA does not support the best interests of hunters? To make the point, perhaps we should start referring to the NRA as the nation’s most powerful anti-hunting group. This would make people the NRA endorses anti-hunting candidates, right? In Montana, that should do more political damage than being a tax-happy liberal dove.
Encore: Okay, how far can we stretch this thread? When groups like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or Fund for Animals earn the “anti-hunting” label, it means, in common conservation vernacular, they oppose the killing animals for sport. But are the real anti-hunting groups those who support efforts to sell off public lands while refusing to support efforts to protect the last roadless habitat or give continued support to mining our public lands for minerals or timber at the expense of wildlife habitat or promote rampant motorized wreckreation at the expense of a quality hunting experience? Since Senator Conrad Burns has such policies, I guess you could call him anti-hunting, too, because the NRA endorses mostly anti-hunting candidates, right? Is giving money to the NRA similar to giving it to PETA? Could be, it seems, that the only difference is the groups have different strategies for making sure our hunting heritage has no future.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I hope your hunting adventures this fall are as memorable as mine.
Yes, the NRA does support hunting education manuals. That program started long ago, even before I worked as PIO for a state wildlife agency and used the manual in my job. In fact, in the beginning, I think the NRA was the only supporter. Now, we have the Hunter Education Association and even though the NRA still supports the manuals, the funding sources are more diverse.
This program started back with the "old NRA," back when I was an NRA member and proud of it. But in the last twenty years or so, in my opinion, the NRA has gotten away from its roots and too much into the current political mindset.
Bill
That makes two of us, and perhaps that's why the NRA has lost its way in our collective opinion. We stand on the outside and throw rocks at it rather than go back in and do the heavy lifting. I'll rejoin if you will. That's my challenge to you. Perhaps we could make it more like the TRCP.
Happy hunting. ;)
I recently submitted a request to the NRA PAC, asking for a list of the Montana legislative votes that they used to score candidates. (I interned at the 2005 legislature, and to my recollection, we had no gun-related bills come through). Thus far, my request has gone unanswered.
On a related note, I received a mailing from the Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund the other day. The cover depicted a white-shirted UN worker driving a steamroller over a pile of guns collected in the street. The next page claimed that big-city politicians and the UN were trying to "confiscate our guns," and then thanked Senator Burns for standing up for "Montana's outdoor sporting industry...hunting heritage, and...our way of life," and urged Montanans to "vote your sport."
The politics of fear. What a farce.
Another great piece. Between you and Pat Wray, I think the message is beginning to take root. I'm hopeful of it, anyway. If we hunters don't again embrace conservation and protection of wild public lands as our primary focus, there won't be many wild places left to use our hunting rifles. The NRA has, like so many other powerful orgs, become corrupted by their own power and influence and political alliances. Those alliances in nearly every case support privitizaton of public lands, and widespread oil/gas/mineral development on our public lands. That is not in the best interests of hunters.
There aren't easy answers here. Some say we should continue to support the NRA, and work from within the org to promote change. While that sounds logical, logic and reality are two different things. Every dollar we continue to give to the NRA is currently used against the overall best interests of hunters. Ironically, some powerful "pro-hunting" orgs also continually support the same candidates who embrace the same philosophy of privitizing, leasing, and developing our public lands, and 'roading' them until there are no wild places left. The catchword of the day is ''access," and too many hunters fall prey to this, believing atv and orv access to public lands benefits us. If we aren't careful, there aren't going to many places left for our grandkids to hunt and fish that are in any way wild. The wild animals we are privileged to be able to hunt in this new millennium need wild places! Those places are the public lands we still have left. Let's protect them, conserve them, so our hunting traditions can be passed down to future generations.
Thanks again,
Mark
>>>>
NRA gives its backing to Salazar
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The National Rifle Association endorsed Congressman John Salazar, D-Manassa, in his bid for re-election over his Republican opponent, Scott Tipton.
“Our endorsement is for John Salazar based on his strong support and record on Second Amendment issues,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist.
Cox said Coloradans want elected officials who understand and support the freedom to bear arms, and Salazar will join 60 other Democrats running for Congress that the NRA endorsed.
The NRA Political Victory Fund looks at candidates’ voting records, answers to candidate questionnaires, statements made to the press and incumbency when it decides to make an endorsement, Cox said. The NRA does not consider party affiliation, religion or race when making an endorsement, Cox said.
“We’re not the National Republican Association; we’re not the National Democrat Association; we’re the National Rifle Association,” Cox said. “We’re tasked with protecting this great freedom, and we do that in a bipartisan way.”
Cox said Salazar helped to defend gun manufacturers against “reckless lawsuits” that attempted to hold the gun industry accountable for its customers’ criminal behavior.
Salazar, who is an avid hunter, said he has been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment since he served in the Colorado General Assembly.
“We have to preserve our Second Amendment rights,” Salazar said. “It’s what makes this country great.”
While the NRA gave both Salazar and Tipton an “A” grade in their support for gun rights, Cox said they do not endorse twice in one race.
<<<<<<<<
It appears that the Salazar - Tipton race is the opposite of the Tester - Burns situation.
You should ask the above posters who want to turn a 2nd amendment organization into some type of hunters rights thing how the U.N. stands on such issues...
Moreover, in terms of the proposed IANSA treaty, it sure looks like you know all you want to know about it, right? The evil NRA opposed a treaty that would limit "widespread" access to the evil Kalashnikov assault gun that is directly responsible for the break up of the family-unit and entire countries, installing rape camps, the drug trade, human suffering, poverty, global warming and poison Spinach.
The evil NRA has "cowed" our reps into opposing a treaty that violates our national sovereignty. Of course, if you believe that a judge in Belgium has the right to tell an American how to live this is probably not a problem for you. Further, if you believe against all evidence that the 2nd amendment only protects the "right" to hunt and has nothing to do with ensuring personal liberty, you would probably not believe that the IANSA treaty violates the 2nd amendment, either.
Just like you said, William, the millions of American's who own millions and millions of firearms that this treaty would have coverered (which, if you cared enough to read instead of spout emotional rhetoric, covers most all types of firearms including "sporting" arms) are out on the "streets" of America committing mayhem and evil with them.
The consarnned liberals from big-city-type places are coming for them...
After they take our guns, they'll force us to marry same-sex farm animals!!!
There are 80 million gun owners in this country and only 4 million members of the NRA. It seems to me that if the NRA leadership starting supporting hunters and gun owners, they could increase their membership and political influence exponentially (you could also count me as a member again) and really start doing some good for the future of all outdoorsmen and women.
The future of hunting, angling, hiking, climbing and nearly all the other outdoor pursuits depends on protecting the remaining roadless and wilderness quality lands in our national forests and other public lands. While the NRA leadership may support guns, they do not apparently support hunters and hunting. If they did, they would be supporting Rep. Hefley’s (R) and Senator Allard’s (R) Browns Canyon Wilderness bill here in Colorado. Instead, they are marshalling their forces to derail it.
Second, it has never supported common sense gun laws such as universal background checks to make it harder for felons to buy guns, outlawing plastic firearms, restricting the sale of automatic weapons, and supporting the sale of Teflon coated “cop-killer-bullets”. The NRA has found a great formula for fund raising by wrapping itself in the American flag, but it does not represent me or my philosophy on responsible gun ownership.
The NRAs inability to represent hunters stems from its close relationship with conservative politicians. Here in Idaho, Butch Otter, the Republican candidate for Governor, recently supported selling public land--the places we hunt and fish--to raise money for Hurricane Katrina relief. When the idea proved wildly unpopular throughout the state Otter pulled his support stating “I was wrong. It wasn't the first time, and it won't be the last.” He’s earned my vote of “no confidence.” Selling public land to cover government expenses is a bad idea that hurts hunters and fishermen. The NRAs web-site gives Otter an “A” rating.
It’s too bad there is no organization that supports hunting and responsible gun laws. There is a real need for a gun-owner’s organization that is a counter point to the NRA.
Hunters - vote for Burns.
The NRA's web-site gives Burns an "A+" rating.
Hunters - vote for Tester.
shotgun when I was eleven, ordered from the Sears & Roebuck catalog and
delivered by our rural US mail carrier. All my extended family and
virtually everyone that I knew was a Democrat, and most were avid
hunters. Roosevelt and the Democrats had initiated construction of a
series of dams along the Tennessee river which provided electrical power
and was just beginning to lead to economic development when I was
growing up. Some of my fondest memories are of hunting trips with uncles
and cousins. Following completion of an undergraduate degree I went to
graduate school and then postgraduate training at The Albert Einstein
College of Medicine in NYC. Following completion of my training I came
to Kansas in 1975. For most of my adult life I was a registered Democrat
and a card-carrying member of the ACLU (I am no longer a member of either).
Fast forward to 1994. During the Clinton Administration I began to be
concerned at what I perceived to be attacks on guns and gun owners. I
began reading extensively, both the medical literature on gun control
and also Second Amendment scholarship from law review articles. This
convinced me that indeed there was a deliberate attack on guns and gun
owners, and that it was led primarily by members of the Democratic
party, people such as Charles Schumer, Hilary Clinton, Frank Lautenberg,
and many of the leaders of the Democratic party. I also started
following the actions of the Brady Center, the Violence Policy Center at
Johns Hopkins University, and others. Subsequently, the Clinton
administration began lawsuits against the gun manufacturers blaming them
for gun violence. I found this action appalling. Robert Reich, Clinton¹s
former Secretary of Treasure, wrote a sharp rebuke of this approach
which was published in the American Prospect: (
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/5/reich-r.html ). Eugene Volokh is a
distinguished professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA, specializing in
First and Second Amendment law. He formed a website dealing with guns
and guncontrol that consists of writings by many other leading
constitutional scholars as well as extensive data such as the individual
state equivalents of the Second Amendment found in state constitutions.
( http://www.gunscholar.org ).
To those who argue that there is no desire on the part of gun control
proponents to disarm the American people I suggest that you take a look
at the site;
http://www.gunscholar.org/data.htm
Gun control proponents argue strongly that the Second Amendment protects
only the rights of states to have a militia, that there is no personal
right to arms. William Van Alstyne, a liberal and ACLU board member,
wrote an article in 1994 which was published in the Duke Law Review
arguing that this amendment, like the First, does indeed protect an
individual right. Indeed, he noted that it is only by the "unreasonable"
persistence of organizations such as the NRA that our Bill of Rights has
endured.
http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000537/
Laurence Tribe, another liberal, and one of America¹s premier
constitutional scholars revised his 2000 edition of American
Constitutional Law to reflect this view of the Second Amendment as a
personal right.
In summary, it is the Democratic Party, which has lost its way, a party
that is now led by the antigun crowd. There are a few Democrats that
support the Second Amendment and the personal right to arms, but damn
few. Howard Dean recognized that the views and values of those of us who
are not part of large urban areas differ from the large East and West
Coast Urban areas, but the Democratic party leaders are from these areas
and reflect their views. Some Western Governors like Sweitzer are also
strong supporters of the right to keep and bear arms (It should be noted
that the right to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite for hunting).
However, those of us who believe in the right of individuals to defend
themselves and the personal right to arms and that guns are not the
cause of criminal behavior today do not find our interests represented
by the Democratic party. I find this most regrettable. The Democratic
Party that I grew up with bears little resemblance to the Democratic
Party of today.
My personal view is that gun owners (and hunters) interests are clearly
not well represented by the new Hunting and Shooting Sports Foundation.
I joined the NRA in the late nineties because of the concerns I have
described above. Although I often disagree with some of their
approaches, I believe their assessment of the gun control situation is
fundamentally correct. The Democratic Party appears to subscribe to the
Communitarian Manifesto developed by Amitai Etzioni, advisor to the
Clinton Administration, part of which notes:
"There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to
significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind
that exists in practically all democracies. The National Rifle
Association suggestion that criminals not guns kill people, ignores the
fact that thousands are killed each year, many of them children, from
accidental discharge of guns, and that people--whether criminal, insane,
or temporarily carried away by impulse--kill and are much more likely to
do so when armed than when disarmed. The Second Amendment, behind which
NRA hides, is subject to a variety of interpretations, but the Supreme
Court has repeatedly ruled, for over a hundred years, that it does not
prevent laws that bar guns. We join with those who read the Second
Amendment the way it was written, as a communitarian clause, calling for
community militias, not individual gun slingers."
Lynwood Yarbrough