Change text size: [ A+ ] /[ A- ]

The National Rifle Association today stood on its publicly posted announcement that it has not yet endorsed any candidate in the Nevada Senate race – pitting tea party challenger Sharron Angle against longtime Democrat powerhouse incumbent Sen. Harry Reid.

That’s as rumors are flooding the Web that the organization, which recently angered many members by withdrawing opposition to a bill that effectively will limit free speech about candidates by some groups, was ready to adopt a pro-Harry stance amid concerns that a loss by the Senate leader would move an even more anti-gun candidate into the leadership post.

“The list of the NRA’s transgressions against its membership and the Constitution is long. Shame on me, I had been following this story at a distance. When I saw hints out there that the NRA, in its misplaced zeal for covering its own pathetic rear end, were turning their backs on a solid Reagan conservative in favor of that slimy, walking wart Harry Reid, I went ballistic,” wrote a blogger at RedState.com.


Another blogger, at TheTruthAboutGuns.com, compiled a pages-long list of Reid’s votes against gun rights, including one last year in which he voted against a ban on the U.N. imposing taxes on Americans after world leaders suggested a global tax on firearms.

Here’s the list:


Below are just a few of the votes that demonstrate Reid’s longstanding hostility to guns and the Second Amendment. Not included in this list is the long list of consistent and active support for anti-gun nominees to the Federal Judiciary and to high level cabinet posts. The reason I did not include anti-gun nominees is because he supported every last one of them.

“I’m a life member of the NRA,” the blogger wrote under “Full disclosure.” And under “Full(er) disclosure,” added “That could change.”

“Case in point, the idea that they might well endorse Harry Reid’s re-election campaign for the U.S. Senate in Nevada. Yep. That’s right. On the heels of their bailing on opposition to a bill that would effectively muzzle political dissent (except for Unions, AARP, and the NRA) simply because ‘it doesn’t affect them,’ now comes word that Really Soon Now, the NRA plans to endorse Harry … for another term in the U.S. Senate.”


According to a statement maintained on the NRA website, the endorsement policy for the NRA Political Victory Fund addresses the Nevada fight, in which Reid is facing a battle for the Senate seat with Angle.

“As always in an election year, we receive many calls and e-mails inquiring about our endorsement policy in general, and specific races in particular. That trend has certainly held up this year, as we have received many inquiries about high profile races, such as the Nevada Senate race. For the record, NRA-PVF has not yet announced any ratings or endorsements in this race,” the organization said, including the emphasis in its original statement.

It explains the organization is “non-partisan” and bases its recommendations on “Second Amendment issues.”


But it does note the 4-million-member group “has an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking re-election. It is important that we stand with our friends who stand with us in Congress or the state legislature through their actions.”


The NRA has graded Reid with a “B” this year; even though another organization, Gun Owners of America, has given him an “F.”

Gary Gross at the LookTrueNorth.com site said it would be the second major slight against conservatives.

He cited the organization’s efforts to “negotiate” a “big exemption on a campaign finance bill loathed by the right.”


That would be the DISCLOSE Act, on which WND has reported.

Free-speech advocates have described the plan as a “pernicious” facilitator of the censorship of political comments critical of the Democrat majority. The plan was approved by the House of Representatives, where Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, condemned it as “a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.”

According to a report in Human Events, the plan to require “disclosure” of donations and leaders of various groups that may release ads or make statements about political issues actually targets the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices in the “Citizens United v. FEC” ruling last winter found that freedom of speech applies to everyone including people, corporations and other organizations. The DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175, would apply a long list of new reporting requirements for groups that haven’t met favor with the Democrats.


The “Citizens United” decision was the one for which President Obama publicly chastized the justices for making while they were in the audience at his State of the Union address.

At Human Events, the Connie’s Congress column said, “Democrats have been scrambling to shut down conservative political speech before the November elections this year since the January U.S. Supreme Court decision in ‘Citizens United v. FEC’ that foundfreedom of speech applies to everyone: individuals, corporations and unions.

“Discontented with a more level playing field, Democrats threw together the DISCLOSE Act, a very lengthy and complicated piece of legislation designed solely to undo the court’s decision.”

“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.’ It’s first for a reason. Freedom of speech is the basis of our democracy,” Boehner said. “The purpose of this bill, plain and simple, is to allow Democrats to use their majority in this House to silence their political opponents.”


President Obama, as chief of the Democrat majority, however, was pleased with the new limits.

“It mandates unprecedented transparency in campaign spending, and it ensures that corporations who spend money on American elections are accountable first and foremost to the American people,” Obama said in a statement after the vote.

The NRA had opposed it, but then dropped opposition when a special provision was added that would protect the NRA from the new requirements.


Boehner said, “The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don’t care about protecting the First Amendment. That’s very disappointing.”


Politico has reported that if Reid loses, “he’s almost certain to be succeeded as majority leader by a fierce gun-control advocate, either Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin or New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.”

NRA spokesman Arulanandam told the publication, “The Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association are always one bad incident away from politicians like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin exploiting their agenda of gun control.”

Officials with the NRA told WND their Internet statement stood.

But the report also noted the $61 million “earmarked by Reid,” for a shooting park in Arizona.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Reid is anything BUT a friend to gun owners. So the question remains, why endorse Reid? Has the NRA gone mad? Are they so far “inside the Beltway,” that they can’t tell this deal from Shinola? Here’s an idea: make them explain themselves. If you wanna know why the NRA has this man-crush on Reid, call the NRA TODAY at 1-800-392-8683. You can either leave a message on their recorder, or wait to speak to a corporate toady live person and listen to them stammer out an excuse. Please…make the call. I don’t wanna regret that Life Membership for the rest of mine…