NRA to endorse Harry Reid?

[Mike1951]

Yes, it passed as part of Senate Amendments to HR 3590:

17 (e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as
18 added by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—
19 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as
20 subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
21 (2) by inserting after subsection (b), the fol22
lowing:
23 ‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN
24 RIGHTS.—
25 ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—
26 A wellness and health promotion activity imple-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 02037 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\SENENR\H3590.EAS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2038
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 mented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require
2 the disclosure or collection of any information relat3
ing to—
4 ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully5
possessed firearm or ammunition in the resi6
dence or on the property of an individual; or
7 ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of
8 a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
9 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None
10 of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the
11 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
12 amendment made by that Act shall be construed to
13 authorize or may be used for the collection of any in14
formation relating to—
15 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
16 a firearm or ammunition;
17 ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammu18
nition; or
19 ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or am20
munition.
21 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA
22 BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Sec23
retary under the Patient Protection and Affordable
24 Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall
25 be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain
VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 02038 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\SENENR\H3590.EAS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2039
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 records of individual ownership or possession of a
2 firearm or ammunition.
3 ‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PRE4
MIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSUR5
ANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health
6 insurance coverage may not be denied, and a dis7
count, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
8 a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld
9 under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or
10 in accordance with the Patient Protection and Afford11
able Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on
12 the basis of, or on reliance upon—
13 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
14 a firearm or ammunition; or
15 ‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm
16 or ammunition.
17 ‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION RE18
QUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall
19 be required to disclose any information under any
20 data collection activity authorized under the Patient
21 Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
22 made by that Act relating to—
23 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
24 a firearm or ammunition; or
VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 02039 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:\SENENR\H3590.EAS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2040
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of
2 a firearm or ammunition.’’.

[Right2Carry]

++++1 what PWK said. Reid will carry the left-wing water when it comes to ALL democratic nominees for judgeships (Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, and DIstrict Judges). Reid is odious. He complained of the "smell of tourists." His own foul reek is infinitely worse. Get him out of the senate.

Would you feel this way if a Reid loss put resulted in Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin being Senate Majority Leader?

Chas.

I would not be happy with a Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin Senate Majority Leader, but I'm not happy with Harry Reid as a Senate Majority Leader either. Trading one bad choice for another bad choice doesn't make the situation any worse. But when you have an opportunity to remove from office an enemy of freedom, you do it. Harry Reid might be pro-gun today, but he hasn't been in the past and he won't be in the future if he can get elected without your support.

Pick people who actually believe in freedom and act like it all the time, not just when it's convenient for them. If Harry Reid thought he could get a total ban on guns through the Senate without costing him votes back home, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's not someone that I think the NRA should support. It's trading a short term "success" for your longterm goals.

IMHO the NRA should endorse only those congresscritters are 100%pro gun throughout their careers. If an NRA endorsement is going to be worth anything at all, it needs to be precious and not easily given away.

[Liberty]

Those who only vote for NRA approved candidates will never see the changes that most conservatives or libertarians believe in.
The NRA makes deals (always unwritten mostly unspoken) " you play ball with me and I'll play ball with you" This is how politics and lobbyist work. If Harry Reid plays the game. Then the NRA will keep up its end of the bargain.
Other progun groups will be less likely to to comprimise. GOAL, and the Libertarian party come to mind. Will they be as succsessful. As a libertarian, I am real uncomfortable with the NRA refusing to acknowledge that we even exist. even though our platform and every Libertarian candidate that I met Strongly supports the RKBA. Fortunatly we have free choice, and can vote what reason and logic dictate is the best candidate. We can even withhold giving the NRA money that is used to support candidates we really don't like. But before we do that, is there any organization that we can agree with all the time?

While I wouldn't vote for Harry Reid if he were running dog catcher. Then again, few if any of us here will have that opportunity to vote against him.

[UpTheIrons]

The OP to this thread cited a Red State post, linked once again here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/0 ... arry-reid/

It certainly sounds rather damning of the Senator from Nevada. However, Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell gave a rather interesting analysis of this post, with some aditional evidence:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/07 ... dorsement/

I have not had the time to run down all of his citations yet, but it seems Red State may be playing a little fast and loose with the facts. Apparently Reid voted FOR the Crime Bill in 1994, but AGAINST the AWB (Feinstein Amendment). Also, our own Senator Hutchinson (who needs to be retired post-haste), who enjoys a GOA "A" rating, voted for the Brady Bill, as well as the Trigger Lock bill of 2004.

While I would like to see Reid retired, I'd rather have him as Senate Majority Leader over either Schumer or Durbin. As a Libertarian, I am frustrated that more Independent/Libertarian candidates are not taken seriously on a wider scale instead of the usual "well, we have to work within the system we have."

This post is more of a counterpoint to the Red State post rather than an endorsement of the NRA's endorsement of Reid, in the interest of getting more information out there. I've seen a lot of "he said/he said" and not too much analysis of what the actual votes were or meant, especially Reid's more recent votes.

That's not to say there hasn't been any analysis, but there could be more.

I don't like dancing with the Devil, but sometimes you at least have to acknowledge that he's in the room.

[atticus]

When confirmation votes came up in the Senate, Harry Reid voted for each of the 4 justices who wrote those amazing dissents in Heller and McDonald. He can be counted on to vote for confirmation of every anti-gun justice candidate that comes up. That's a very bad voting record on guns for senator Reid. One more non-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, and you can kiss your NRA victories goodbye. Harry Reid's so-called great voting record on guns is not really so good after all when you consider his support of Sotomajor, Kagan, and that ilk. Reid has very little regard for the constitution. The result? The present Washington D.C. government that constantly looks for ways to control the citizens. That will include 2nd amendment issues.

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid. You should not live in fear of the bad democrat Senate majority leaders (Schumer, Durbin, or whoever). They are like poisonous mushrooms in the forest. Get rid of one, another will pop up. Don't live in fear of Schumer, Durbin, or any of those hands. Just send better people to the Senate.

[Charles L. Cotton]

When confirmation votes came up in the Senate, Harry Reid voted for each of the 4 justices who wrote those amazing dissents in Heller and McDonald. He can be counted on to vote for confirmation of every anti-gun justice candidate that comes up. That's a very bad voting record on guns for senator Reid. One more non-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, and you can kiss your NRA victories goodbye. Harry Reid's so-called great voting record on guns is not really so good after all when you consider his support of Sotomajor, Kagan, and that ilk. Reid has very little regard for the constitution. The result? The present Washington D.C. government that constantly looks for ways to control the citizens. That will include 2nd amendment issues.

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid. You should not live in fear of the bad democrat Senate majority leaders (Schumer, Durbin, or whoever). They are like poisonous mushrooms in the forest. Get rid of one, another will pop up. Don't live in fear of Schumer, Durbin, or any of those hands. Just send better people to the Senate.

I agree with you about the vote for Kagan.

Do you know the rest of his voting record? Do you know what bills he kept from reaching the Senate floor? Do you know what bills he kept from even being filed?

There are a lot of reasons not to like Harry Reid, but his track record on guns isn't one of them. Trying to paint Reid as anti-gun is unfounded at best. It's right up there with arguing that gun owners would be better off with a new junior Senator from Nevada and Chuck Schumer or Dick Burbin as Senate Majority.

Again, the NRA has not endorsed Reid.

Chas.

[seamusTX]

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid.

Do you understand that Sharron Angle would not be the senate majority leader?

This seems to be a common misunderstanding.

- Jim

[baldeagle]

Nevada has a chance to send a better, wiser constitutionalist to the Senate. That's better than keeping Harry Reid.

Do you understand that Sharron Angle would not be the senate majority leader?

This seems to be a common misunderstanding.

- Jim

I can't speak for him, but I definitely understand that. It doesn't change my desire to rid the country of Harry Reid any more than it changes my desire to rid the country of Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin. I'll take my victories where I can find them. Elect enough pro-RKBA politicians to the Senate and the majority leader becomes much less of an issue.

Yes, perhaps I'm a purist, but I gotta tell you, the "better the devil you know" position has gotten us into the current mess, in my opinion. Harry Reid needs to go, and it's looking more and more like he will. And if the Tea Party folks keep kicking the RINOs out of the Republican party and electing true freedom-loving candidates to run against the scoundrels presently serving, we may actually see the light of day some time in the future.

If we keep re-electing the Harry Reids of this government, America has no future, RKBA or not. As it is, we're hanging on by a thread and about to go under. Only a radical transformation can save us.

Besides, booting the Senate Majority Leader out of the Senate has a salutory effect on politicians' respect for the people who vote them into office in the first place.

Personally I would prefer term limits, so seniority would matter much less and loyalty to the people who elected you would matter a great deal more.

[atticus]

Yes, of course, S. Angle would not come in as senate majority leader. (Did anything in my post even remotely suggest that?) Do you understand that H. Reid will continue to support anti-gun supreme court nominees?

[atticus]

As majority leader, H. Reid brought the nominations of Sotomajor and Kagan to the floor for votes. They are now on the supreme court. Are those actions not as important as other gun issues Reid has dealt with? I'll readily concede that Reid has been responsive to pro-gun pressure. It could be argued that at least some of his votes were cast when his vote (albeit against his party's position) would not have made a difference in the final outcome, and therefore allowed him to continue to claim a pro-gun record. Whether you count his pro-gun overall voting record (and his actions as majority leader) as true support for second amendment rights, or whether at least some of his votes were "safe" votes in which he could get away with taking a stand against his party, it is pretty clear that when push comes to shove, Reid will carry the water for any progressive agenda that his party demands. The country is suffering, thanks in part to Harry Reid.

[seamusTX]

President Obama is not going to appoint conservative judges. The president's nominees eventually are approved, regardless of which party has a majority in the Senate. Only two have been turned down in my lifetime (Ginsberg and Bork). That's just the way it is.

- Jim

[Purplehood]

President Obama is not going to appoint conservative judges. The president's nominees eventually are approved, regardless of which party has a majority in the Senate. Only two have been turned down in my lifetime (Ginsberg and Bork). That's just the way it is.

- Jim

We simply have to encourage our present conservative SCOTUS members not to retire or die until we can get a more favorable administration.

[seamusTX]

I discussed this earlier: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=35889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The word critical is overused, but the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court really is critical, in the sense that a vacancy in one position could make a huge difference in RKBA rulings, which are going to be coming fast and furious for the next several decades.

OTOH, I'm optimistic. Maybe they will take Justices Sotomayor and Kagan into the back room and talk some sense into them. These people are not stupid. They are ignorant.

- Jim

[LarryH]

I discussed this earlier: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=35889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The word critical is overused, but the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court really is critical, in the sense that a vacancy in one position could make a huge difference in RKBA rulings, which are going to be coming fast and furious for the next several decades.

OTOH, I'm optimistic. Maybe they will take Justices Sotomayor and Kagan into the back room and talk some sense into them. These people are not stupid. They are ignorant.

- Jim

Jim, I don't think they're ignorant, either. They are "true" to their "principles". Unfortunately, their "principles" wouldn't pass muster with the founding fathers.

[seamusTX]

They are urban intellectuals who are afraid of guns. They would not admit it, even to themselves, but they are afraid of rednecks and black men with guns.

Somebody needs to take them to the range and have them break clays or punch holes in targets.

I am probably the first person in my family to own a firearm, other than the ones who were cops. I have walked that road.

- Jim