Consider the Source

Glenn Reynolds has heard a rumor circulating that the Democrats are going to try to attach the magazine ban to an FAA appropriations bill. I heard this earlier today, but the source of this would seem to be Dudley Brown from the National Association for Gun Rights, a group I’ve demonstrated before doesn’t even have a presence on the Hill. I would therefore be highly skeptical of this rumor. They’d need sixty votes to pass such an amendment, which I doubt they’d have. I’ll see if I can find more information, and will update this post if I find any.

UPDATE: Source is indeed NAGR.

UPDATE: Lautenberg, the sponsor of the magazine ban in the Senate, has two proposed amendments on the FAA bill, both of which say in Thomas, “Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text,” where all other proposed amendment have text. But when you look into the congressional record, one is a minor edit to the bill, and the other involves expanding smoking prohibitions to charter aircraft. Possibly the odd listing on Thomas was what triggered the rumor. So far there’s no record of any amendment about magazine restrictions or gun control that has been proposed. I will keep trying to find other information on this as I can.

UPDATE: I should mention that whether the rumor is true or not, it certainly can’t hurt to contact your Senators and tell them you oppose Senator Lautenberg’s magazine ban. The Senate Bill is S.32

UPDATE: Are you superstitious? The last Assault Weapons Ban in Congress was HR.1022. The House magazine ban bill is HR.308, the Senate S.32. The FAA bill is S.223. I feel that the universe may be conspiring against us on this one.

UPDATE: It does not appear there was any attempt at gun control, from the Congressional Record.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. McCarthy Magazine Ban
  2. Draft McCarthy Bill
  3. Words I Never Expected to Hear out of Northampton: Smithies Protest for More Meat

35 thoughts on “Consider the Source”

  1. The two potential sponsors of such an amendment are Sheldon Whitehouse and Frank Lautenberg. Whitehouse’s amendment deals with lasers pointed at cockpits. The three amendments from Lautenberg deal with 1. smoking 2. the time for the FAA modernization to take place and 3. staffing at Newark Liberty Airport.

    The text of their amendments is from the Congressional Record.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-02-01/pdf/CREC-2011-02-01-pt1-PgS426-2.pdf#page=1

  2. How dare you expect people to actually go in and read the Congressional Record so conveniently linked in Thomas? :)

  3. Maybe it’s not significant, but I am concerned at the sustained level of chatter coming from the banner FB sites. They really are in overdrive-both the moderators and their fans.

  5. LC Scotty:

    Samething over at Huff Blo, I haven’t been able to post anything on any of the usual suspects blogs, and I have not seen any other gunnies posted on said blogs either.

  7. I don’t know if you can count chatter from gun controllers as evidence. They’ve been screaming for action ever since the Arizona shooting. They were holding out for the SOTU, but that didn’t work out for them. Then they were told some kind of major address on gun control soon, but so far there’s nothing specific. In fact, with the Middle East falling apart, their agenda really appears to have been moved to the back burners.

    Increased activity shouldn’t be a shock, as they know this is really their only chance and it’s quickly slipping from their grasp. That doesn’t mean that anti-gun Congresscritters won’t try to play tricks. They will. But, I think you have to have more evidence than chatter paired with unnamed sources claimed by gun groups that have no presence in DC. Be on the lookout for sneaky activity, but don’t throw away a ton of energy on something that’s unverified.

  8. I haven’t cruised through Hufpo in a couple of weeks but I’m fairly regular over there. So Thirdpower et. al. are getting filtered?

  9. @ Bitter-I wasn’t worried at first, but the screeching has been sustained far longer than I thought likely. To be fair though I didn’t do the social media thing at the time of VT so I don’t know if this is unusual.

  10. Also HR45, for those keeping up with the uncanny numbering of these bills.

  11. Pingback: Uh Oh | Eyes Never Closed

  12. I may be wrong, but I would think that House members can request any bill number they would like.

    I know at the state level this is possible because when Concealed Carry was proposed in Wisconsin in the early 2000s, the sponsor requested and was given the bill # S.357.

    Might be different in Congress, but I think they may be requesting these number to specifically tweak us.

  13. I haven’t played over at huffpo for awhile but right after Az the ‘moderation’ was hot and heavy. It’s mellowed since then.

  14. Pingback: Magazine Ban hidden in the FAA bill?

  17. “Consider the Source”….

    Did anyone, including Sebastian, think of emailing or calling the National Association for Gun Rights and inquiring as to their source? It wasn’t just pulled out of thin air.

    Your “demonstration” of the group not having a “presence on the hill” shows….what, exactly?

    Oh and the National Association for Gun Rights certainly does have a PAC — the one that gave money to and endorsed candidates like Rand Paul when the NRA would not.

    C’mon Sebastian, you’re better than this.

  18. For those still following this thread, I’ve checked over yesterday’s action on the bill and there’s still absolutely no evidence of any amendment:
    a) from Harry Reid (who seems to have been targeted in the rumor for seemingly partisan purposes); and
    b) on anything related to the gun control measures currently being discussed on Capitol Hill.

    Consider that the source has no presence in DC, the source claimed the information came from unnamed “insider sources,” and it’s the type of rumor that will allow the source group to claim “victory” when absolutely no evidence that this was going to happen arises. (In other words, when nothing happens because nothing was ever going to happen, they will still be able to say something like, “nothing happened because we told you to take action!”)

    I’m not saying that our opponents won’t try to be sneaky, and people should be in touch with their offices of both of their Senators to remind them that we will watch any votes on the bills that actually have been introduced or future anti-gun bills, but don’t believe every single rumor you hear. It only deflects attention away from the actual legislative threats.

  19. I’ll be “better than this” when you guys stop flinging shit at other pro-gun groups. Until you learn who the real enemy is, as far as I’m concerned the movement is better off without your organization.

  21. And that was largely the source of my ire, Adam. Groups like GOA and NAGR beat up NRA relentlessly over DISCLOSE, when neither of those two groups have spent money that would be affected by it. It’s not like I expect them to accept DISCLOSE… it was a bad bill, and they were right to object to it. I don’t blame them for that. I wouldn’t even blame them for objecting that NRA gets an exemption while they don’t.

    NRA has to be able to speak for its members, and they made it clear to the Democratic leadership they would oppose any bill that did that. The leadership, not the NRA, are the ones that proposed the stupid carve out.

    By attacking NRA, NAGR and GOA were basically saying NRA had an obligation to NAGR and GOA’s members too. I don’t believe that is reasonable.

    And before someone says their obligation should be to gun rights, there was nothing in DISCLOSE that affected gun rights if the NRA was going to be exempted, since NRA is really the only gun rights organization I can find that does independent expenditures.

    If you look at the big picture, and not just at a single organization, NRA was the only one that would have been seriously affected by DISCLOSE, and NRA’s top priority, in that case, had to be objecting to DISCLOSE to the extent that it would affect their ability to communicate. That was the best overall position for the movement as a whole, since opposing DISCLOSE outright could have meant its passage over objection, in which case NRA is silenced for at least the 2010 election cycle, and will then have to fight another very expensive legal battle to get it overturned. I’m not willing to risk that to try to save the money that GOA and NAGR don’t spend on independent expenditures.

  22. “…in which case NRA is silenced for at least the 2010 election cycle…”

    Aww, that would be a shame. Then they couldn’t support people like Harry Reid! Then they wouldn’t be able to make Brady Bill-type legislation even worse! Then they could just go back to ignoring Constitutional Carry ’cause it doesn’t bring them any revenue!

    Seriously, there is a reason people like Sen. Tom Coburn has literally banned the NRA from his Washington office. And it ain’t ’cause he doesn’t support the Second Amendment (for those following from the cheap seats).

    Adam, I suppose we should look up the NRA’s contributions from its first five years in existence…wait, when was that, again? Oh yeah, they’re over 100 years old.

    Geez, does the term “growing” mean anything? You act like going from 0$ to $16,500 in two years is meaningless. I’m no math major, but that seems like a pretty big increase, percentage-wise… And I guess every political activist group should just blow every penny they get their hands on the second it arrives instead of planning for the long term. And do it on candidates alone, instead of other worthwhile uses of money in the political game. That’s genius strategy. What organization do you control, by the way?

    Sebastian, I emailed you and told you that you are free to email me with any questions. If you would rather just bash us from afar instead of finding out more, by all means, fire for effect. Range is hot.

  23. @ Greg: My point is not to get into a pissing match with you, but just point out that if an organization such as NAGR is going to constantly lash out against fellow like minded 2A organizations – then this really accomplishes nothing. I agree that healthy criticism is needed from time to time because not every organization is perfect, far from it.

    As to what organization I “control”, there is none. But if I am going to invest my time and money in a cause that I feel very strongly about such as the 2Am and the like, then I want to make sure that my investment of time and money has a tangible return. Additionally, I want to observe that return in some fashion and then evaluate if I should continue that endeavor or not.

    From what I have read about NAGR on guidestar.org, I commend NAGR for its growth over the years 2007-2009 (the years that are posted there with the associated 990 forms)…but perhaps its constant confrontational attitude towards other 2A organizations such be reevaluted. It just may lead others to also join it…

  24. I don’t need to e-mail you. I know all I need to know about NAGR, and I know it flings shit at other second amendment groups. That’s unacceptable to me. If you stop, I’d be happy to have a reasonable conversation. Until then, you’re not helping, and we’d be better off without you.

  25. You know, Greg, if you’re so eager to prove just how influential NAGR really is on Capitol Hill, the comments are open to name your source for this information. There’s no one stopping you.

  26. Greg’s reaction is revealing, I think, about the kind of organization NAGR is. Note in response to fair criticism, he flings pooh. That’s what NAGR does best, from my perspective. To them the enemy is other gun rights organizations, and activists who question their value because of that.

  27. “I don’t need to e-mail you. I know all I need to know about NAGR…”

    Annnnnnd that’s all I need to know about the author of this blog. Instead of finding out more from the source, he chooses to make his own opinions based on…. his own opinions.

    For the rest, start here: http://www.rmgo.org/strategy

    Read the whole thing and understand that there is a lot more strategy than just blogging about….whatever.

    And as a final note, I think it’s interesting that everyone keeps saying “other groups.” Call it what it is: the NRA. I don’t see the National Association for Gun Rights “flinging poo” (beauty word choice, eh) at GOA or SAF. Both of those organizations are fantastic at what they do.

    Again, read “The Real Nature of Politics” linked above and understand that there is a whole lot more to this game than what most realize.

    1. Greg, the comments are still open to name your source for the rest of us. If you’ve got valid sources for the information, feel free to share them. If you continue to avoid the simple question, then I think that says far more about you than your “willingness” to have secret email conversations with bloggers.

  28. And as a final note, I think it’s interesting that everyone keeps saying “other groups.” Call it what it is: the NRA

    OK, fine. Stop flinging shit at the NRA. They are not the enemy. If you try to argue they are, you have completely lost a sense of perspective and do not live in reality.

    Note that valid criticism is not flinging shit. But I see little in the way of valid criticism coming out of NAGR or GOA most of the time. Take SAF’s lead. They do what they do well, and succeed by building themselves up rather than by tearing others down.

  29. Greg,
    You don’t know me from Adam, but Sebastian has credibility with a number of people. By showing publicly how ignorant you are, you prove to me that I wouldn’t ever want to be associated with your organization, nor send money to it.
    I am straight with you and tell you right to your face, you need a better game when you come in here with the big boys.

    Revisit when you get your diapers off!!

  30. Greg: I research Open Secrets heavily for my reports. Nat. Ass. for GR didn’t give any candidates any money. That makes you a liar. Everything else you say is poison fruit from the tree, since you are a liar.

    Why don’t you join Brady Campaign and be honest about who you represent?

    Sebastian’s blog is one of the best, and he deserves better than you offer. If I were him, I would exercise the delete key on you.

  31. Let’s forget all the arguing back & forth about the rumor and thank the Lord that this didn’t actually happen (yet). I’d rather be (mis)informed about something like this early on and find out it’s not true, than learn about it from the MSM after the amended bill passed. I’m more than happy to sift through thousands of rumors to protect my rights as a gun owner. This is no different than how we practice; train for the worst case and be glad when it doesn’t happen.

    1. Uh, no, that’s a very bad idea. Most gun owners will view it as crying wolf. When groups start these rumors to promote themselves, they burn another gun owner (or dozen) out. Then calls aren’t made when they are really needed. There’s a difference between preparing for sneaky tricks and putting out rumors with no serious source just to get attention.

  33. As Bitter said, it’s the “crying wolf” part that pisses me off. And it isn’t my imagination, NAGR has a track record of doing just that ….

Comments are closed.