NRA lobbying targets courthouses
WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Rifle Association has enjoyed high-profile success over the years in shaping gun-rights legislation in Congress and statehouses, in part by campaigning to defeat lawmakers who defied the group.
Now, the NRA has added a lesser-known strategy to protect its interests: opposing President Barack Obama's judicial nominees whom it sees as likely to enforce gun-control laws. In some cases, the group's opposition has kept jobs on federal benches unfilled.
Still in its early stages, the effort is a safety net to ensure that federal courthouses are stocked with judges who are friendly to gun rights, should gun restrictions somehow get through the group's first line of defense on Capitol Hill. The NRA also weighs in on state judicial elections and appointments, another fail-safe if the massacre of young children at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school leads to tighter gun-control measures.
A case study in the group's approach across the country can be found in its opposition to the nominations of the two most recent Supreme Court justices.
The NRA opposed both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and warned its allies in Congress that their votes to confirm each would be held against them.
In a letter to lawmakers, the NRA wrote: "In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, (Kagan) refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was 'settled law.' This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the court. It has become obvious that 'settled law' is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee's confirmation effort."
It added, "The NRA is not fooled."
The group had limited evidence to back up its claims that the two were opposed to gun rights. It pointed to a one-paragraph memo Kagan wrote in 1987 to Justice Thurgood Marshall that suggested she was not sympathetic to gun owners, and to her time as a lawyer in the Clinton administration as it sought to put tighter gun controls in place. For Sotomayor, critics cited a ruling that upheld New York's ban on nunchucks, a martial arts weapon that has nothing to do with firearms.
Even some pro-gun-rights lawmakers bristled at the NRA inserting itself into judicial confirmation battles.
"I am a bit concerned that the NRA weighed in and said they were going to score this. I don't think that was appropriate," Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said at the time. "A vote on a Supreme Court justice, in my mind, should be free from those political interest groups that are going to pressure you."
But, like most Republicans, she still voted against confirming both nominees, likely for reasons beyond the gun issue.
Only seven GOP senators voted for Sotomayor in 2009 and, a year later, only five Republicans voted for Kagan.
Among those who supported both was Sen. Richard Lugar, a six-term Indiana Republican who lost his seat last year in a primary.
The NRA exacted its revenge in that race, spending $200,000 against him in order to help GOP challenger Richard Mourdock.
"Dick Lugar has changed. He's become the only Republican candidate in Indiana with an F rating from the NRA," the group said in one TV ad. The group also warned allies that Lugar voted to confirm "both of Barack Obama's anti-gun nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Last spring, the group opposed the nomination of Elissa Cadish to the federal bench in Nevada and worked with Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada to block it.
In 2008, while running for a district court position in Nevada, Cadish replied on an election-year survey that "I do not believe that there is this constitutional right" to guns. She added, however, "Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge."
Cadish completed the Citizens for Responsible Government questionnaire before the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protected a citizen's right to have firearms in the District of Columbia and before a 2010 case that gave the same rights to citizens who live in the states.
Four years later, when Obama nominated her to a federal bench, she faced questions about those views and sought to clarify her position in a letter to her state's other senator, Harry Reid.
"I want to assure you that I was not giving my personal opinion on this question," Cadish said. "Rather, this response was based on my understanding of the state of federal law at the time."
The NRA questioned the sincerity of Cadish's statement.
"While she has more recently tried to backtrack from that statement, her 'new' position is of little comfort to gun owners," NRA executive director Chris Cox wrote to Heller in April.
In the months that followed, the NRA and its affiliated groups spent $98,467 to help Heller win election, including a television ad promising Heller would "oppose any anti-gun nominee to the Supreme Court."
"This election's not about the next four years. It's about the next 40 years. So vote like your freedom depends on it. Because it does," Cox told audiences in that ad.
Similarly, the NRA has helped block Caitlin Halligan's rise from the Manhattan district attorney's office to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a launching pad for several Supreme Court justices. The group pointed to her work on New York's 2001 lawsuit against gun makers and opposition to a 2005 federal law that shielded firearm companies from liability for crimes committed with their wares.
"Given Ms. Halligan's clear opposition to a major federal law that was essential to protecting law-abiding Americans' right to keep and bear arms, as well as an important industry that equips our military and law enforcement personnel, we must respectfully oppose her confirmation," Cox wrote the lawmakers in 2011.
That appeals court seat has remained vacant since 2005, when President George W. Bush nominated and the Senate confirmed John Roberts as chief justice on the Supreme Court.
Last Thursday, Obama renominated both Cadish and Halligan and urged the Senate to vote.
"I am renominating 33 highly qualified candidates for the federal bench, including many who could have and should have been confirmed before the Senate adjourned," Obama said.
Yet there was no signal the NRA would drop its opposition.
The group's deep pockets help bolster allies and punish lawmakers who buck them, on judges or legislation. The group spent at least $24 million in the 2012 elections - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Separately, the NRA spent some $4.4 million through July 1 to lobby Congress.
In one case, the group spent about $100,000 - a tremendous sum for a state legislative race - to mount a primary challenge against a Republican Tennessee lawmaker, Debra Maggart, because she wouldn't toe the NRA's line in Nashville.
As the NRA works to put its stamp on another branch of government, its influence could be even more lasting - federal judges are appointed for life and aren't subject to voters in election years.
Now, the NRA has added a lesser-known strategy to protect its interests: opposing President Barack Obama's judicial nominees whom it sees as likely to enforce gun-control laws. In some cases, the group's opposition has kept jobs on federal benches unfilled.
Still in its early stages, the effort is a safety net to ensure that federal courthouses are stocked with judges who are friendly to gun rights, should gun restrictions somehow get through the group's first line of defense on Capitol Hill. The NRA also weighs in on state judicial elections and appointments, another fail-safe if the massacre of young children at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school leads to tighter gun-control measures.
A case study in the group's approach across the country can be found in its opposition to the nominations of the two most recent Supreme Court justices.
The NRA opposed both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and warned its allies in Congress that their votes to confirm each would be held against them.
In a letter to lawmakers, the NRA wrote: "In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, (Kagan) refused to declare support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was 'settled law.' This was eerily similar to the scripted testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor last year, prior to her confirmation to the court. It has become obvious that 'settled law' is the scripted code of an anti-gun nominee's confirmation effort."
It added, "The NRA is not fooled."
The group had limited evidence to back up its claims that the two were opposed to gun rights. It pointed to a one-paragraph memo Kagan wrote in 1987 to Justice Thurgood Marshall that suggested she was not sympathetic to gun owners, and to her time as a lawyer in the Clinton administration as it sought to put tighter gun controls in place. For Sotomayor, critics cited a ruling that upheld New York's ban on nunchucks, a martial arts weapon that has nothing to do with firearms.
Even some pro-gun-rights lawmakers bristled at the NRA inserting itself into judicial confirmation battles.
"I am a bit concerned that the NRA weighed in and said they were going to score this. I don't think that was appropriate," Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said at the time. "A vote on a Supreme Court justice, in my mind, should be free from those political interest groups that are going to pressure you."
But, like most Republicans, she still voted against confirming both nominees, likely for reasons beyond the gun issue.
Only seven GOP senators voted for Sotomayor in 2009 and, a year later, only five Republicans voted for Kagan.
Among those who supported both was Sen. Richard Lugar, a six-term Indiana Republican who lost his seat last year in a primary.
The NRA exacted its revenge in that race, spending $200,000 against him in order to help GOP challenger Richard Mourdock.
"Dick Lugar has changed. He's become the only Republican candidate in Indiana with an F rating from the NRA," the group said in one TV ad. The group also warned allies that Lugar voted to confirm "both of Barack Obama's anti-gun nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Last spring, the group opposed the nomination of Elissa Cadish to the federal bench in Nevada and worked with Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada to block it.
In 2008, while running for a district court position in Nevada, Cadish replied on an election-year survey that "I do not believe that there is this constitutional right" to guns. She added, however, "Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge."
Cadish completed the Citizens for Responsible Government questionnaire before the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protected a citizen's right to have firearms in the District of Columbia and before a 2010 case that gave the same rights to citizens who live in the states.
Four years later, when Obama nominated her to a federal bench, she faced questions about those views and sought to clarify her position in a letter to her state's other senator, Harry Reid.
"I want to assure you that I was not giving my personal opinion on this question," Cadish said. "Rather, this response was based on my understanding of the state of federal law at the time."
The NRA questioned the sincerity of Cadish's statement.
"While she has more recently tried to backtrack from that statement, her 'new' position is of little comfort to gun owners," NRA executive director Chris Cox wrote to Heller in April.
In the months that followed, the NRA and its affiliated groups spent $98,467 to help Heller win election, including a television ad promising Heller would "oppose any anti-gun nominee to the Supreme Court."
"This election's not about the next four years. It's about the next 40 years. So vote like your freedom depends on it. Because it does," Cox told audiences in that ad.
Similarly, the NRA has helped block Caitlin Halligan's rise from the Manhattan district attorney's office to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a launching pad for several Supreme Court justices. The group pointed to her work on New York's 2001 lawsuit against gun makers and opposition to a 2005 federal law that shielded firearm companies from liability for crimes committed with their wares.
"Given Ms. Halligan's clear opposition to a major federal law that was essential to protecting law-abiding Americans' right to keep and bear arms, as well as an important industry that equips our military and law enforcement personnel, we must respectfully oppose her confirmation," Cox wrote the lawmakers in 2011.
That appeals court seat has remained vacant since 2005, when President George W. Bush nominated and the Senate confirmed John Roberts as chief justice on the Supreme Court.
Last Thursday, Obama renominated both Cadish and Halligan and urged the Senate to vote.
"I am renominating 33 highly qualified candidates for the federal bench, including many who could have and should have been confirmed before the Senate adjourned," Obama said.
Yet there was no signal the NRA would drop its opposition.
The group's deep pockets help bolster allies and punish lawmakers who buck them, on judges or legislation. The group spent at least $24 million in the 2012 elections - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Separately, the NRA spent some $4.4 million through July 1 to lobby Congress.
In one case, the group spent about $100,000 - a tremendous sum for a state legislative race - to mount a primary challenge against a Republican Tennessee lawmaker, Debra Maggart, because she wouldn't toe the NRA's line in Nashville.
As the NRA works to put its stamp on another branch of government, its influence could be even more lasting - federal judges are appointed for life and aren't subject to voters in election years.
Democrat or republican , The NRA will support those who support the Constitution of the united states. Not all democrats are ignorant  just like not all republicans have common sense. As far as the rumors of an executive order by the obaminator  to restrict guns, I don't think he is that stupid to try and start our second civil war by spitting on the Constitution. But then again he did try to bully the SCOTUS last year , so anything is possible.
"Dick Lugar has changed. He's become the only Republican candidate in Indiana with an F rating from the NRA," the group said in one TV ad. The group also warned allies that Lugar voted to confirm "both of Barack Obama's anti-gun nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Â
And now we have a Democratic senator from Indiana. The NRA is in danger of becoming a real asset for the Democratic party.
I personally see the NRA lobbying as a counter-balance to the anti-2nd Amendment bias of the mass media conglomerates (read.. a few guys at the top) that decide which slant they want their media monsters to take on a given issue or which party they want to support for that matter.
Â
 In essence, the media has been "lobbying" to the world people one way or another since the first radio broadcast be it communism, religion, war, gun, drug, enemy-du-jour or what have you.
Lobbying is lobbying is lobbying. It doesn't matter who is doing it, it's all the same.
Sounds to me like the NRA is very effective at defending the 2nd Amendment and the whole Constitution by extension.
Though this article very carefully avoids an outright attack on the NRA, it is abundantly obvious that the intent here was to keep the debate rolling in a direction that would put the NRA on the defensive.
Â
The NRA has always been on defense - defending the Constitution and the rights enumerated within.
The NRA has always been on defense - most notably in response to the endless attacks on the 2nd Am.
The NRA has always been on defense - Â because they are effective.
Â
The entire Constitution is protected by the 2nd Amendment, not just the rights of a few nut case gun owners as some would have us believe. Â
Â
Thank you NRA for defending our liberties so effectively!
@Umhal "The entire Constitution is protected by the 2nd Amendment" and by the 1st and the 14th. Defending the Constitution takes a group effort.
 @JTesla  @Umhal Oh I agree, it's an all-or-nothing effort.  One does not stand in isolation, rather all rights enumerated are predicated on the whole. Â
 @Umhal The courts are there to "defend our liberties", not the NRA. Our freedoms are not served by the strong-arm tactics of a bunch of hooligans such as the NRA.
 @felines99 I know you're posts, and your position.  The best I can say to you is "at least you're consistent." Â
Â
In direct response to your statement:  The same can be said of any PAC, either side of the isle.  right now we have a force-meets-force balance with the PACs, where the NRA represents ONE side of that balance on ONE issue.  Every other issue has it's protagonists and antagonists as well.
Â
As for the courts... we've had a stint here lately where the courts have upheld the individual's right regarding the 2nd Am, but it wasn't always that way. Â Remember the 80's with a very active court and the mess that came of it? Â packing the courts with justices that have the same interpretations that we do is one way to ensure our views are upheld.Â
Pretty simple, actually, and it's a trick learned years ago, a trick first employed by the far left, a trick that led to far-reaching social engineering at the judicial level.
Â
I do believe the courts are there to interpret and clarify the law, not to engender change on the social climate. Â The courts are chartered to be above that.
That leaves PAC's to fund the arguments and attempt to load the courts with sympathetic judges.
Hate it all you want, but we've seen the pendulum swing in both directions, judicially speaking.
 @Umhal Seriously, dude??? You need to CHILL.
Â
You are WAY too sensitive about your own scholarship!!! I responded honestly to your response. That you did not appreciate what I responded to, is not my problem. You are really very insecure about your own writing -- I can see that clearly, now.
 @felines99 So your response is "no answer" then you expect me to provide you with one?  I asked 3 straight forward questions.  Questions that I hope will provide me with some insight as to the mind's workings of someone often across the aisle from me politically, one who on the debate of gun control seems to espouse an ideology I do not share.
If you won't answer questions I pose, i see no reason to oblige you with answers to your questions.
Â
Â
 @Umhal  @felines99 1. I didn't say that I am smarter than you. In mentioning my education, I wrote: "BTW, I LOVE to read. And I've read alot in my time." And I wrote that in response to your asking me if it was "better" that you condensed what you had said.
2. Yeah, my brother's in Mensa. Yawn.
3. I cannot give you a professional opinion re "the history of gun control efforts in the U..S." My area of expertise was European Intellectual History.
4. How do measures which aim to keep firearms out of the hands of those who cannot use them responsibly, possibly "remove liberty from all people in an effort to promote safety"???
 @felines99 I don't have that notion, nor do I particularly care about your synopsis of my writing.  Furthermore, i'm unimpressed by your 4.0.  I also qualify for the 4.0 club, as well as MENSA, and a long list of other pretentious titles - all of which come to naught in a forum such as this.  Those titles are useful for getting hired with a corp, not for reasoning through a debate on guns, liberties and criminality.
Â
"Disapprove of their tactics" or "hating the NRA" are so similar in this regard as to be indistinguishable.  Perhaps I should choose less harsh words?  Would that help you?
To be fair: Â perhaps I over-reacted when I took your statement "strong-arm tactics of a bunch of hooligans such as the NRA" as equating to hating them (or their actions.) Â If I owe you and apology for that, you have it. Â
If *I* am guilty of putting words in your mouth regarding hate for the NRA, then surely you can backpedal on your assertions of "one of your own" and "i'm smarter than you are with my MA" talk.
Â
Now, I'd like to ask your professional opinion of the history of gun control efforts in the Unites States.  Have they been pure in their motives?  Have assault weapon bans been effective at reducing violent crime?  Since you are an expert in history, perhaps you could give us the benefit of your perspective on the efficacy of legislation that removes liberty from all people in an effort to promote safety?Â
 @Umhal Trust me, I scanned it, and it was not worth reading thoroughly. You really flatter yourself!
Â
Who said anything about "hating the NRA for being effective"??? It's a matter of disapproving of their tactics, regardless of how effective they are.
Â
BTW, I LOVE to read. And I've read alot in my time. That happens when you get an M.A. in history, with a 4..0 g.p.a., from a university which is ranked no. 24 in the nation. I'm curious, where did you get the notion that what you write is even moderately interesting, or remarkable in ANY way???
 @felines99 Too bad you didn't read the whole thing :)Â
I'll condense it for you:
Â
Bias is a forgone conclusion - court justices are NOT above that bias. Â having many judges balances the bias-o-meter. Â Same thing goes on with lobbyists and the media, and the corporations... it's just life and the way of humans.
hating the NRA for being effective is ridiculous.
Â
better?
 @Umhal You are OBVIOUSLY quite taken with your take on this issue. I'm not even going to read it all -- but bear in mind that the arguments I quoted came from one of your own, Sen. Murkowski.Â
Â
Your reasoning is fallacious. E.g.: "When a nominee is clearly biased . . . then all checks and balances are in jeopardy." Nonsense. In the eyes of the NRA, anyone who opposes their position is "clearly biased". Indeed, in the eyes of any spirited opposition (on behalf of gun rights or against them), the other side is always "clearly biased." It is the give and take between these two biased positions which results in sound court decisions.Â
 @felines99  @Umhal Ahem... just as the very nomination process should be free from bias?  Oh, you mean the very political party that gets to nominate a candidate should be, somehow, above the game of politics when they choose a candidate?  Doesn't happen.  Are you suggesting that somehow, the President puts aside his politics when he nominates someone for the high court?  Think again!
Â
To wit: Â When a nominee is clearly biased (on either side of the spectrum) then all checks and balances are in jeopardy. Â To piously suggest that the NRA is somehow doing something unusual is tantamount to a lie - it's at least very misleading.Â
Against that very concern, we have an odd number of judges who sit, so as to avoid deadlock along biasing lines of thought. Â We have more than 1 or 2 judges so the potential for the whole court to lean too far in one direction should be nullified. Â The safeguards are built in as best as can be.
Â
Again:  to piously suggest the system is somehow being abused by any one particular group is patently ridiculous.Â
Â
It's sad that you have no confidence in our judicial process. Â Yes, we will all find reason to feel the courts are not upholding our views, it happens because we can't have everything go our individual way... that's civics 101. Â Get used to it!
Â
To vilify the NRA for it's grassroots collection of monies, for it's ability to lobby (where other lobbies are doing the exact same thing) and for it's representation of a large block of voters here in the US, is to decry the way the system has evolved *with the complicity of both extremes of the political spectrum.*
Â
Our freedoms ARE (in fact) "served by the strong-arm tactics of a bunch of hooligans such as the NRA." Â That's ME. Â That's a LOT of other people, people you stand next to in the supermarket, sit next to on the bus, rely on to weigh the facts when they sit on a jury...Â
Â
Just because you don't agree with the concept of upholding the 2nd Am to the extent that WE the NRA do, does not lend credence to your arguments against the NRA's PAC lobbying.Â
Â
Yes, I'm the NRA.  I will defend the NRA and I will defend the Constitution even when it's uncomfortable for me to do so, even when I don't particularly agree with the subject du-jours.  For instance, while I detested the behaviors of the Wall Street protesters, I defended their rights to protest, to assemble and their rights to redress.  All the while detesting the damage, the lawlessness of the group, the filth and low-life behaviors within their ranks.Â
Â
Lastly:  Just exactly how did the NRA "insert" itself into the nomination process?  The process WAS affected by their efforts, but not directly... rather, the NRA advertised to *ordinary people* the scorecard of the candidates as viewed by the NRA, which then in turn affected the nomination process... by potentially swaying the minds of the people?Â
So by extension, your arguments against the NRA doing this would also require the curtailing of the mass media for doing the very same thing? Â For talk show hosts swaying the weak minded masses? Â For Hollywood elites for their tilting at political windmills?
Â
Where does your argument stop, I ask you?
 @Umhal "The group {NRA} had limited evidence to back up its claims that the two were opposed to gun rights . . . .
Â
Even some pro-gun rights lawmakers bristled at the NRA inserting itself into judicial confirmation battles.
Â
'I am a bit concerned that the NRA weighed in and said they were going to score this. I don't think that was appropriate,' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said at the time. 'A vote on a Supreme Court justice, in my mind, should be free from those political interest groups that are going to pressure you.'"
Â
Ahem.