On Target – NRA supports Filibuster Rules
John J. Cahill
May 14, 2005
The National Rifle Association does not support the “nuclear option”. I won’t name the direct source inside the NRA who sent me that statement. I didn’t make contact as a reporter, so naming a source would be inappropriate. But it’s a fact and some web research will confirm this information. The NRA does not want to lose judicial filibusters.
Some genuine conservative groups and authors have pointed out risks involved with changes in the filibuster rule. George Will, the Gun Owners of America, and CATO author David Boaz, have offered facts and opinions that the filibuster should not be changed. The GOA cited history that the filibuster has been used by them to stop anti-gun rights legislation. So, Republicans have been assuring conservatives that only the judicial filibusters will be eliminated, and to further allay fears have said they may only eliminate appellate court judicial filibuster. But doesn’t this sounds suspiciously like the language liberals use saying they only want to ban certain guns? Where do any limitations on minority rights start or stop being acceptable?
The NRA has made no statement for or against the “nuclear option”. It has tried to please conservatives by posting news updates that are exclusively anti-filibuster and have posted no reference to conservative groups or authors that oppose the change in filibuster rules. The NRA has tried to salve Democrats by pointing out that they have not come out in support of any filibuster rule change. Republicans are disappointed with the NRA position and Democrats are frustrated that the NRA won’t tell its membership the truth about its filibuster position. NRA members who don’t see the short and long-term big picture in D.C. politics and lobbying don’t understand any of it, and get no benefit from the insider wisdom their organization really should share.
But now they have heard it right here, NRA members should be proud their association is not caving in to the emotions of the moment and is supporting a process that will allow the future filibuster of an anti-rights, anti-gun judicial nominee, and by so doing is reaffirming the traditional filibuster rule that has and will be used to stop nonsense legislation like gun bans. Banning the filibuster would ban a weapon that gun owners will need to protect their rights in the future.
Some genuine conservative groups and authors have pointed out risks involved with changes in the filibuster rule. George Will, the Gun Owners of America, and CATO author David Boaz, have offered facts and opinions that the filibuster should not be changed. The GOA cited history that the filibuster has been used by them to stop anti-gun rights legislation. So, Republicans have been assuring conservatives that only the judicial filibusters will be eliminated, and to further allay fears have said they may only eliminate appellate court judicial filibuster. But doesn’t this sounds suspiciously like the language liberals use saying they only want to ban certain guns? Where do any limitations on minority rights start or stop being acceptable?
The NRA has made no statement for or against the “nuclear option”. It has tried to please conservatives by posting news updates that are exclusively anti-filibuster and have posted no reference to conservative groups or authors that oppose the change in filibuster rules. The NRA has tried to salve Democrats by pointing out that they have not come out in support of any filibuster rule change. Republicans are disappointed with the NRA position and Democrats are frustrated that the NRA won’t tell its membership the truth about its filibuster position. NRA members who don’t see the short and long-term big picture in D.C. politics and lobbying don’t understand any of it, and get no benefit from the insider wisdom their organization really should share.
But now they have heard it right here, NRA members should be proud their association is not caving in to the emotions of the moment and is supporting a process that will allow the future filibuster of an anti-rights, anti-gun judicial nominee, and by so doing is reaffirming the traditional filibuster rule that has and will be used to stop nonsense legislation like gun bans. Banning the filibuster would ban a weapon that gun owners will need to protect their rights in the future.
Print
Email
