Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: [w--li--s] at [bigsow.enet.dec.com] (Bryan H. Williams)
Subject: Re: NRA-ILA Sellout in Virginia
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 00:32:40 GMT
This was posted to the firearms-politics mailing list in response to the
original posting by John De Armond and responses to that posting. Bear in
mind that some of the issues addressed here came up in that forum and not
this one, so parts may sound unfamiliar.
Regards,
Bryan
Fellow Activists,
I have been digging around, talking to people, including Bill Stump, Chuck
Cunningham, and a few NRA BoD members. I have some documents in my possession,
and some more are supposed to be on their way. I'm posting what information I
have found out about this situation, and I hope you will take this with the
spirit it is intended.
I know I'm butting in another state's affairs, but this kind of controversy
and bickering among ourselves really needs to stop.
First, the allegations made in the Firearms-politics forum by Bill Stump/John
De Armond (quoting liberally and paraphrasing to save space):
1) The information originated from Bill Stump, a gun rights activist who is
organizing a CSG-style organization in Virginia.
I spoke with Bill Stump for about 40 minutes. Nicest guy you'd want to
talk to. But, he is no activist (at least as I would define one). He's
never heard of "Gun Week", or the Second Amendment Foundation/CCRKBA,
he is a member of GOA, and he's pretty unfamiliar with how the
legislative process works, and how the political process works, and the
differences. He's definitely got lots of potential, and IMO, needs to
be included in the CSA. Dave, Tom, you need to get ahold of this guy.
I also can tell you that part of this guys problem with the NRA revolves
the confusion that took place over the Allen endorsement, the
endorsement of Allen by an anti-gun DA (Richard Cullen, former US Atty)
and the flak that caused, and some early Allen campaign literature on
"Crime and Guns." He took it upon himself to hand out a copy of this
early literature to everyone with an orange hat (CSV?) at the
convention, and was more than a little contentious with the NRA people
at the convention. This was his first sojourn into the political arena.
BTW, Bill Stump is also planning on voting for the LaRouche candidate.
1a) Elsewhere in this package is a letter from Thomas W. Evans to Bill Stump
telling him in effect to stop the crusade against Charles Cunningham because
the situation is too complicated for him (Bill) to understand.
I have in my possession a letter from Chuck Cunningham to Bill Stump
dated March 29. The whole situation with the gun bills was explained in
detail. I am told that the letter from Evans to Stump has a date on it
after he (Stump) had explained to him (by the NRA) what the situation
was and he (Stump) continued to beat up the NRA.
Politics and Legislative processes CAN get very complicated. Does anyone
here doubt that? They can be understood by anyone who takes the time
to talk to the principals and research the facts.
2) The NRA, through Mr. Charles Cunningham, NRA-ILA VA state liaison, twisted
arms to get this measure (HB 2273, allegedly adding the Striker 12 and the
Streetsweeper to the list of VA's list of banned guns) passed 97-1 in the
House of Delegates (opposite the senate in Va.) and with a similar margin in
the Senate.
Dave Barton has already touched on this, but I'll include here the text
of the letter sent from Chuck Cunningham to Bill Stump. It contains alot
of information, and mostly speaks for itself. (posted with permission)
Monday, March 29, 1993
Dear Mr Stump:
Thank you very much for the courtesy of sending me a copy of your letter of
March 19.
Obviously, there has been some confusion. *At no time did I ask a Virginia
Legislator, pro-gun or otherwise, to vote for or in any way support House Bill
2273 or any other legislation banning any firearms.* To the contrary, I
repeatedly stated, both in committee testimony and personal conversations, that
the NRA strongly opposed legislation (H.B. 2273 in particular) banning
firearms. In fact, I consistently made the point that upon passage of Senate
Bill 858 (introduced at my request by Senator Virgil H. Goode, Jr. of Rocky
Mount) both machine guns and "sawed-off" rifles and shotguns would be legal (if
in compliance with federal law) while H.B. 2273 would ban simple possession of
a twelve-gauge shotgun in Virginia.
After discussing H.B. 2273 with many legislators, both in the Senate and in
the House of Delegates, it became apparent that most legislators, including
many with a previously strong pro-gun record, intended to vote for H.B. 2273 to
ban the so-called "Streetsweeper."
At that point, I worked on "damage control" to reduce the effect of the
legislation. Delegate Arthur R. "Pete" Gibsen, Jr. of Waynesboro offered an
amendment on February 9 on the floor of the House of Delegates to delete
language relating to the Intratec Tec-9 or any firearm "of like kind." That
amendment passed by of 54-43 vote. The Senate Courts of Justice
Committee then restored the deleted language and the Senate accepted that
committee substitute by a 25-14 vote on February 24. The following day, the
House of Delegates refused to concur with the Senate amendment by a narrow
46-52 vote. Finally, on February 26, the Senate receded from its amendment by a
narrow 21-18 vote. We fully expect Wilder to amend HB 2273 during the veto
session on April 7 by restoring language adding at least the Tec-9.
In our telephone conversation, apparently on February 22, I did not say that
I asked pro-gun delegates to vote for HB 2273 to get the bill off the floor to
prevent other guns (from) being added to the list through amendments. After
all, the defeat of HB 2273 itself would have accomplished that purpose.
My role in Richmond is most certainly not to help *pass* gun control
legislation, much less encourage our supporters in the Virginal General
Assembly to vote *for* gun ban legislation. I do the best job I can to
*defeat*, not water down, gun control legislation. When that effort fails, then
I do everything possible to reduce the effects of such legislation. The votes
on April 7 will determine whether or not that effort on HB 2273 succeeds. The
votes on HB 2273 were very close in both houses before and probably will be
that day as well.
Once again, I appreciate your courtesy in sending me a copy of your letter.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Cunningham
Virginia State Liaison
CC: Delegate Thomas G. Baker, Jr
H. Kirby Burch
I can also offer some insight of the NRA strategy behind this particular
bill. Time was running out, in the last session of this committee, not
enough votes to table. The Progun reps intentionally tried to load up
the bill with a semi-auto ban so that the bill would die of it's own
weight. This same tactic was used in the Congress with the last
so-called Crime bill. Now, someone who looks at JUST the votes would
come up with an A+ rep voting for a semi-auto ban!
The House voted 97-2 for this bill. One of them is Tayloe Murphy, who
voted against the bill because it wasn't "bad" (meaning broad) enough.
The other was Andy Guest, who voted for the Republican version of the
gun-a-month bill. Bill Stump believes that the only two friends the NRA
has in the House were these two. Last year's bill (an amendment) to put
2 handguns per month, dealers only, was defeated 67-31 (1992). (2-1)
Twelve months later, the same body (no election) voted 59-41 for 1 gun
a month, all transfers. Can everyone see that the political ground has
shifted significantly here? To me, it's amazing VA didn't lose more than
just the Streetsweeper.
The really bad language in this bill was the phrase "or like kind." It
was a disguised semi-auto ban. Given the "nose count" by both Cunningham
and our friends in the legislature, it was clear that what the reps
wanted to vote for was a ban on the Streetsweeper, but didn't much care
for the rest. The strategy after determining that the bill would pass
in some form was to limit the damage. It seems to me that this was done.
3) In a letter from Del. Thomas Baker Jr (VA 7th district, NRA rated A+), he
says that he voted for HB2273 because ... Charles Cunningham gave it his
blessing.
I have this letter, it doesn't say this. It says, "Given the tone of
your letter, it is apparent that no explanation from me would be
satisfactory. With that in mind, I have asked Charles Cunningham, of
the NRA, to speak with you about your inquiries." The tone of Stump's
letter to Del Baker was pretty extreme.
4) A hand-written note that says Mike Farris, who won the nomination for Lt
Governor on June 5th, was refused money from NRA-ILA but donated $50,000 to
his opponent.
Dave Barton responded:
Farris, George Allen, and Jim Gilmore all won nomination; all are very
staunch pro-gun politicians (unlike Mims). I have no knowledge about any
contribution from the NRA to Farris one way or the other. I *know* they
made a very substantial contribution to the Allen campaign because they did
it through the Commonwealth Sportsmen's Alliance. The CSA also made
contributions to the Farris campaign; I don't know if any of the NRA money
went to him directly.
George Allen got $25,000. Mike Farris got no direct contribution, but
got a targeted mailing sent to the delegates who were NRA members.
Jim Gilmore was also endorsed in this mailing. The NRA-PVF gave no
contributions to any Lt Gov Candidate or AG candidate.
4) Chuck Cunningham was "the person who cut the deal for the MD Handgun roster
board."
Chuck Cunningham was the ILA Rep to MD at the time, and he says that
the NRA had nothing to do with any deal for the MD Handgun Roster
board. You'll have to provide more information about this (i.e. prove
your assertion).
Are you aware that Chuck Cunningham was the ILA rep that pushed for and
got a state preemption law, and a Hunter Harassment law in Maryland?
Are you also aware that the only thing that has been standing between
Maryland and an assault weapons bill is State Senator Walter M. Baker
from the Eastern shore, chairman of the Md Senate Judicial Proceedings
Committee (Judiciary) who is expected to not seek reelection in 1994?
Also, do you believe that if Chuck Cunningham WAS responsible for the
handgun law, do you think that the then-4 year ILA rep wouldn't have
been expendable when the NRA spent over $7 million to defeat this law
by referendum? This allegation defies logic.
5) ILA replaced Cunningham with Jeff Rabon.
ILA has hired 2 more liaisons and has shuffled the areas around. Chuck
has a smaller area to cover, as do most of the reps. There is no
connection between the events in VA and his replacement. Chuck retains
his position as Deputy Director of ILA State and Local affairs.
6) From the above [allegations], there isn't any doubt that the NRA doesn't
effectively represent our interests.
I have considerable doubt that this statement has a factual basis. I do
not believe the statements of well intentioned but uninformed pro-gun
people cinch a blanket condemnation of the job the NRA is doing.
From Karl Kleinpaste:
7) Cunningham was also the NRA mouthpiece at the May 1989 Columbus, OH
20K-person rally...
True. but 20k may have been what the police estimated, since they
get paid based on estimated attendance. more like 7-8k? Wasn't this
rally held on a weekend when the legislature wasn't in session? What
was the *real* effect of this rally on the average "man-on-the-
street"?
8) ... who vowed "no compromise" sorts of words at the rally proper, but then
turned around the following Monday and refused to support efforts to block or
repeal the new Columbus AR ban.
Larry Cipriani added:
If there is a good reason why ILA didn't back the suit against the
Columbus AR ban I have yet to see it. ILA tries to maximize "wins", and
for some reason they think they Cleveland ban is more winable, and if that
is overturned the Columbus ban will be overturned as a side effect. We'll
see if that works when the OH Supreme court hands down their opinion for
the Cleveland AR ban lawsuit this fall.
True, he said "No compromise."
The people in Columbus hired their own attorney, a good one, too,
against the advice of the NRA General Counsel. This Atty made several
fatal mistakes, including failing to have certain evidence included
in the original trial so the evidence couldn't be considered on
appeal, and then he FAILED TO APPEAR for the appeal! If they had
pressed the appeal to the Ohio Supreme court, it probably would have
lost, miserably, and affected the chances of the other two cases.
Here is a case where it MAKES SENSE to drop the issue in favor of
a better battleground.
Even so, the ILA Liaison has basically an advisory role to the NRA
Lawyers, and the NRA Lawyers are the ones who decided it would be best
to drop the Columbus suit. Cunningham had nothing to do with this
decision.
9) Attempts to get the NRA-ILA interested in this forum have been abjectly
dismissed. "If they want to complain that it's irrelevant to them -- which
they have done -- fine and fair enough, but one cannot then complain as
well that they're somehow inaccessible.
I'm the one who complained that SINCE they don't have access, it isn't
fair to jump to conclusions based on an attack on an individual who has
no means of defending himself directly. I said later that we should
hold on until we can get some details from the parties involved. I've
tried to do that. I hope we can all get to the bottom of this.
Some background:
When I started getting really involved with the internals of pro-gun
activism(4-5 years ago), I found a group of NRA-ILA people who had
just been screwed by a major computer foulup (millions of dollars
invested), and who were themselves, computer illiterate. They (all of
NRA, not just ILA) had been lead down the proverbial garden path for
YEARS, costing MILLIONS. Now here comes a computer hot-shot (a couple
of us actually) suggesting that they connect to these lists/groups.
First answer: no way. "We can't even afford the computer you say you
need for access, let alone the time for someone to wade through the
information." ILA at the time owned 1 PC, a 386/20 with 2 MB of memory
(I think) that was used primarily to track elections and write letters.
They had a large IBM mainframe that tracked all the politicians,
votes, etc, as well as other NRA functions.
Four + years ago, the NRA membership elected the first Neal Knox slate
to the board (I think I have this straight) and the reforms started.
Dick Riley became or was re-elected the NRA President, and Cassidy was
EVP. (I think these dates are right. They are in the right sequence,
but I'd need to sit down with my tax calendars to see when all this
actually happened) If you remember, Cassidy and LaPierre (head of ILA
at the time) were in a constant tug-of-war. The Cassidy faction still
had control over the board, but their control was losing it's grip..
All during the late 70's and most of the 80's, ILA was underfunded,
understaffed, and under supported by the board. As we know, much of
that has changed, and some things change slowly.
To the point, I have told them, and several others familiar with what
happens here and in T.P.G, that it is NOT worth their time to monitor
the net lists. They are still spread too thinly across the states, and
the time it would to separate the "signal" from the "noise" is simply
not cost effective for them. Some take "good" information from here
and t.p.g and forward to them. I know I'm not the only one who does
this.
We are currently working on getting them "send-only" access so at
least ILA and the Grassroots office can alert us quickly to something,
and communicate with email. We'll see if this gets very far...
On top of all this, there is an internal power struggle on the NRA BoD
over the issue of computers in the grass roots. Like any computer
people (that I've met, anyway), they are bigoted towards their pet
paradigm of which computers to use, which operating system, which BBS
system, etc. I'm bigoted towards VMS, but I can be convinced to work
with U*ix. Others are PC ("toy") hackers and use convincing arguments
that Fido should be the way to go, or Wildcat. Still others believe
that VM is the way to go, after all, "no one ever loses their job by
going with big blue."
10) If you're worried about Usenet's talk.politics.guns...well, if they cared
-- and they might well not -- they _could_ have gotten access any number of
ways and places in the last several years.
Again, they are not that interested just now, and after seeing their
operation, I think that's the right decision FOR THEM.
You do have at least one member of the NRA BoD that reads here, and
several others that get paper copies of interesting stuff. ILA gets
some stuff too, just not directly.
Tom (sorry, I don't know your last name) writes:
11) They do have access [to this forum], and it is worth their while to read
[it].
See answers to 9 and 10.
13) Cunningham lied to me on several occasions, all pertaining to the
same Va. bill that the Delegate with which I work and I were constructing.
When I complained to ILA, he lied to J.J. Baker, who then repeated the lie
to me, in a personally signed letter.
I think I can answer this, probably not to your complete satisfaction,
but I'll need your permission, since it includes some confidential
communications we've had.
[S--U--E] at [venus.iucf.indiana.edu] writes:
14) We haven't see much of [Chuck Cunningham] in Indiana.
Chuck was in Indiana several times this year to push for passage of
the state preemption law. In the end, the bill died because of a
procedural tactic by an anti (SB 241). There were about a dozen
anti-gun amendments that were defeated to this bill (semi-auto ban,
waiting period on rifles and shotguns, mandatory storage requirements,
etc).
If you want to talk to someone who knows Chuck and knows what he did
for Indiana gun owners and sportsmen this year, contact Bud Gates,
chairman of Indiana Sportsman's Roundtable.
Harrison Q. "Bud" Gates
1365 Lincoln Hill Road
Martinsville, In 46151-8831
(317) 342-6912
15) Most of the lobbying at the state level here is done by members of our gun
club.
There are different kinds of lobbying. Can you clarify what you mean?
What gun club are you in and are they active with the Ind Sportsmens
Roundtable?
16) It makes no sense to have this guy cover the states that he does.
I agree completely. I think ILA is still underfunded. They probably
get about 50% of what they need to do the job adequately (note, not
"well"), and this doesn't include the PVF or the Legal Defense Fund.
C. D. Tavares writes:
17) There ARE no "NRA representatives who use CompuServe."
The OUTDOORS Forum participants tried to get the NRA to establish a
formal presence there and were roundly told by Mr. Baker to stuff
it. The NRA is putting all its eggs into Gun-Talk, and that's all
they wrote. In fact, the NRA asked the OUTDOORS people to take the
name "NRA" off the "NRA / SRA" topic section.
I have asked for more information on this.
Larry Cipriani:
17) ...Everything I have seen of Cunningham in action tells me he
is ineffective.
What I see is man, with human frailties that we all have (some more
than others) who is spread too thin, but has his heart in this fight.
You only work at the NRA if you REALLY want to: the pay is better just
about everywhere else, the hours are better, and the issues are much
easier to deal with, the BoD usually stands behind you, and there is
always room to compromise. Not so at the NRA...
I see a man who has worked for ILA for 9+ years, and has accumulated
over 3000 hours of comp time that he will probably never get to take,
or get paid for. Despite the low pay, this man is a Benefactor member.
I see a man who, while his wife was due any day with their first born,
was in New Hampshire grading 800+ candidate questionnaires with us,
late into the night. He made it home with a day to spare.
I see an organization that must pick it's battles and use scarce
resources as best it can. I see an organization that takes hits for
things that are out of it's control. For example, the MG ban, happened
in the closing moments of the debate on the FOPA, and some of the
Machinegunners blame the NRA for pushing the discharge petition. The
NRA gets blamed for a lack of a roll call vote. They had no control
over this.
I see an organization that is the last major stumbling block for those
who would take away our freedom, and who has, on many occasions, saved
the day or advanced our cause. I see an evil counterpart organization
who would like nothing better that to see the destruction of the power
of the NRA.
I also see a group of individuals, linked by commeradie and computers,
their hearts and minds definitely in the battle, in the right place,
all active in their area to some extent. I see that some of these
individuals, dedicated though they might be, can forget the gains we
have made while commiserating over a loss, and can forget those
immortal words, "We must all hang together, or surely, we will all
hang separately."
I see a situation where it's important to find out the facts before
badmouthing someone publicly, particularly someone who is on our side.
Everyone is subject to criticism, and everybody makes mistakes. I
believe the ILA people take their best shots.
I invite comments, criticism, and rebuttal, but let's try to be constructive.
More as it happens,
Bryan