NRA Gains More Power

U.S. Senate

19 of NRA-PVF's 25 endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won. This marks a pro-gun upgrade of eight Senate seats.

In the 111th Congress, there were 43 A-rated and 34 F-rated Senators. The 112th Congress will contain 50 A-rated (+7) and 33 F-rated Senators (-1).

There will be 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen.


U.S. House

Of the 262 candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF for the U.S. House, 225 were victorious, for an 85% winning percentage. In every case but one where an NRA-PVF endorsed candidate lost, a pro-gun challenger replaced him.

In the 111th Congress, there were 226 A-rated and 151 F-rated Representatives. The 112th Congress will contain 258 A-rated (+32) and 133 F-rated (- 18 ) Members.

There were pro-gun election upgrades in 27 House districts.


Gubernatorial & State Legislatures

Of the 21 gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the NRA-PVF, 15 were victorious. (Note: Two races remain too close to call.)

The NRA made major gains in state legislative races, which will well position them in the upcoming legislative sessions next year.

...considering the NRA has become a mostly right wing shilling organization.

They take no stand at all on gays, abortion, voting rights, taxes, etc. Since they take no stand on any other issue, how can you claim that they are RW shills?

They endorsed John Dingell, who is a liberal as they come on all the other issues, but A+ from the NRA.

then again, the DLC and it's congresscritters had a hardline stance against guns back them and had just passed the 1994 AWB. Perhaps that's why the NRA fought them. However, if you look at recent trends, in the past few election cycles the NRA has endorsed more and more democrats. I know for a few years Ohio had (until last week) NRA endorsed democrats. In fact, I think this 2010 election saw more dems than ever endorsed by the NRA. Not all dems are antigun and the NRA knows it... and they don't really care about anything other than guns.

The NRA-ILA might be a bit behind the times but the NRA proper is pretty fair with endorsements.

All of my Democratic candidates in the last election had high marks, except for one who had an F rating. Three of my Democratic candidates were the endorsed candidate by the NRA.

You can see my ballot in my signature line.

I would support national reciprocity for States whose requirements meet at least some sort of median stringency for issuing permits.

I wonder if Obama would sign it. Nearly 2/3 pro-2A majority exists in both houses.

And the NRA might be so kind as to raise Obama's letter grade to perhaps a C-.

For not making any anti-2A progress (and even having signed some pro-2A stuff) he's probably a solid D/D+ right now.

I believe ccw law is best kept at the state level.

Got it on paper somewhere?

Not trying to be confrontational, just pointing out that Civil Rights are not/should not be regional in scope and enforcement.

Most prohibitionists (alcohol, drugs, and the attempt with guns) seek to nationalize the issue so that uniform restrictions/prohibitions can be effected at one time across the nation, and the election of prohibitionists can be concentrated at one level. In a perfect world, I would support national reciprocity effected at the national level, but the dug-in gun prohis can (and will) take advantage of this. It may be wiser to develop a "model" state reciprocity law and let the states adopt such. I would prefer to let court cases pan out some more before depending on national reciprocity legislation.

sentiments as well. National reciprocity will never force the ccw issue on those states and districts which are never going to have shall issue ccw, those states however could force more restrictions on my state than it already has. I prefer to have state pacts as we now have, for the time being, with the distinct possibility of more states going the way of Alaska, Vermont and Arizona with no permit required...this would make reciprocity unnecessary.

could set license fees that would price the lower class out. The requirements could be gradually increased over time to the point that it would be difficult for the average citizen to find time to qualify.

You might end up with a country that has gun laws like New York City where the rich and famous, the connected and the celebrities can get permits to carry but the average citizen can not.

Considering his words in 2004-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

We already have a right to CCW anywhere in the country, but local states and cities are implicating illegal laws.

to be replaced by pro-gun Republicans (who suck on all the other issues).

Since the NRA always endorses the incumbent if he has a A grade with the group, that will have the effect of driving the NRA more into the GOP camp.

And here I thought the slow but steady decoupling of the NRA from the Republicans was a good idea Democrats could get

behind.

Only in this room would Republican pro 2A gains be celebrated.

There, all better now.

You don't seem to understand: Your actions and statements keep gun-control on life support, and give considerable comfort to the GOP. But maybe you do understand that, yet choose to place your own moral comfort ahead of progressive change.

Your 500 or 1000 posts in the guns forum have definitely defined you on this issue.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I distance myself from the factose-intolerant.

When it comes to the controllers, ego trumps intellectual curiosity, humility and integrity every time.

Ann Richards, then Democratic Governor of Texas, refused to sign the CCW bill in Texas. Bush, running against her, said he would sign the CCW bill, if he won, and did both. The rest is history.

Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, and as a result the Republicans took Congress in '94. The rest is History.

See what supporting Gun Control costs Democrats, and the country?

And wish she hadn't had that particular burr under her saddle.

:hippie:

Chief among them was her refusal to recommend Austin's famed Barton Creek (a pure, spring-fed creek which runs right into downtown, and is used by thousands for recreation) be put under federal protection, even when she first advocated such. It has been speculated that developer/speculators (some of whom were her supporters) didn't want the protection so they could build upstream, thereby threatening the quality of water. After some "federal government taking over" rhetoric by the GOPers, she backed down in front of her most ardent pro-environment supporters -- located mainly in Austin -- and withdrew Barton Creek protection proposals. After losing the election, she became for a time a lobbyist for -- you guessed it -- developers who wanted access to wet lands in other states. I guess she had by then accumulated some experience in that area.

CHL would have been a state-wide issue.

also painted her as gay. Don't know how many Texans bought that --- how many votes it would have cost her.

After reading their posts it seems like the elections were a major win for them

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6071

Obviously someone is not telling the truth or is carefully modifying the truth to promote their cause.

For some reason I suspect that the culprit is the Brady Campaign. They have a long history of lies and exaggerations.

Brady Web Site: http://www.bradycampaign.org/



From NRA:



When a Democrat with an "A" battles a Republican with an "A", the election will turn on other issues. RKBA becomes a tie in such a contest.

They Brady's and the NRA are using the same facts, but the Brady's are spinning. 27 Democrats with "A" and an endorsement did lose, but they lost to a Republican with an "A" rating. So an "A" lost to an "A". To make things look like a disaster for the NRA the Brady's talk only about Democratic Party losses, whereas the NRA talks about how many "A" rated people are elected. The Brady's are trying very hard to put lots of English on that cue ball, but the shot just isn't there. The NRA picked up lots of new "A" rated folks and 85% of their endorsements won. That kind of record generates respect in DC, so their lobbyists will be listened to more intently than before.

Yes, some gun-controllers did win their seats, but lots of others lost theirs. The Brady's ignore their losses and only talk about their wins. The NRA freely admits that some RKBA people did lose, but looks at the balance. The Brady's ignore the balance completely.

It has become a pan-Conservative organization.

...all other hot button issues. Please include sources.

Where they kinda came out against illegal immigration but it was in relation to a rancher who was killed by trafficantes in AZ.

I merely commented that they had taken a position on an non gun issue.

How does the fact that more pro rights politicians were elected translate into more power for the NRA?

More power for the NRA? Maybe, maybe not. PLenty of those that support pro gun politicians don't care about the NRA one way or the other.