Sometimes, it seems, there is a
tendency to ignore the realities on the ground in favor of colorful rhetoric
from afar. The recent passage of a raft of anti-gun measures here in Colorado,
and the across-the-board-defeat of a broad-range of new federal gun restrictions
in the U.S. Congress, are two prime examples.
Let’s revisit the political
landscape on guns over the past calendar year. Horrific stories of public
massacres in Aurora and Newtown filled the headlines. The mainstream broadcast
and print media were awash with stories of tragedy, scapegoating, and despair.
Grieving families demanded “action,” and the President spoke forcefully about
the need to enact a tougher gun control regime at his annual State-of-the-Union
address. Talking heads on both sides, including former Republican Congressman
(and MSNBC morning show host) Joe Scarborough, predicted the end of the gun
lobby’s influence, while professional anti-gun agitators (from groups like the Brady Campaign) bragged about “the
inevitable passage of new gun safety” measures.
And it didn’t just stop there.
Republican billionaire, and Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, got into
the action by launching a cynical nationwide television campaign that attempted
to divide gun owners amongst themselves (Bloomberg himself doesn’t really
believe in private gun ownership of any kind, so his campaign is a farce).
Recently-elected Senator Pat Toomey,
a darling of the economic-libertarian Right (and a favorite of the Club for Growth) joined West Virginia Democrat
Joe Manchin (who also had been recently elected to the U.S. Senate, in part,
because of his “strong pro-gun views”) to propose a “compromise” on background
checks. Even conservative direct-mail
powerhouse Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue, Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms, turned tail and switched sides. The average gun enthusiast couldn’t
help but thinking that it was all slipping away. Even formerly reliable pro-gun
voices were “going wobbly in the knees,” as a recently departed icon of British
conservatism once reminded our own Chief Executive.
Long-time proponents of a vast array
of new federal gun restrictions were truly “on the march,” and it seemed, in
political ascendency. The stars seemed to be aligned for a bi-partisan
abandonment of Second Amendment in the federal legislature.
And then, abruptly (and somewhat
anti-climatically) the tidal wave of restrictionist fervor was stopped cold in
its tracks, in front of the whole country. Cable news talking heads like Chris
Matthews and Lawrence O’Donnell were apoplectic, and gasping for answers.
Charles Schumer lowered his head in dismay. In the days since the vote, even
the oft-repeated public polling numbers on new gun restrictions has begun to
swing back the other way.
So what led to this surprising turn
of events, and who stemmed the tide? It’s quite simple. It was stopped by the
organization that everyone (including some in the larger “gun lobby”) had
written off as antiquated and ineffective. An organization that had been
repeatedly accused of being either “too uncompromising” or “too quick to
compromise” by its critics; the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA).
In a series of
beautifully-orchestrated, and precisely-timed, tactical maneuvers (admittedly
over the course of several weeks) NRA-ILA’s
talented lobbying team (spearheaded by unsung heroes like Chris Cox and Senior
Federal Lobbyist Jeff Freeman) laid the
legislative groundwork that not only stopped the Feinstein Ban on so-called “assault rifles” (a completely
inaccurate term, in and of itself) and new restrictions on high-capacity
magazines, but also any new restrictions on private party transfers (that were
the basis of the vaunted Toomey-Manchin sell-out).
In other words, every single anti-gun measure in the U.S. Senate under serious
consideration, was either tabled, or defeated, on the Senate floor.
NRA-ILA’s legislative victory stands
in sharp contrast to what happened here in Colorado in March, where a flood a
draconian gun control bills sailed through the Colorado legislature, and
swiftly were signed into law by the Governor. So, how did two legislative
battles so similar in substance, have such markedly different outcomes?
One could sum it up in two words;
Dudley Brown.
After nearly two decades of
self-proclaimed dominance of the gun rights movement here in Colorado, Dudley
Brown, and the groups he founded (Rocky
Mountain Gun Owners and the National
Association for Gun Rights) couldn’t put a dent in the anti-gun juggernaut
in his own backyard. Which begs the question; just how effective is Mr. Brown
(and his two Colorado-based gun groups) at stopping any gun control measures in
Colorado, or at helping to elect pro-gun candidates of either party to the
Colorado legislature?
It’s been a rough couple of years
for Mr. Brown. First Mr. Brown’s organizational competence came into question
when news reports surfaced that the “uncompromising” gun-rights group he
founded, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, hadn’t
filed their federal income tax returns for at least three years. Mr. Brown
blamed the lack of lawful compliance on a “computer crash,” and evaded
responsibility, even though he had been at the organization’s helm for nearly
two decades. More recently, Brown was named a defendant in a federal lawsuit
regarding misleading direct mail campaigns (from the East Coast) he allegedly
orchestrated and paid for, having nothing to do with the gun rights movement.
But more on that later.
As if that wasn’t enough, recent new
reports have surfaced that Mr. Brown has been misrepresenting his academic
credentials (perhaps, for many years). Come to find out that the “B.A. from
Colorado State University,” is a complete fabrication. Mr. Brown actually never
graduated with any degree, from any college or university (attending college is
not the same as holding a degree from a college).
Once again, instead of standing
tall, and accepting personal responsibility, he chose to blame others for his
own actions. When asked to respond, Mr. Brown claimed that not only had he “not
written” his own bio, but even more incredibly, that he had never actually read his own bio on the groups’
website. He failed to mention that the same false claims had been
“un-corrected” on his Wikipedia
profile, and in written RMGO materials,
for years.
But gun activists in Colorado
haven’t just been let down by Mr. Brown’s managerial incompetence and ethical
gaffes. Lately, his political tactics and legislative strategy have also come
into question. The evidence, in part, comes not only from his poor personal
reputation in legislative circles (perhaps due to a striking deficit in what
experts call emotional intelligence),
but also from how Mr. Brown spends his groups’ grassroots financial
contributions.
RMGO’s expenditures
during the 2012 election cycle (and many other cycles as well), tell the tale.
How much did RMGO spend attacking
anti-gun Democrats? The answer is, very
little.
None of it made very much sense to
me over the years, until now.
Thanks to recently released emails
(uncovered during the federal lawsuit discovery process) between Brown and his
third-party direct mail groups in the D.C. Beltway, we know a little more about
where Brown has been directing RMGO’s
money, time, and energy over the years. Here’s a hint: it hasn’t been spent
defending the Second Amendment.
Apparently, Mr. Brown has been (for
many years) using third-party “front groups” that claim to represent hot-button
social issues (like abortion and gay marriage), but in reality, are little more than direct mail operations designed to
“punish” Mr. Brown’s opponents. When voters receive these last-minute attack
mailers they get the impression that the candidate in question (whichever
candidate Mr. Brown opposes at the time) are also opposed by a “wide spectrum”
of other conservative groups. The mailers are often completely false, as with
my own legislative race, where Dudley’s Beltway
minions sent pieces that claimed that I was pro-gay rights and “soft” on
Pro-Life issues. Anyone that knows me, knows these claims are laughable. But by
then, the damage has been done.
I use the term front group intentionally because there is little evidence these
groups do anything except serve as a sort of “ideological back channel,” for
operators like Brown. These
“groups” have no real influence of their own (at either the state or federal
level), they produce no publications of any substance (either in the policy or
legislative arena), and their money (and direction) comes primarily from other
conservative groups seeking to use them as “cover” for their electioneering
(excuse me “voter education”) activities.
One wonders what long-time RMGO members, some of whom could care
less about such hot-button social issues, might think about their money being
diverted away from the defense of the Second
Amendment. And more importantly, might his side-job (as defender of
conservative social values) explain why he has so little influence in the
Colorado legislature on the gun issue?
Many
conservative leaders are beginning, for the first time, to question his
leadership. So much so that RMGO has
actually made a plea to supporters on YouTube
saying that they will “target anti-gun Democrats in the 2014
elections.” Huh? Why wasn’t this RMGO’s strategy in 2012 in state
legislative races or in 2010 when the Governorship was lost? Or the ten election cycles before that?
While NRA-ILA was busy demolishing
perhaps the biggest legislative assault on gun rights in two decades at the federal
level, Dudley Brown’s “extra-curricular activities” had been laying the
groundwork for substantial setbacks to the gun rights movement in Colorado.
While Dudley Brown was accusing NRA-ILA of “selling us out,” NRA-ILA was busy fighting tooth and nail
in the legislative trenches, where it distinguished itself with class, poise,
and a single-minded determination.
NRA-ILA produced a substantial
defensive victory, when the odds were heavily stacked against them, while Brown
failed to stop any of the major gun control bills this spring in a state where
he has been dominant for two decades. Measurable results versus hollow
rhetoric.
These are dangerous times for
supporters of the Second Amendment,
both in Colorado, and across the nation. The next time you hear criticism of
the National Rifle Association, by people on your own side, ask yourself one
question; what is the actual record of victories and defeats between NRA-ILA and self-styled “no compromise”
activists like Dudley Brown? The answer is, it’s not even close.
Jeffrey Hare is a successful small
businessman, life-long gun owner, and member of the Weld County Council. Hare
lives with his wife of 20 years, and three children in Greeley, Colorado. He
was not endorsed, or supported, by NRA-ILA in his 2012 legislative race.
###
press contact:
jeffreythare@gmail.com
