In the heath care debate, the NRA successfully lobbied to ban insurance companies from charging higher premiums to people who keep guns in their homes, despite the obvious, um, health risks. In the campaign finance debate, the NRA successfully bore a loophole so wide in the DISCLOSE Act (a measure passed by the House intended to force groups active in political spending to disclose their financial donors) that it exempted many large nonprofit organizations, including the NRA. And in the financial reform debate, the NRA successfully tacked on some language to a bill restricting credit card lenders that allowed people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

The list goes on. The reason for the group’s bullishness, according to the Times, has to do with the courts:

The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the courts, Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme Court ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand into other areas.

When the N.R.A. had a narrower range of targets, it relied on a core group of political figures and met with stiffer resistance from vocal gun control advocates in Congress and outside groups. It now has freer rein to leave its mark politically on issues that once seemed out of its reach.

Politico also had a story yesterday that argues that right-wing groups are almost as angry at the NRA as left-wing gun control advocates. It claims conservatives are fuming over the NRA’s consideration of an endorsement of the gun-friendly Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and for agreeing “to play ball” with Democrats on campaign finance legislation. On the whole, however, I’d say gun control advocates are still winning in the “reasons to be angry” competition.

Last week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a bill allowing gun owners in his state to carry firearms into houses of worship. Just days earlier, the Supreme Court extended federal gun rights provisions to city and state governments. And last summer, Arizona legislators voted to allow handguns in bars and President Obama signed a bill permitting firearms in national parks.

[Congress1] Despite fears on the right that Obama would trample the Second Amendment and take people’s guns, his presidency has so far been marked by a string of pro-gun victories and a reinvigorated gun advocacy movement — the result of a Democratic leadership that has proven unwilling to take on powerful firearm interests.

“It’s been very clear that there’s a solid pro-gun, pro-NRA majority on the floor of Congress, and you can’t do anything against it,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a gun control advocate who has received an “F” grade from the National Rifle Association, told TWI. “And that’s the entire Republican Party and a fraction of the Democratic Party, which is a majority.”

The proliferation of pro-gun measures under President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress reflects the party’s learned reticence on the issue. Democrats remain haunted by memories of 1994, when gun control advocacy by President Bill Clinton led the pro-gun lobby to wage fierce campaigns that ousted several lawmakers aligned with the cause.

“Democrats learned a substantial lesson in 1994, and no anti-gun measures are ever going to come forth in this Congress,” said Don Kates, a lawyer and criminal law expert at the Pacific Research Institute.

The NRA, the leading gun rights group and one of Washington’s most formidable lobbies, has forcefully staked out its territory in Congress. Last month, Democrats, fearing an NRA backlash on a campaign finance measure, carved out what was widely considered a special exemption for the group. Subsequently, the NRA dropped its opposition, and the measure passed the House.

“Some people are so terrified of the NRA vote score that they’ll vote for anything the NRA says to vote for and against anything they say to vote against,” Nadler said. “It’s unfortunate in the extreme.”

In the last 20 years, the NRA and other pro-gun groups have outspent gun-control advocates by over 20-to-1 on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Some gun control advocates expected more from this president. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama threw his weight behind various regulatory measures. He backed a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and voted to limit handgun purchases to one a month per person.

But Obama notably distanced himself from the cause during the 2008 election, proclaiming his commitment to the gun rights. “I believe in the Second Amendment,” he said. “I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

One year into his presidency, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama an “F” across the board on gun control issues. The Chicago Tribune joked the following month that “[o]n the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.”

As a result, gun rights advocates remain about as unimpeded in their cause today as during the Bush administration.

“The political climate hasn’t changed a lot,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “If you look back at when Republicans had control of government before 2006, you pretty much saw the same picture.”

“We were hoping for Obama to take a more forceful position in terms of gun violence prevention,” Everitt added, positing that Democrats have backed away due to pressure from the NRA, conservatives in the party, the disproportionate number of single-issue gun voters and the force of industry behind the gun rights cause.

“Gun rights organizations like the NRA saw President Obama’s history as being one of anti-gun owners’ rights,” said Bob Cottrol, a constitutional lawyer and gun law expert at George Washington University, “though that hasn’t been the case so far in his presidency.” But that perception, he said, led to an early and ongoing backlash among passionate gun owners that has furthered the pro-gun cause under Obama.

Kates put it more succinctly: “Historically, Democrats being in power has been a godsend for the finances of pro-gun groups.”

But according to David Kopel, a Second Amendment expert at New York University and gun rights advocate, Obama is subtly doing more to stem the gun movement than Bush. Kopel points out that Bush’s Supreme Court appointees, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, have been more pro-gun than Obama’s appointee Sonia Sotomayor, who voted on the losing side of the recent 5-4 McDonnell v. Chicago case, which limited the types of gun control regulations cities and states can adopt.

“Sotomayor said she considered [the 2008] Heller [ruling] to be settled law, that she knew how important the individual right to arms was, and then less than a year later she turned around and joined an opinion that said Heller should be overturned,” Kopel said.

But the replacements of two left-leaning justices with two other left-leaning justices — Sotomayor and, if confirmed, Elena Kagan — represents more of a status-quo perpetuation than a victory for gun control advocates.

Obama’s reluctance to take up gun control as president, after aligning himself with it for most of his career, signals an increasingly toxic national political climate for the cause and reflects the Democratic Party’s shift.

“I’d say President Obama has been politically astute in not following the Bill Clinton policy of trying to make gun control a top-three national issue,” Kopel said.

Added Kates of the Pacific Research Institute: “Generally speaking, gun control advocates have other ambitions, other objectives, and for now they’re willing to drop their anti-gun concerns in exchange for not being defeated in other matters.”

Her views on the two cases — District of Columbia v. Heller and the more recent McDonald v. City of Chicago — came during Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) 30-minute question session. She declined to give her personal views on the Second Amendment, which gun rights proponents believe ensures a right to bear arms, but insisted the two cases were “good precedent going forward.”

“I will follow stare decisis with regard to Heller and McDonald, as I would in any case,” she said.

And, as evidenced by an email (after the jump) recently sent out by a Tampa 9.12 Project organizer, they also hold family raffles where the prize is a handgun and a box of 9 millimeter shells. (Second prize is a copy of “Opus Americana,” the trailer for which exemplifies the Tea Party’s amusing love for overly dramatic string arrangements.)

Don’t own a Springfield Armory model 1911-A1? Here’s your chance, plus fun for the whole patriotic family:

Dear Tampa 912 Member, Please join us at the Alfano Conference and Banquet Center on Tuesday, June 29th at 6:30 pm for a meet & greet and 7pm for the General Member Meeting.

LAST CHANCE TO BUY RAFFLE TICKETS FROM FAMILY FIREARMS!!!

7:00 Will Weatherford, State Representative in District 61 will discuss the re-districting constitutional amendments that will be on the ballot in November.

8:00 – FAMILY FIREARMS RAFFLE -SPRINGFIELD ARMORY MODEL 1911-A1 and a box of 9mm’s from Lime Valley Ammo -2nd Prize is a beautifully bounded Opus Americana Book

It seems the NRA is satisfied — here’s a statement it just sent out:

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak.  We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

“The NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill,” it can be inferred, is the organization’s way of saying that it won’t unleash its war chest and lobbying force against the bill as long as it remains exempt from the disclosure provision.

Video after the jump:

“This just in — a poll conducted on a handful of Cubans by The Castro polling group finds that democracy is bad,” one commenter wrote.

Fair enough.

Yesterday, Rasmussen — a conservative polling shop — released the results of a similar survey. Strangely enough, they came up with similar numbers.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Adults are at least somewhat concerned about their safety in the presence of those who have “concealed carry” gun permits. Fifty-eight percent (58%) don’t share that concern.

But 47% oppose so-called “open carry” laws that would allow citizens to openly wear their guns in public. Forty-one percent (41%) favor laws. Several states are currently wrestling with this issue.

Comments?

“Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists, should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.”

The key results:

• Fifty-two percent oppose allowing people in general, not just those connected to law enforcement, to carry loaded guns openly in public;

• Fifty percent feel less safe knowing that people not connected to law enforcement can carry guns in public, while 38 percent feel more safe.

• Fifty-one percent said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier for people to carry loaded guns in public, compared to 27 percent who were more likely to support such a candidate. Fully 63 percent of women said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who loosens laws on carrying guns in public.

The numbers are based on a survey of 600 registered voters in late April. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling firm.

Here, for example, is a video of Alabama militiaman Mike Vanderboegh telling reporters that there will be “consequences” if policymakers try to restrict gun rights.

Vanderboegh: I’m calling on the government to understand that there are going to be consequences to pushing people like us any farther back.

Questioner: More Ruby Ridges? More Wacos?

Vanderboegh: Precisely.

From comments like that, you’d think that the House was about to tighten D.C.’s gun laws, rather than gutting them.

You might remember that the proposal came as close as it’s ever come last year, passing the Senate in February, but not before conservatives attached an amendment scrapping most of Washington’s gun-control laws, which are among the strictest in the nation. That provision created a dilemma for the liberal Democratic leaders in the House, who supported the underlying bill but not the gun amendment. As a result, the bill has been sitting idle for almost a year.

But Davis, Roll Call reports today, says Democrats should hold their noses and pass the whole package this year — or else.

“This window closes at the end of this session and probably well before that,” said Davis, who now works at Deloitte Consulting. “I would take the medicine if that’s what you have to do. It’s not the way it should be done, but given the reality, I would take it with the gun language.”

The reason for the urgency is this: The bill also creates another House seat for conservative Utah — a provision that won the support of some Senate Republicans, who likely wouldn’t have voted for the bill otherwise. Trouble is, the 2010 Census is expected to yield Utah another lawmaker without congressional intervention. Take the Utah chip away, and Democrats are left without much leverage to gather GOP support — leverage they might need considering that two Senate Democrats voted against the bill the first time around.

Roll Call again:

“The Utah seat is important,” conceded Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote. “We are very aware of the need to act as quickly as we can so that we can enact a law that fulfills the vision all of us had.”

Of course, while this political skirmish continues, the roughly 600,000 folks living in the nation’s capital have no true voice in Congress. How’s that for democracy?