Why Gun Groups Supported, and Opposed, Failed Hunting and Conservation Bill

By David Codrea published on in News

Many Chronicle readers will be surprised to learn that the recent defeat of the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014 was due in part to gun groups being on opposing sides of the measure in the U.S. Senate.

GOA NRA NSSF Logos

Major gun groups were on opposite sides of the failed Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014. Gun Owners of America said the bill gave cover to vulnerable Democrat senators. NRA and NSSF wanted protections for public-land hunting and traditional lead ammo use.

Ostensibly, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014 would have expanded public-land access for recreational hunting, shooting and fishing, as well as renewed some conservation programs. It had attracted 46 cosponsors, including 26 Republicans, before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked votes on both pro- and anti-gun amendments.

Gun Owners of America and other hard-core gun-rights activists characterized the bill (S. 2363) as the “Harry Reid Preservation Act” because it gave cover to vulnerable Senate Democrats who are seeking re-election in red states.

“As you know, S. 2363 was a ‘nothing-burger bill’ which existed solely to elect anti-gun Democrats in Red States,” GOA asserted in a release. “This includes Senators like sponsor Kay Hagan (D-NC) — plus cosponsors such as Mark Begich (D-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Al Franken (D-MN) and Mark Warner (D-VA).”

“All these Senators are rated as D’s or F’s by Gun Owners of America,” GOA added, noting “GOA also warned Senators that a vote in favor of S. 2363 would be scored in our end-of-year rating.”

The National Rifle Association and the Newtown, Conn.–based National Shooting Sports Foundation supported the bill, along with arms manufacturers Alliant Techsystems and Daniel Defense.

“The National Rifle Association is disappointed that the bipartisan Sportsmen’s bill has fallen victim to Sen. Harry Reid’s political agenda,” Executive Director Chris W. Cox said in an Institute for Legislative Action statement. “By refusing to allow a reasonable amendment process, Sen. Reid effectively killed this legislation — a bill with substantive measures that would have enriched America’s hunting and sporting heritage.”

“NSSF understands why pro-sportsmen members from both sides of the aisle wanted an opportunity to vote on amendments unique to their respective states,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation said in its statement. “That said, it is disheartening to see America’s longstanding tradition of bipartisanship on sportsmen’s issues sacrificed to the continued gridlock preventing meaningful bipartisan legislation. NSSF looks forward to working with the vast majority of Senators who continue to have an interest in passing this historic legislation on behalf of current and future generations of hunters.”

In your opinion, who was right? GOA, which didn’t want to give cover to Senate Democrats, or NRA and NSSF, which wanted provisions that protected sportsmen’s rights? Let us hear from you in the comment section.

SLRule

David Codrea is a field editor at GUNS Magazine, penning that title’s monthly “Rights Watch” column. He provides regular reporting and commentary at Gun Rights Examiner and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (14)

  • goa was right

    |

    As usual, the GOA was correct while the NRA and other groups were being foolish. It is similar to how the NRA is pretending that the immigration issue does not have an effect on gun rights at all. Those who would be given amnesty are against gun rights by 7 to 1 – yet adding several million new anti-gun voters won’t affect gun rights?

    Another great blog entry by Codrea. His stuff is worth checking out every day at waronguns.blogspot.com and davidcodrea.com. In case anyone reading this is not aware, Codrea was one of the two citizen journalists to break and keep alive the Fast and Furious story!

    Reply

    • Goa was right

      |

      Sorry, I am not on Facebook. What page is that?

      By the way, I can speak from experience here in NC that the NRA has endorsed anti gun sheriffs who are vulnerable over much stronger candidates on gun rights. They also abandoned the effort to nix the entire permission to buy a handgun from the local sheriff bill for some other political reason. I am no longer a NRA member, but I am a GOA member.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


one − = 0