Clark Boyd and the 2nd Amendment

Last week I received, as did many of you, a fundraising letter from the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA). The letter seems to portray Clark Boyd as an anti- gun, pro-gun control candidate who is unsupportive of the Second Amendment. At the same time, it makes current, incumbent 24-year career politician State Senator Mae Beavers out to be some kind of 2^nd Amendment savior. Unfortunately, for them, they are wrong on both accounts.

Wanna guess what the TFA is basing their “portrayals” on? It’s based on their candidate survey that I destroyed in a previous blog post. Remember it? It’s the one that 72% of the candidates it was sent to did not return. Boyd was one of them, so now just like the other 72%, the TFA is making him out to be an anti-gunner. However, here’s what the TFA is not telling you – Clark Boyd received one of the highest grades possible for a first-time candidate from the National Rifle Association (NRA), based upon his answers to the questions on their survey. But please, don’t take mine, Clark Boyd’s, or anyone else’s word or it. See Boyd’s grade for yourself on the NRA website by clicking here and then scrolling down. Just as my earlier blog post did, Boyd’s NRA rating shoots TFA’s allegations down. 

The Sheepdog's endorsement

One day last week, I spoke with Boyd about the TFA’s claims about him. He said, “Our (his campaign) concern is that the organization (TFA) is really functioning as an arm of Beavers’ campaign, and I think their members ought to know that their funds are being used to paint an Army veteran and NRA top rated candidate as not being pro-Second Amendment."

Boyd continued, “When I read the TFA survey I thought it had to be a joke, because two of the questions actually lauded Mae Beavers – even asking if I would co-sponsor legislation with her if I were elected. The fundraising letter doesn’t contain the same survey. Obviously a lot of other candidates didn’t take the survey seriously either or they would have answered it.” 

As I mentioned it my earlier blog post, other candidates who are well known for their pro-2nd Amendment voting record ignored the survey as well. Boyd answered the National Rifle Association’s survey and received one of the highest scores for a first time candidate. Could it be that that TFA is simply losing credibility and candidates are choosing to ignore them?

During our conversation, Boyd also pointed out that the TFA simply isn’t an objective organization, because the founder and leader of the group, John Harris, is a close associate of Beavers. Additionally, he and the TFA PAC routinely make campaign contributions to Beavers’, including during the current election cycle’s race against Boyd. 

So, knowing all that, how much stock are you gonna put in the TFA’s claims of Clark Boyd, a veteran, being anti-gun. Could it be that the organization is a little biased? It is true, though, that Boyd has no voting record in regards to gun legislation. However, and more importantly, it is also true that, unlike Beavers, he has NEVER voted in favor of Jimmy “No-Guns” Naifeh, a Democrat, being Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives. Beavers did so 4 times. 

Something to think about, my fellow District 17 gun owners, before you go vote on Thursday.

Related articles

• Tennessee's Voting Gunowners Deserve Better (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• A Second Chance for District 17 (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)

Susan Lynn - The Gun Owner's Friend

For the last month, The Sheepdog has spent a lot of time sharing the truth about Susan Lynn's record in response to her opponent's vicious, untrue attacks. Today, I will do the same, but I will do it differently. I will simply share and promote Susan's record on an issue of utmost importance to me - guns and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I've often said that I can tell everything I need to know about a candidate based upon their stance on two issues - life and guns. If a candidate is pro-life, it tells me that they care about people. If a candidate is pro-gun, it tells me that they think that we as individuals have a right to be left alone to take care of ourselves and determine our own destiny. If you are on the opposite side from me on one or both of those issues, then guess what - you ain't getting my vote. I am happy to say that Susan Lynn has always been on the pro- side, and my side, of both of those issues.

Susan Lynn - the gun owners friend

I first met Susan in early 2008, when I was still a member of the NRA. I got an e-mail from the NRA stating that a bill known as the "Ammunition Accountability Act" was being considered by the Tennessee Legislature. The bill would have required ALL ammunition to be coded, so it could be identified, a process commonly known as ammo serialization. Each box of ammunition purchased would then be "registered" to the purchaser and recorded in a database. So, I called up my elected representatives, including Susan, and asked them to vote "NO" on the bill. I spoke with Susan about 30 minutes that day, and she agreed with me that it was a bad bill that needed to be voted down. Fortunately, the bill never made it out of committee. I knew she was a pro-gunner then.

Susan's pro-gun voting record is second to none. Below I have listed some of the highlights. For instance, she voted in favor of :

• protecting old gun ranges (HB 1736)
• allowing permit holders to carry their handgun year-round in WMAs, public hunting areas, etc. (HB 961),
• allowing permit holders to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol as long as they are not drinking. She co-sponsored this bill and voted to override Governor Bredesen's veto of it (HB 962)
• prohibiting authorities from confiscating firearms during "emergencies" (i.e. - like what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina)(HB 1778)
• The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act (HB 1796)
• removing the governor's authority to limit the sale or transportation of guns during an emergency. She also a co-sponsored this bill (HB 3240).
• prohibiting the state from requiring a carry permit holder to provide identifying information about their firearm. She also co-sponsored this bill (HB 46).
• park carry (HB 716)
• restaurant carry a 2nd time, and to override Governor Bredesen's veto a 2nd time, after a liberal, activist judge ruled the original law "too vague" (HB 3125)

The above votes of Susan are just the highlights from the last two legislative sessions she served in. I could go on, but the list of her pro-gun votes would be very long. Susan's support of gun owners and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is second to none in this state. She has NEVER cast an anti-gun vote. NEVER. In fact, the NRA gave her an "A" rating when they graded candidates for this election cycle (see below).

People who have been reading The Sheepdog's blog since it went online in July 2009 know I love guns. They are not just a hobby for me. They are a way of life. Susan Lynn supports that way of life. Always has. Always will. If she didn't, I would have been the first to call her on it.

If you are a gun owner and live in Tennessee's 57th House District, but are still trying to decide who to vote for in the Republican Primary this Thursday, August 2nd, Susan Lynn is YOUR candidate. However, be sure to vote Thursday, because it is basically the General Election in this contest as there is no Democrat or Independent on the ballot in November. The winner, preferably Susan, on Thursday wins the seat.

If you are a gun owner, Susan Lynn is your friend. Trust me ... I'm a Sheepdog, and Sheepdogs love guns and pro-gun candidates.

And with all that being said, The Sheepdog extends his official endorsement to Susan Lynn for Tennessee House District 57. It is the first endorsement he ever has bestowed on any candidate for any office.

May Lynn Win on Thursday.

New Stoeger Shotgun Wins Award

Since The Sheepdog hasn't said much about guns lately, I think it's time for a Firearms Friday. Below is a press release I recently received from Stoeger Industries about their new award-winning shotgun - the M3500. 

Stoeger’s M3500 Receives Golden Bullseye Award

ACCOKEEK, MD (April 30, 2012) –– Stoeger’s new M3500, 3½-inch semi-auto shotgun received the NRA’s Golden Bullseye Award at the NRA’s 2012 Annual Meetings & Exhibits held April 13-15, in St. Louis, MO. Each year, NRA Publications’ staff members select those products that prove to be the best in their respective categories - rifle, shotgun, handgun, optic and accessory - and award them the NRA Publications Division’s highest honor: the Golden Bullseye.

Now in its 10th year, the Golden Bullseye Award symbolizes the best efforts made during the past year by companies and individuals pursuing excellence and innovation in the manufacture of firearms, accessories and related equipment. When it came to identifying this year’s best shotgun, the editors picked the remarkably economical Stoeger Model 3500 3 ½-inch semi-automatic.

Built around the reliable inertia-operating system, the M3500 exhibits a combination of features that makes it an excellent choice for all types of hunting. Its synthetic stock is impervious to all types of weather and harsh conditions, and it handles a full range of loads, from 2¾-inch up to the potent 3½-inch Magnum without adjustment. For reliability and performance, no other 3½-inch semi-auto in its price range compares.

“The Stoeger Model 3500 is an example of affordable innovation,” said Mark Keefe, American Rifleman's, Editor in Chief. “With this gun you do not have to break the bank to get a reliable 3½-inch semi-automatic that is at home in the goose blind or turkey woods.”

SPECIFICATIONS: Gauge: 12-Gauge  Barrel Length: 24”, 26” & 28”  Chokes: IC, M, F, XFT 
Sights: Red bar front sight  Metal Finish:  Black synthetic, Realtree® Max-4™, Realtree® APG™ 
Stock Material: Synthetic  Average Weight: 7.5 lbs.  Overall Length: 46”, 48” & 50” 
Length of Pull: 143/8”  Drop at heel: 2.5”  Drop at Comb: 1.5”  MSRP: $629 - $719

For the latest news and product information visit www.stoegerindustries.com

For those of you not familiar with Stoeger Industries and the firearms they produce, you may be familiar with their parent company Benelli. Benelli arguably makes the best shotguns on the planet and much of the technology they offer is also found in the Stoegers.

I like to refer to Stoeger's shotguns as "a poor man's Benelli." I highly recommend them. I've owned Mossberg's and others and had several turkeys escape unscathed while using them. Then, I went and bought a Stoeger M2000 and it's been bad news for the turkeys. Every turkey I've lined the sights of the Stoeger up on and pulled the trigger has taken up residence in my freezer. None, nada, zilch, zero have walked away from the encounter. My Stoeger M2000 just flat kills turkeys dead without breaking the bank. Plus, it's very light and therefore won't wear you out carrying it around in the woods. I suspect the M3500 is an excellent hunting weapon, too. Go get yourself one.

But .... don't tell the turkeys. 

The NRA - incompetence, or just not 100% pro-gun ?

Back in May, the controversial and poorly named "Patriot Act" was extended for four more years by Congress. The bill has been constantly debated since it's passage due to the additional, and arguably unconstitutional, surveillance powers it gives the Federal government. Even the ACLU, whom I usually disagree with, is on the right side this time. They have criticized the bill's infringement upon Americans' civil liberties.

My longtime readers know that at one time, I was an NRA member. However, over the last few years I have become very unsatisfied with the organization. I have criticized them on a number of occasions in earlier blog posts, because they no longer appear to have the best interests of gun owners in mind. I was very critical of them last year in regards to their boondoggle on The Disclose Act. In fact, they have dropped the ball so much that I am no longer a member of the organization. The NRA's lack of leadership in the renewal of the mis-named "Patriot Act" is the latest of their "fumbles." If they were an NFL running back, they would have been traded or cut by now.

Rookie U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R -KY) (pictured upper right) attempted to add an amendment to the re-authorization of "The Patriot Act" that would have exempted the records of Americans' firearms purchases from the warrantless searches authorized by the so-called "Patriot Act." In my opinion, it was an amendment that was needed since Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security has issued a report deeming gun owners as potential "terrorists." Sen. Paul's proposed amendment stated :

Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56; 115 Stat. 272), the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 120 Stat. 192), the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-178; 120 Stat. 278), or an amendment made by any such Act shall authorize the investigation or procurement of firearms records which is not authorized under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

Sen. Paul's amendment might have passed, too, if the NRA had pulled it's head out of it's butt and done the job it's members expect and pay it to do - stand up for them and the 2nd Amendment. However, instead of supporting Sen. Paul's amendment, the NRA took no position as shown in the following statement sent to Sen. Saxby Chambliss by the NRA's Chris Cox :

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Washington, DC, May 26, 2011

Dear Senator Chambliss :

Thank you for asking about the National Rifle Association's position on a motion to table amendment # 363 to the PATRIOT Act.

The NRA takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting gun owners' rights against government abuse. Over the past three decades, we've fought successfully to block unnecessary and intrusive compilation of firearms-related records by several federal agencies, and will continue to protect the privacy of our members and all American gun owners.

While well-intentioned, the language of this amendment as currently drafted raises potential problems for gun owners, in that it encourages the government to use provisions in current law that allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause, warrant, or judicial oversight of any kind.

Based on these concerns and the fact that the NRA does not ordinarily take positions on procedural votes, we have no position on a motion to table amendment # 363 .

Sincerely,

CHRIS W. COX

Due to the NRA's failure to support Sen. Paul's amendment, the U.S. Senate voted to table it effectively killing it. I'm irritated not only by the amendment's failure to pass and the NRA's failure to act, but also by the fact that both so-called "Republican" Senators from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, voted in favor of tabling it. Both have claimed to support gun owners, but when they have a chance to prove it, they voted against us. They didn't stop there, though. They both proceeded to vote in favor of the extension of the "Patriot Act." They both have got to go, and I can't wait for a chance to vote against them.

Furthermore, I'm can't understand what the NRA was thinking when it chose not to take a position on Sen. Paul's amendment. The organization's statement that the amendment would "... allow access to firearms records without reasonable cause ..." is simply untrue. A simple glance at what the amendment says shows that it would have done just the opposite and prohibited such access. Can the NRA not read ? Is it completely incompetent ? Or, is it simply not the pro-gun organization it claims to be ? Perhaps it's a combination of all of the above.

Related articles

• NRA Claims Rand Paul's Gun Amendment Would Have Hurt Gun Owners More Than PATRIOT Act (reason.com)
• NRA Joins Mitch McConnell Against Rand Paul and Gun Owners for America (reason.com)

The NRA continues betraying gun owners

cartoon courtesy of National Association of Gun Rights

On August 27, 2010, the National Rifle Association (NRA) announced that they would not be endorsing U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his 2010 re-election campaign. The announcement was supposedly due to his votes in favor of confirming both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both of them have a record of being less than supportive of the 2nd Amendment. My first reaction was a reserved ... bravo - maybe they're finally getting it. Then, the other shoe dropped.

On September 3, 2010, I received a shocking e-mail from The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). It said that even though the NRA publicly stated their "non-endorsement" of Reid, they were actually supporting him behind the scenes with contributions to his campaign. I decided to verify the report by reviewing the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) campaign finance disclosures and found it was true. The NRA-PVF has contributed $4950 to Reid's re-election campaign according to information on file with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Their donations include :

• $2500 on 9/22/2009,
• $1500 on 3/25/2010, and
• $950 on 8/27/2010.

Interestingly, the last donation, for $950, was made on the same day (8/27/2010) the NRA announced they would not endorse Reid. So, were they for him before they were against him ?? Many will say that giving $4950 to Reid is not a big deal and is just a drop in the bucket when compared to other contributions received by him. Is it really ?? Personally, I don't believe the NRA-PVF should be giving this joker one red cent considering some of his anti-2nd Amendment votes. For instance, this is the same Harry Reid that has voted :

• for the Brady Bill
• for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act containing the so-called Assault Weapons Ban 
• for requiring trigger locks be sold with all handguns 
• against an amendment to a bill that stated that Americans have the right to own firearms 
• for extensive new Federal regulation of gun shows 

The NRA's financial support of Reid puts them in some interesting company. They're putting their financial resources behind the same horse as the gun-hating Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. According to an article on Politico.com, Michael Bloomberg Takes Show on the Road, Bloomberg held a re-election fundraiser for Reid in New York City back in September. Apparently, he and Reid have formed a friendship. It makes me wonder if the NRA is now buddy-buddy with their longtime rival, Bloomberg, too.

As for Sharron Angle, Reid's challenger, she received a 100% pro-gun rating on NAGR's gun rights questionnaire as well as a grade of A from the NRA. However, she has NOT received 1 cent from the NRA-PVF. Majority Leader Reid, on the other hand, received a grade of B from the NRA even after all the anti-gun votes (mentioned above) he has cast. I would have given him an F. The NRA's reasoning makes no sense. They are as out of touch with everyday Americans as Congress. It's why I resigned my membership in the NRA back in August. If you are presently a member of the NRA, you should, too. Join a local gun rights organization, the National Associations for Gun Rights, Gunowners of America, or another pro-gun rights group who won't betray you due to greed, power, and politics as the NRA is doing. You'll be glad you did and may even get more bang for your buck (no pun intended).

Please also see my earlier related posts :

• Obama Making a Joke Out of Supreme Court
• Bloomberg May Have Broken Federal Law

Related articles

• Will NRA Endorsement Help Incumbent Democrats? (npr.org)
• No NRA endorsement for Reid (capitolhillblue.com)
• NRA declines to endorse Reid in Nevada Senate race (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• NRA declines to endorse Reid in Nevada Senate race (sfgate.com)
• For Reid, No NRA Endorsement (blogs.wsj.com)
• NRA Declines to Endorse Reid in Nevada Senate Race (foxnews.com)

Vote for Tennessee Governor not an easy decision

The fact that Phil Bredesen (pictured top left) has just a little more than two months left in his tenure as Tennessee's Governor brings great joy to my heart. My regular blog readers know that I am not a fan of his based upon my previous blog posts. Ever since I've been of legal voting age, Tennessee has been stuck with Liberals, such as Ned McWherter (pictured upper right), Don Sundquist, and now Bredesen, in the state's highest office. So, when the 2010 Tennessee Governor's race started, I was very hopeful we would finally get a good Conservative governor. However, at his point, it is very unlikely. Considering who the front runners are, it's likely that we'll get stuck with another bum.


The two front runners to replace Bredesen are Mike McWherter, the Democratic nominee, and Bill Haslam (pictured lower right), the Republican nominee. Mike McWherter is the son of former Governor Ned McWherter (pictured upper right). Eight years of his dad, Ned, as governor was eight too many. Besides the fact that Mike is a Liberal, the last thing we need is another McWherter as Governor. More years of beer, trucks, and vanilla wafers doesn't work for me. He won't be getting my vote.

Bill Haslam, the Republican nominee, is the former Mayor of Knoxville, TN. The Haslam Family is filthy rich owning Pilot Oil. Haslam has been trying to paint himself as a conservative. However, I have some serious misgivings about Haslam's "Conservatism" including :

• His family is connected to former Governor Don Sundquist who was a proponent of a state income tax during his tenure. Haslam has stated his opposition to a state income tax. The question for me is will he be a man of his word if it comes up during his tenure ?? I am not convinced he will.
• His record and views on the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is questionable, too. He is a former member of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The group's name is misleading as they are not against just illegal guns but are against gun ownership period. Haslam left the group just shortly before declaring his candidacy for Tennessee governor and joined the National Rifle Association (NRA). He apparently figured out that he didn't stand a chance of winning the governor's race as a member of Bloomberg's anti-gun group. Plus, the following video taken at a recent Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) leaves some doubt as to his true feelings on the 2nd Amendment and citizens carrying firearms for self-defense. His hesitancy and comments about "living in the real world" in this video leave a substantial doubt in my mind as to his true commitment to the 2nd Amendment. On the gun issue, he comes across as a typical politician who's just saying what the people want to hear. I'm not buying it. Therefore, I will not be voting for him either.

Since I've said "NO" to both Haslam and McWherter, I'll be choosing from the Independents on the ballot. Fortunately, there are a number of them. Two, Samuel Duck and Carl Whitaker, have withdrawn so you should not vote for them if they appear on your ballot. They may have withdrawn to late for their names to be removed. Of the others, some have websites and other information available and some do not. As far as I know, each one listed below is still actively seeking the governor's office. Their names and any other information available about them follows.

1. Bayron Binkley - click here to visit website - Binkley is a real estate broker and the views he expresses on his website are conservative. He wants to get Tennesseans back to work, improve education, keep taxes low (no income tax), he's pro-2nd Amendment, and believes all judges should be elected.
2. Brandon Dodds - click here to visit website - Dodds is a young guy. He is the son of a farmer and currently owns his own optometry practice. He opposes both a state income tax and Cap and Trade. He is Pro-Life and Pro-2nd Amendment.
3. David Gatchell - click here to visit website - Gatchell is the "None of the Above" candidate. In other words, if you don't like any of the candidates listed, vote for him. If elected, he then promises to call for a make-up election within 90 days to elect a "real" winner. Plus, he says on his website that during that 90 day period he would only perform "minimal" activities as governor. His website states no views on any issue. The idea of holding another "make-up" election seems foolish to me because then the taxpayers have to eat the cost of the additional election.
4. June Griffin - has no website available but has a Project Vote Smart profile showing both Conservative and Liberal views. She is an ordained minister and former dental lab owner.
5. Toni K. Hall - has no website but claims to have both Conservative and Liberal views depending on the issue on her Toni's Space page.
6. Mike Knois - click here to visit website - works as a paralegal. As governor, his goal is to increase jobs and decrease taxes.
7. Boyce T. McCall - click here to visit website - a retired Knoxville Police Officer. Website states that he is anti-abortion, wants to repeal the Tennessee Eminent Domain Act, and that anyone who needs legal assistance should receive it.
8. Donald Ray McFolin - no website or other information found
9. Linda Kay Perry - no website or other information found
10. James Reesor - click here to visit website - has very colorful website with unique views including establishing "AmeriJericho."
11. Thomas Smith II - no website or other information found
12. Howard M. Switzer - click here to visit his blog - member of the Green Party. His interests focus on environmental issues.

Image via Wikipedia

In summary, the 2010 Tennessee governor's race will be different for me in that I will not be walking into the booth and punching the button by the "R." I won't be voting for the "D" either. I've stated my opinions of both McWherter and Haslam. Bill Haslam talks a good conservative game, but my concern is that it's just talk. If he wins, I hope he proves me wrong, and I have to eat crow. However, as I expressed in my August 27th post, Sheepdog on the Warpath - Part 3, The Finale - The GOP, the GOP has had a habit lately of giving voters less than true conservative candidates. Haslam is one of them. In my opinion, there appears to be two good choices, Bayron Binkley and Brandon Dodds, on the Independent ticket this year. My preference is Brandon Dodds because it's time to get some good, young, conservative blood with some new ideas in the governor's office. My opinion won't go over well with the establishment Republican elite, but they'll get over it. Consider this is my version of "Going Rogue."

Related articles

• McWherter attacks Haslam's stance on carrying handguns without a permit (commercialappeal.com)
• Editorial: Haslam fails leadership test (commercialappeal.com)

Sheepdog on the Warpath - Part 1, The NRA

As I promised last week, I'm kicking of this week's series, Sheepdog on the Warpath, today. Today the target locked onto is The National Rifle Association (NRA). As a firearms enthusiast and a firm believer in The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it was a tough post to write and one that I really did not want to do. However, it will become evident very quickly why I did it. The NRA has lost it's way and needs to be held accountable.

I have a number of bones to pick with the NRA. However, the last straw was their involvement in The Disclose Act. Back in January, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned The McCain-Feingold Act with it's decision in the Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission case (see my February 5, 2010 post titled "Did Obama Make A Tactical Error ?"). Afterwards, the Congressional Democrats announced very quickly that they would begin composing new legislation to re-impose the ban on corporate political speech during elections. They did so with The Disclose Act. However, the new bill contained exemptions for large organizations such as the NRA. When the bill first began making it's way through the U.S. House of Representatives, the NRA fought vigorously against it because they were firmly in the bill's crosshairs. Suddenly in mid-June, it was announced that the NRA had been given a special exemption from the bill in exchange for not openly opposing and fighting against it. In press releases and other statements, the NRA has stated that no deal was struck between them and Congress. However, in an interview with Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President, on the Lars Larson radio show (click here and then scroll down to listen), LaPierre never directly answers Mr. Larson's question when asked whether or not a deal was struck. Furthermore, LaPierre basically says that the NRA will do whatever it takes to protect The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Apparently, that includes sacrificing the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The NRA has taken a lot of heat over The Disclose Act from folks both on the right and the left (please see article on Reuters.com - Groups oppose NRA exemption in campaign bill). Some have said there was a deal and others have said there was not (please see article by Timothy P. Carney on WashingtonExaminer.com - NRA isn't the villain in free speech fight). However, LaPierre's refusal to directly answer Mr. Larson's questions settled the debate for me because it told me that a deal was made. So, on August 12, 2010, I prepared the following letter listing a number of grievances I have with the NRA and mailed it to Mr. LaPierre :

Dear Mr. LaPierre,

I've been around firearms all my life but did not join the NRA until the 1990s shortly after Bill Clinton won the White House. I resigned my NRA Membership after the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban because I felt the NRA had not worked hard enough to keep those bills from passing. Around late 2007 or early 2008, I rejoined the NRA to give it a second chance and because the Democrats were nominating an anti-gunner, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, for the presidency. I believed re-joining the NRA was the best way to keep informed about future anti-gun legislation.

The NRA has blown its second chance as I'm upset with it again for several reasons. First, why does the NRA continue giving good grades and endorsements to my Congressman, Jim Cooper (TN-5) ?? The NRA-PVF website gave him a B- in 2002, a B and the endorsement in 2004, a B+ in 2006, and an A and with the endorsement in 2008. Cooper voted in favor of the Brady Bill and for the Assault Weapons Ban before he voted against it. He only voted against the Assault Weapons Ban after the funding to put additional police officers on the street was stripped from it. He was fine with stripping gun owners of their God-given rights as protected by The Second Amendment as long as additional cops were on the street. Apparently, he did not believe gun owners were capable of protecting themselves so he supported less freedom and a bigger nanny state. Tennessee's gun owners were so angry over these votes that we gave him an "F" and voted him out of office in 1994 as the NRA should have done. Unfortunately, Tennesseans voted him back into Congress in 2002. In 2008, Cooper's Republican challenger for re-election, Gerard Donovan, was a gun rights supporter and a Tennessee concealed carry permit holder, but the NRA backed Cooper. It's only a matter of time until Cooper WILL betray you and gun owners again. Since his 2008 re-election, he has voted in favor of ObamaCare, the bailouts, and the stimulus bills. He's part of the reason the country is falling apart. Thanks for nothing. Strike one NRA.

Secondly, I'm upset with the NRA over The Disclose Act. This law's purpose was to infringe on the political speech of various organizations. On June 15, 2010, I received an e-mail from the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) stating that the NRA had struck a deal with Pelosi, Reid, etc. to exempt it from the bill's provisions as long as the NRA did not publicly oppose the bill. Did they promise no future gun control bills, too ? If you believe there will not be any, I've got some ocean front property here in hills of Tennessee that I'll make you a great deal on. Maybe Congressman Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd can help you get a great, low rate on the mortgage, too. I've done my homework by reading all the NRA press releases and e-mails claiming that no such deal was struck. I've listened to your interview with Lars Larsen on his radio show and read your comments elsewhere which basically state that the NRA will do anything to protect The Second Amendment. I do not believe the NRA's denials no deal was made. Apparently, the NRA took notes from Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Mary Landrieu selling out the First Amendment thinking it would protect the Second. You've let down the American people and we expect better. One part of The Constitution and our freedom can NEVER be sacrificed in order to protect another. Such a deal will only result in us losing all of our freedoms. Strike two NRA.

Thirdly, I've got a big problem with your "Friendly to Incumbents Policy." The NRA endorsed Congressman Jim Cooper in 2008 (see above) in accordance with this policy. The same policy was applied this year in the Republican Primary for Tennessee Senate District 17. The NRA endorsed the incumbent Mae Beavers over State Representative Susan Lynn. Both of them have been rated A+ by the NRA on numerous occasions. Some would say they have an identical pro-gun record. However, that is not true. While a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, Mae Beavers voted in favor of Rep. Jimmy Naifeh being Speaker of the House on four occasions. During his gun-hating career, Naifeh has single-handedly killed numerous pro-gun bills, including ones that would have expanded Tennessee's carry laws. Yet the NRA endorsed Beavers anyway. Rep. Lynn, on the other hand, has always supported gun owners. In fact, my first contact ever with Rep. Lynn was to ask her to oppose, which she did, an anti-gun bill working its way through the Tennessee Legislature. In regards to the "Friendly to Incumbents Policy," the argument could be made that both were incumbents in this race since both were holding seats in the Tennessee General Assembly at the time. In this race, the NRA should have given them both A's or A+'s and issued a statement to the effect that gun owners would have been safe voting for either. Beavers definitely should not have been given the endorsement and I would argue that her grade should have been lowered due to her support of Naifeh. Any vote(s) supporting an anti-gun colleague for Speaker of the House, as Beavers did, should earn you an F every time. Strike three. The NRA is out.

Lastly, you have been hypocritical in the letters I have received from you. For instance :

• In a March 30, 2009 letter offering the membership in the Golden Eagles, you wrote, "And, the NRA's Golden Eagles are leaders who see the big picture - that, in the long run, the biggest danger we face is the gradual chipping away of our rights bit by bit in what our friend Charlton Heston long ago called a 'cultural war'.
• In a December 4, 2009 renewal letter to me, you said, "And the one organization in America today that can defend not just the Second Amendment, but freedom itself is the NRA."
• You also said in that December 4, 2009 that, "Your (membership) card says that you're part of one of the most powerful armies of freedom-fighters that the world has ever seen. An army that takes no prisoners ... An army that stands up for its friends and relentlessly attacks its enemies ... An army whose highest allegiance is not to any individual or any political party but only to the cause of freedom."

I have pointed out, above, how the NRA has contradicted the quoted passages above by not fighting for freedom (The Disclose Act Deal), not attacking its enemies (endorsements of Jim Cooper), and not stood up for its friends (withheld endorsement from Lynn and gave to Beavers). The NRA has also aided in "the chipping away of our rights" by not standing for and proclaiming it's 100% opposition to ANY infringement of free speech in regards to The Disclose Act. For these reasons, I am giving my resignation, effective immediately, in the NRA as a member and as a Golden Eagle. I have previously done so via telephone but felt it should be done in writing, too. I will also be encouraging all of my blog readers, Facebook friends, family, and others resign, too. There are other Second Amendment advocacy groups locally and nationally that fight for and support our rights fairly and without sacrificing any part of The Constitution. I am also requesting a full refund of my Golden Eagles dues for this year. The check can be mailed to my address above.

The NRA's policies, grades, endorsements, and backroom deals have betrayed mine and other Americans trust and damaged our Republic and Constitution. Please do NOT send me any more magazines, renewal notices, or other solicitations. If you do, they will be marked " REFUSED - RETURN TO SENDER" and returned to you. The NRA is as out of touch with everyday Americans, such as myself, as Congress. Charlton Heston has to be rolling over in his grave after The Disclose Act deal. Your failure to adamantly oppose that bill was a slap in the face to our military men and women. They sacrifice time with their families and often their very lives to protect and defend our freedoms and the very Constitution that the NRA shredded with The Disclose Act deal. Your organization is no better than Obama and the other Socialists, Marxists, and Communists in D.C. The NRA is a hypocritical joke.

Sincerely,

Johnny Black,

Patriot and ex-NRA Member

Since mailing the letter to Mr. LaPierre, I have found a website by the name of NRAwol.net which details even more "indiscretions" of the NRA. I have not had the time yet to go through and confirm the site's claims, but I plan to. I encourage everyone, especially gun owners, to do your own homework and research these issues for yourself.

In my opinion, the NRA is caught up in the same lust for power and money that is infecting others in D.C. I have given them two chances. They have failed both times. I will continue to advocate for The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However, it will not be as a member of the NRA. I'm encouraging gun owners to get involved locally instead of giving your hard earned money to the NRA anymore. Most states have some sort of gun owners association and there are at least two other national associations that I'm aware - Gun Owners of America and National Association for Gun Rights. Do your research on them and then consider joining.

P.S. The Disclose Act was voted down and failed to become law. However, rumor has it that it will come back up and be snuck into law as an amendment on another bill. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. The NRA sold it's soul to the devil (Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.) on this one. Scuttlebutt is that they are considering endorsing Harry Reid for re-election, also. Pathetic.

The Sheepdog is back on post

After returning from The Games, I decided to take a break from blogging and get caught up on some things I'd been putting off for awhile. I had just been too busy. Some of those include some changes and improvements to the blog and the website such as a new blog template, new background, and new color scheme. I have also added a slideshow of pictures from The Transplant Games. Music lovers will enjoy the added playlist of tunes with artists from the '80s as well as the present. Artists include Third Day, Cinderella, .38 Special, Toby Mac, John Mellencamp, Skillet, and several others. Enjoy them as you browse around the blog. If you like your music loud, then there's some stuff here that's definitely "crankable." If you get in trouble at work for playing the music too loud, don't blame me. You were warned (ha, ha).

The website has been modified and additional information added, also. You can check it out at www.TheSecondChanceSheepdog.com. If you do your online shopping at Amazon.com, my website and blog are affiliates. On my "Shop" page and elsewhere on the website and at the bottom of my blog, you can make your online purchases and help me keep the website online in the process. It costs money to host it and I would appreciate your support as I receive a small commission on any Amazon.com purchase made by linking through my site.

Lastly, during the break, I've been working on a new three-part blog series that will start next Monday, August 23, 2010 and run Monday, Wednesday, and Friday next week. I'm calling it, "Sheepdog on the Warpath." Some are gonna love it and some are gonna hate it. Some are gonna be shocked. I'm running the series because I've got some "bones to pick" with some well-known political organizations including The National Rifle Association (NRA) who are up first on Monday. When the series concludes Friday, some people are gonna be scratching their heads and asking, "Who let the (Sheep)Dog out ??"

In the meantime, I'll run some other stories this week before declaring war starting next Monday. Stay tuned.

PLEASE NOTE : Unfortunately, the playlist had to to be removed from this blog. For some unknown reason it was causing the blog to crash. I apologize.

Beavers voted for ..... Naifeh ??

You gotta be kidding. There's not a snowball's chance in "you know where" that Senator Mae Beavers would have ever supported State Representative Jimmy Naifeh ..... right ?? Well, as hard as it is to believe, the answer is yes she did. She voted in favor of him being Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives not once, not twice, not three times, but on four (4) separate occasions. I could not believe it either when I first heard about this video on Youtube. Then, I watched it for myself, checked the records, and found out that it's true.


Here's why it's so puzzling to me. Naifeh is well-known for his dislike of the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, he has single-handedly killed numerous pro-gun bills, including several that would have expanded Tennesseans' right to carry, over the years. Beavers is known as being strongly in favor of the right to keep and bear arms and has received high marks from the NRA and other pro-gun groups over the years. So why would she support an anti-gunner like Naifeh for Speaker of the House ?? Is it politics as the video says ?? Or, is there another reason ?? I'd like to know because it simply doesn't add up. Does it make sense to you ??

Mr. Bredesen, why do you hate us SOOOO much ??

On May 18, 2010, Phil Bredesen vetoed legislation passed by both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly that would have changed state law and allowed Tennessee's 270,000 carry permit holders to take their lawfully owned and carried firearms into establishments that serve alcohol. This is the second time in two years Bredesen has pulled this stunt and infringed upon law-abiding Tennesseans right to defend themselves. This after he received the NRA's endorsement in his 2006 re-election campaign because he promised to support this legislation. Either he has the beginning stages of Alzheimer's and forgot or he lied. I suspect it is the latter. But then, he is a Democrap, so I shouldn't be surprised.

His reason for the veto was because many, many, many years ago in a NRA safety course, he was taught that "guns and alcohol don't mix." Well, at least he remembers that. However, he obviously doesn't have a clue what that phrase actually means. Like most Progressives, he just throws words around and spins them into whatever meaning serves his purpose at the time. Therefore, I feel it is my duty to explain it's meaning to him. "Guns and alcohol don't mix" means that the person drinking does not handle and / or carry a firearm. It does not mean that if you are carrying a firearm, you should not be around people who are drinking. Furthermore, the carry law he vetoed establishes stiff penalties for anyone drinking and carrying a firearm, as it should.

Let me give you a few fictitious, but possible, scenarios as we try to follow Bredesen's Progressive thinking :

• A single mom takes her two young children out for dinner at O'Charleys. She has a carry permit and usually carries in order to defend herself and her children in the event of a mugging or assault. They go to O'Charleys, but due to Bredesen's veto she either has to leave her gun at home or leave it in the car when they arrive. If she leaves it at home, she has no way of defending her family. If she takes it with her and then leaves it in the car, she risks it being stolen. Then, law enforcement has another problem - a thief on the street with a stolen gun. She chooses to take her gun with her and leave it in the car. O'Charleys is busy so she has to park a distance from the building. When returning to her car from the restaurant, she and her children are forced into a van by two men before she opens her car door. She is brutally raped and then killed in front of her children. Good thinking on that veto Mr. Bredesen. She could have prevented this if she had not had to leave her gun in the car.
• A man leaves Nashville for Chattanooga on a two-day business trip. He's a carry permit holder who usually carries his gun when on the road alone. However, the hotel he's staying at in Chattanooga has a bar. Due to Bredesen's veto, he can either leave his gun at home, which means he's unarmed on the road, or he can take his gun with him and leave it in his car when he arrives at his hotel. Once again, his firearm is at risk of being stolen and being on the street in the hands of a criminal. He chooses to leave his gun at home against his better judgment. Halfway to Chattanooga, after dark, he has a blowout. He pulls over and begins changing the tire. Moments later, a man stops "to help." Unfortunately, he's a prison escapee who robs and murders the businessman. If the man had his firearm, this attack could have been stopped quickly. Mr. Bredesen, how will you explain this to this man's widow ??
• Myself and friends go to The Wildhorse Saloon in Nashville for a concert. I'm the designated driver, will not be drinking, and have a carry permit. Due to Bredesen's veto, I can either leave my gun at home rendering me unable to defend myself and my buddies in the event of an assault, or I can leave it in my vehicle and run the risk of it being stolen. I choose to take my gun with me but leave it in my vehicle. My vehicle is broken into and the gun stolen. Now, Metro Police has a gun on the street in the hands of a criminal. The thief robs a convenient mart shooting and killing the clerk. Once again, thanks Mr. Bredesen.

Now, before a liberal anti-gunner says, "Are you just sooo scared that you have to have a gun all the time ??" Nope. Let me ask you this - do you get in a car without putting a seatbelt on ?? In my opinion, putting on a seatbelt and carrying a gun are the same. They are both safety measures taken so that we are prepared in the event of an "emergency." You don't put a seatbelt on when you know you're gonna be in an accident. You don't carry a gun when you know your gonna be mugged. You never know. So, you prepare for the worst and hope for the best. It's that simple.

Mr. Bredesen has said that he supports the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately for him, actions speak much, much louder than words. So, I ask again - Mr. Bredesen, why do you hate gun owners so much ??

Did Obama make a "tactical error ?"

I've been "chewing on" Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address for the last week and a half. I'll be honest. I did not watch it. I just read the news reports afterwards, read some commentaries, and briefly read part of the speech's transcript. In doing so, it has occurred to me that the Community Organizer in Chief may have made what could be referred to as a "tactical" or "strategic" error. Let me explain.

About a week before the speech, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it's opinion in the Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case which overturned the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold Act). McCain-Feingold prohibited both for-profit and not-for-profit corporations from running campaign advertisements either for or against a candidate in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Now, with the CU vs. FEC decision, corporations can run such political advertisements. However, they still can NOT make campaign contributions to a candidate.

During his speech, with the nine Supreme Court Justices and all 535 members of Congress in attendance, plus millions watching on TV, Obama basically called out the Supreme Court by saying :

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Afterwards, Justice Alito, who cast the deciding vote, was seen shaking his head and muttering, "not true" which caused a controversy similar to when Congressman Joe Wilson yelled, "you lie." However, can you really blame him since Obama basically insulted the nine justices on national TV ??

Now - here's why I say Obama made a tactical / strategic error. The Supreme Court is "The Supreme Law of the Land." The 535 members of Congress can pass any bill they want and Obama can sign it into law. However, if a legal challenge is made to that law and it makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, then if just five of the nine justices decide the law is unconstitutional, the law is void and can NOT be enforced. It's the same as if the law never passed. So think about this - Obama's health care reform plan has still NOT passed, but state's attorney generals from all across the country are already planning court challenges if it does. If ObamaCare passes, is then challenged in court, and makes it to the Supreme Court, the same nine justices he dissed on national TV will decide it's fate. How long do you think they are gonna remember the dissing they took ?? Could it effect their decision ?? I'd like to think that those nine justices are more professional than that, but who knows. They are human and we humans can be vengeful.

Furthermore, there is still this controversy swirling around about whether Obama is or is not a natural born U.S. citizen, and there have been several lawsuits filed challenging his legal status. However, to my knowledge they have all be dismissed for "lack of standing." For arguments sake, let's say that one of those suits comes before a judge that was offended because his or her colleagues on the Supreme Court were disrespected. Let's also suppose that judge decides the case does have STANDING and allows it to proceed. As it works it's way through the system, the case winds up before the Supreme Court. Now Obama's in between a rock and a hard a place because the justices he basically called stupid will decide whether he remains in office. Can you say "oops ?"

Lastly, Obama saying the CU vs. FEC decision will allow foreign corporations and special interests to basically buy elections shows either no knowledge of Federal election campaign laws or he's simply twisting the truth. It is still unlawful for corporations to contribute to a candidate. All the decision does is allow corporations to put together advertisements supporting or opposing a candidate or the candidate's policies. I think Obama and the Democrats are afraid the decision hurts their chances of getting re-elected. Why ?? Groups like the tea partiers, pro-life groups, pro-gun organizations, and others can now run ads to support candidates that line up with their values and oppose the ones who don't. However, it also will allow unions to do the same thing for Obama and other Democrats. Think about this - Fox News and the NRA can now spend money to help conservative candidates and that makes Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and others awful nervous, plus they know who just went to work for Fox News - Sarah Palin.

Oops.

Don't be throwing no rocks

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen discuss the tornado damages in Nashville. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I just love it when these politicians get all high and mighty. Many of them love to criticize others. The problem is they shouldn't be throwing rocks when many of them live in glass houses due to corruption, infidelity, and questionable policies and votes. One of them is Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen.

Over the last few months, the University of Tennessee has had several male athletes get in trouble with the law. Four football players were allegedly involved in an armed robbery, and most recently, three basketball players were riding around in car that was pulled over for speeding and found to have an illegal weapon in the car as well as marijuana. Mr. Bredesen went on record as saying the university needed to clean up its act, and I agree with him. However, let's take a look at Mr. Bredesen's record for a moment :

• While mayor of Nashville in the 1990s, he brought the Nashville Predators NHL franchise and the NFL's Houston Oilers, now known as the Tennessee Titans, to town and built them both fancy facilities to play in. He did it on the backs of Nashville taxpayers by putting the city over $400 Million in debt by selling bonds to finance the construction of the facilities. Ever since, Nashville's leaders have had to ask the city departments for budget cuts every year, raise property taxes several times, and lay off many city employees because of the financial strain these debt obligations have placed on the city. According to reports, Nashville taxpayers may be looking at another property tax increase this year, also. Bredesen caused a financial mess that the city's current leaders are paying the price for.
• As Governor of Tennessee, the state's budget has suffered dearly. Hundreds of needy Tennesseans have been kicked off the TennCare rolls and left without health care insurance because of lousy financial management and little fraud accountability. Bredesen has done nothing to solve the problem. Heads of the various state departments have had to cut their budgets numerous times each of the last several years because state revenues are down but millions of dollars in pork-barrel spending continues. As the state legislature begins the 2010 session, estimates are that they will have to cut about $1 Billion from the 2011 budget in an attempt to make ends meet. 
• In the fall of 2008, Bredesen appeared in a horrible public service announcement produced by the Governor's Highway Safety Office (GHSO) titled "Harvest." The PSA was part of the GHSO's Booze It and Lose It program whose goal was to get Tennesseans not to drink and drive. However, all this particular PSA did was offend and upset donor families and other organ donation advocates, including myself, by correlating drunk driving deaths and organ donation. When many of us demanded the PSA be pulled, Bredesen could only say how proud he was of the Booze It and Lose It program.
• In 2009, the Tennessee legislature passed The Restaurant Carry Bill allowing Tennesseans with concealed handgun carry permits to take their weapons in restaurants that served alcohol as long as they were not drinking and the establishment was not posted "No Guns." When Bredesen ran for re-election in 2006, he received the National Rifle Association's (NRA) endorsement because he promised to support this legislation if it passed the state legislature and made it to his desk for his signature. He broke his promise to the NRA and the state's gunowners. He is not a man of his word.

I know some Liberal is gonna say that neither Nashville nor the state's money problems are completely Bredesen's fault because the economy is in really bad shape. Maybe so, but I believe that if his administration had not left Nashville in debt up to it's ears for the sake of professional sports, it would be easier for the city to manage the current fiscal crisis. However, thanks to Bredesen, their hands are tied. The fact is Mr. Bredesen has a dismal record on wasteful spending and financial management of taxpayer money and these things happened on HIS watch.

I would suggest that based upon his record, Mr. Bredesen stop worrying about the problems in the University of Tennessee sports program and concentrate on getting his own house in order. I, for one, can't wait until he leaves the governor's office in January 2011. Mr. Bredesen - "Don't let the door hit ya on the way out."