|
Betrayal
of Trust
How the
NRA Bargains Away Our Second Amendment
By
Nicki Fellenzer
 It
is with a heavy heart that I write my column this week. I
write it as a columnist for Armed
Females of America – a tireless proponent of
the principle of “no compromise” when it
comes to our freedoms. I write it as a Featured Writer and
Newslinks Director for
KeepAndBearArms.com – an organization dedicated
to the principles of defending our Second Amendment rights
fully, completely and without negotiation, concession or conciliation.
And I write this column as a member of the National
Rifle Association. It is this last membership
that makes it so painful to convey this story, but I feel
I need to convey it to all of you – whether you are NRA members
or not. You need to know the truth about the largest organization
of and for gun owners in the country. You need to understand
that the biggest doesn’t necessarily mean the best, and that
the political clout of an organization that allegedly claims
to support and defend gun owners in the United States, doesn’t
necessarily work in your favor or to protect your rights.
When
I first joined the NRA, I did so because I felt they were
the best suited to represent my interests. As the biggest
organization dedicated to the rights of gun owners in the
United States, I felt they had the most political influence
and were in the best position possible to achieve our pro-freedom
goals. I thought they served a terrific purpose – to mainstream
the views of gun owners. And even though I disagreed with
some if their political moves, I felt we all supported the
same cause – to ensure the right of the people to keep and
bear arms is not infringed – even though we took different
roads to that goal.
I
was wrong.
The
National Rifle Association does do a lot of good. Their training
programs, gun owner and children’s education programs are
hard to beat. But their Institute for Legislative
Action (ILA) and the
NRA’s Political Victory Fund (PVF)
are nothing but a horde of sycophantic, power-hungry compromisers,
who aim to preserve their jobs – not to preserve your freedoms.
The
ILA’s website unequivocally states
the following: “For 130 years the National Rifle
Association of America has stood in opposition to all who
step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep
and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern.
NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that
American citizens should seek police permission to exercise
their constitutional rights.”
Let’s
examine this particular lie “step-by-step.” A few weeks ago
I wrote in my column
that the NRA supports unconstitutional gun laws
and that it takes
credit for victories in battles not its own.
I even provided a link to their own website to support this
fact. The NRA, after getting irate phone calls and emails
from numerous gun owners and members, immediately took action.
Did they admit this fact? No. Did they take immediate steps
to change that policy? Not that I’ve seen. No. They altered
the link on their website so that anyone who tries to access
it receives
this message. Not to worry, however, you can
still access this particular information via the NRA-ILA’s
website.
All you need to do is access “Fable III: NRA opposes all
‘reasonable’ gun regulations.” And you will see the following:
(As this article was published the NRA removed the above
link from their web site. The author had taken a screen shot
of the page in order to preserve the truth.) Click
Here to view the screen shot. AFA Editor
The truth is, NRA supports
many gun laws, including federal and state laws that
prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories
of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting
sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant
criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.
NRA has also assisted in writing gun laws. The 1986 federal
law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor
piercing ammunition" adopted standards NRA helped write.
When anti-gun groups accuse NRA of opposing the law, they
lie. NRA, joined by the Justice Department and Treasury Department,
opposed only earlier legislation because that legislation
would have banned an enormous variety of hunting, target shooting
and defensive ammunition….
… NRA only opposed a bill that would have banned millions
of commonplace handguns, and instead supported an alternative,
the Hughes-McCollum bill. That 1988 legislation prohibited
the development and production of any firearm that would be
undetectable by airport detectors, and enhanced airport security
systems to counter terrorism. In the end, the NRA-backed legislation
passed Congress with wide bipartisan support and was signed
into law by President Reagan.
At the state level, NRA has worked with legislators to write
laws requiring computerized "instant" criminal records
checks on purchasers of firearms and those who carry firearms
for protection in public...
How bizarre that an organization dedicated to the preservation
of the right to keep and bear arms which claims that it “has
stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege
granted by those who govern” would not only support unconstitutional
gun legislation, but help write it as well.
How
strange that an organization that claims to support the rights
of all gun owners favors creating an elite class – law enforcement
officers – who would be privileged enough to use ammunition
suitable for any type of encounter, while you – the ordinary
peon and employer of said elite class – are not to be trusted
with such “dangerous” bullets.
How
odd that an organization which supposedly supports the idea
that gun ownership as an inalienable right would support legislation
to check if those wishing to practice that right are “fit”
to do so – especially since the NRA claims that it “continues
to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens
should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional
rights.”
The
NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes
and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns,
short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns.
It
supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates
interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or
revolver ammunition. It supported legislation to amend the
Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced
as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement
that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper
that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing
a handgun.
In
1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the
above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well
as handguns.
Additionally
the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns
in interstate and foreign commerce by:
·
requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information,
from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun
in interstate commerce;
·
providing for notification of local police of prospective
sales;
·
requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller
after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local
police;
·
prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to
sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
·
providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer
to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce,
and;
·
increasing penalties for violation.
All
of these facts have been carefully and meticulously documented
by KeepAndBearArms.com Founder and Executive Director Angel
Shamaya in an article entitled, NRA
Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934.
This excellent and thorough essay details the NRA’s long history
of supporting gun control laws, as documented and admitted
by the NRA itself in a March, 1968 issue of American Rifleman.
Those of you who have the issue, may want to give it a read.
Those of you who haven’t, can access the entire article on
the KeepAndBearArms.com website via the above link.
Never
mind that several of the above are stepping stones to registration
of gun owners - which NRA has publicly, repeatedly admitted
leads to confiscation. In fact, NRA has raised money to ‘fight
against gun registration’ out of one side of their mouth while
helping create gun and gun owner registration lists out of
the other.
Never
mind the absurdity of placing a minimum age on a constitutional
right – especially when teenagers can enter the military and
use firearms in the defense of our country.
Never
mind the pure maliciousness of forcing Americans to wait a
week to exercise their constitutional rights!
The
issue is: why does an organization which purports to be a
major force in defending the right to keep and bear arms actually
support infringements on said right?
Let me give you a clue: anytime the government or any other
powerful entity speaks of permitting or licensing a right,
it should be your wake-up call that said entity does not consider
it a right, but rather a privilege – to be approved, licensed
and controlled by the government. This is what the NRA supports,
according to Wayne LaPierre, “We believe that a lawful,
properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a
concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent
to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped
cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ...
with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who
took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed
the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement
that's making America a safer place to live.” (emphasis
mine)
Seems
the NRA wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want
to appear moderate and supportive of “common
sense” gun control legislation (cautiously avoiding the fact
that the laws they have supported thus far have been an unconstitutional
and ineffective farce), but at the same time they would have
you believe that they stand
in opposition to any attempts to gradually erode
your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which one
is it, NRA? This member would certainly like
to know!
But
my disappointment and disenchantment with the National Rifle
Association doesn’t end there. They have repeatedly sold out
gun owners by supporting petty tyrants in three-piece suits,
who consistently take steps to infringe on our freedoms. In
California, the NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender
of Freedom” Award. This is the same Rod Wright
who supported unconstitutional limits on firearms purchases
and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored
a
bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up
to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens
of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected
purchase. This champion of “freedom” apparently thinks it’s
perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising
their rights. The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted
against gun owners 62 percent of the time, according to Gun
Owners of California.
During
the last election cycle the NRA and anti-gun Maine Citizens
Against Handgun Violence actually
supported some of the same candidates! According
to the Kennebec Journal, Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from
Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also
receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card
of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA
and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of
the same candidates!
Meanwhile,
in Colorado, where the NRA supported
Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun
lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly
that he would
support federal legislation requiring gun registration
for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants
to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights
of gun owners?
The
latest travesty comes from Virginia, where the NRA Political
Victory Fund touted the pro-gun “accomplishments” of Delegate
Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press
release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun
Owners of America and the Virginia
Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his
opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and “milita-esque”[sic]
organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants
to banyour right to self-defense in any restaurant
that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison
who voted correctly on only two
out of eight issues important to Virginia gun
owners. And by the way, according to KeepAndBearArms.com,
Frederick
is actually an NRA member, while Rollison is
not. But I have no doubt Rollison will run right out and join
real quick just to correct that little error.
And
if you have any doubt that the NRA supports gun grabbers,
don’t take my word for it, read the words
of former NRA board member Russ Howard, who resigned
from the board in 1997. “In the past 5 years I've
become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving
undeserved grades to politicians who trample on the 2nd Amendment.”
This is an insider talking, folks. This is a man who knows
the goings on inside the NRA’s boardrooms telling you that
the NRA has been giving “A” and “A-“ grades to undeserving,
freedom-trampling, gun grabbing politicians! And, as you can
well see, the trend continues today.
The
list of NRA betrayals goes on and on. In 2001, the NRA sold
out North Carolina gun owners by allowing a bill to prevent
cities from suing gun makers pass committee for a floor vote
in the Senate. This bill is not what it appeared to be, according
to Grass
Roots North Carolina. While it restricted municipal
suits against gun makers it also:
·
Required peaceable gun owners to register private gun sales
with the FBI through the National Instant Check System if
they chose to sell a gun at a show.
·
Would have allowed shooting competitions and wildlife clubs
to be classified as "gun shows" if anyone sold a
firearm at the event.
·
Required registration of black powder firearms with the FBI
via the NICS.
·
Punished gun show promoters for illegal sales over which they
have no control, offering them only an "affirmative defense"
to keep them from being punished with a Class 1 misdemeanor.
According
to the GRNC, the NRA sold North Carolinians out because “despite
giving Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight (D-Dare, GRNC
*) an ‘A’ and an endorsement, he has held their gun litigation
bills hostage in the Senate. So they made a deal to include
all of the gun show bill which GRNC has defeated for the last
3 years – a bill drafted by lobbyists for NC's Handgun Control
affiliate, North Carolinians ‘Against Gun Violence.’ Translated,
that means the NRA just got into bed with NCGV!”
The
NRA also went on record as supporting CARA – the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act – in 2001, a bill that made available
billions of dollars to essentially condemn private property.
Why? Apparently
to appease Alaska Congressman Don Young– an NRA
board member.
The
NRA supports Project
Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods, which will
allow the federal government to prosecute gun crimes – primarily
a responsibility of the states. It violates the 10th Amendment
to the US Constitution and could conceivably lead to a
“mindless zero-tolerance policy toward technical infractions
of the gun laws, resulting in long prison sentences for marginal
offenders who do not deserve to be in jail,” according
to Gene Healy of the CATO Institute. Project
Safe Neighborhoods is enthusiastically backed by the NRA,
which claims to hold the entire Constitution inviolate. Dozens
of gun rights organizations and leading individuals came out,
in a Coalition
opposed to Project Exile. It tacks on extra jail time to anyone
possessing a gun during the commission of a crime, regardless
of whether or not the gun was actually used in the crime.
It holds “gun” crime as more heinous than, say, a crime in
which a
woman pours gasoline on another and sets her on fire,
rendering a gun more “evil” than a lighter and some gasoline
for the purpose of harming another.
Last
year the NRA supported
a bill that would give away billions of taxpayer
dollars to help states update the national database used for
background checks on gun buyers. That bill was introduced
by rabid anti-gunner Carolyn McCarthy – the same McCarthy
who is now trying to shove yet another “assault” weapons ban
down our throats – a ban that includes, among many other firearms,
the widely-owned Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30.
And speaking of “assault” weapons, THIS NRA member wants to
know why the NRA has been transparently silent on President
Bush’s promise to sign McCarthy’s ban into law! I’ve scoured
their website top to bottom. I’ve done searches of major news
outlets. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out one thing:
Why has the NRA said nothing about Bush’s apparent support
of this ridiculous “assault” weapons ban? Why, after a campaign
of obsequious Bush ass-kissing in the last election, will
the NRA say nothing negative about the President’s willingness
to sell gun owners down the river?
I
find it a bit hypocritical that the NRA is willing to consider
revoking
its support of the staunchest supporter of the
Second Amendment in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, because he refused
to support their pet legislation on constitutional grounds,
but they will not say a negative word about President Bush
and his clearly political betrayal of gun owners. Ron Paul’s
actions weren’t against gun owners. He didn’t do what he did
to betray the Second Amendment. He rejected H.R.
1036 on clearly constitutional grounds – because
he believed it violated the 10th Amendment. Yeah – another
portion of the “inviolate” Constitution the NRA claims to
protect. Meanwhile, a clearly political maneuver on the part
of Bush in an effort to appear more moderate to clueless,
uninformed, misguided anti-gun morons gets a pass from the
NRA. Does this give you an indication where the NRA’s loyalties
lie? It certainly doesn’t appear to be with the Second Amendment.
Instead the NRA’s loyalties lie with the seat of power.
Some
have suggested an even more insidious scenario: The NRA is
poised to sell out gun owners. That’s why it won’t tell its
members that Bush supports the extension of the present “assault”
weapons ban. By staunchly opposing the much more sweeping
legislation proposed by Carolyn McCarthy, the NRA could claim
a victory when the present ban is extended or even made permanent
by pointing out that they helped defeat the much more restrictive
H.R.2038.
An
anonymous Internet post reveals just such a scenario:
“PAY ATTENTION! What NRA
DOESN'T SAY is just as important as what they
do say. (Maybe MORE important!),” the
alert says.
“NRA-ILA is conducting ‘spin control’ by omission. Nowhere
…does NRA mention the fact that the so-called ‘assault weapon’
bill WILL sunset in Sept. 2004. The uninformed reader depending
on the NRA for the ‘straight story’ on this issue has yet
to be told of the sunset feature of Clinton’s gun ban. Neither
has he been told of President Bush’s endorsement of the current
gun ban. Furthermore, the ILA ‘report’ urges members to call
and register opposition to the MORE RESTRICTIVE
Feinstein / McCarthy bills. But, NRA-ILA fails to tell members
to register opposition to the current gun ban.”
“Friends,” the alert continues, “two NRA Directors have personally
contacted me. Both have implied that in secret executive session,
the leadership (NRA BoD) has been informed that the situation
is ‘under control.’” George Bush made his announcement in
support of Bill Clinton’s gun ban just days after the anti-lawsuit
bill passed its most daunting obstacle in Congress. Wayne
(LaPierre) had placed the lawsuit protection bill as a ‘TOP
PRIORITY’ for the NRA. By saying that in public,
he placed the NRA's reputation on the line. He painted himself
into a corner from which it is easy to see how he could have
‘dealt’ the ‘assault weapon’ ban off to gain protection for
the gun industry.”
“My conclusion,” says this writer,
“ is that NRA has ALREADY ‘struck a deal’ with
George Bush and the Republican Party to use the smoke screen
of Feinstein / McCarthy as the ‘windmill’ that NRA will direct
its members to tilt at. Then, some Republican will propose
a simple ‘extension’ of the current AWB. Wayne will claim
‘ANOTHER GREAT VICTORY’ for the so-called ‘Winning Team’ by
passing the ‘compromise’ and ‘defeating’ Feinstein / McCarthy!
And in return for selling out the Second Amendment, LaPierre
and the gun industry will get their 30 pieces of silver in
the form of protection from lawsuits.”
Dennis Jackson, an airline pilot, Second Amendment rights
activist and advisor to Armed Females of America agrees. “I’ve
been saying this for a long time,” he quips. “What
they’re going to do is introduce a more sweeping bill that
the NRA will oppose, but in the background they’ve already
agreed to extend the existing ban.”
Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com has two theories on the
long and telling NRA silence on Bush’s support for renewals
of the federal gun ban. “First, they may actually have
inside information that says the bill will never hit Bush's
desk -- and they want to let him and help him curry favor
with gun prohibitionists. If that's the case, thinking gun
prohibitionists will ever vote for Bush in 2004 is almost
as stupid as thinking you're safer when you're defenseless.
But maybe their inside information makes them think this is
a sound strategy, by some kind of logic that eludes my logical
mind.”
”Second,”
he continues, “they are re-engaging their political cowardice
and don't want to rock the boat by coming out against a president
they helped put in office. NRA's managers are in fact political
cowards with unfortunate frequency, so this is also likely.
Perhaps the NRA Managers' yellow streak is at play here.”
While I won’t speculate about what is in the head of Wayne
LaPierre and the NRA’s Board of Directors, I will say that
this scenario isn’t as farfetched as I would like it to be.
The NRA has been playing politics with our rights for far
too long. They have compromised away gun owners’ rights in
a transparent attempt to gain power in Washington. They have
interfered, manipulated and tried to derail real and legitimate
work on behalf of our Second Amendment rights.
For instance, note the NRA’s attempts to combine its lawsuit
challenging the D.C. gun ban with another suit brought by
the Cato Institute on behalf of five D.C. residents, claiming
that the city’s gun ban violates the Second Amendment to the
Constitution. Robert Levy, a Georgetown University law professor
and constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, told CNS
News recently that his clients are “just perfectly
situated to make the best case possible in the jurisdiction
that has the worst laws possible.” But it seems the NRA just
can’t stand being left out of a superior court case, so in
an attempt to hog in on the action, it filed a motion to combine
Levy’s suit with its own, far
inferior one. The NRA’s suit doesn’t just address
the Second Amendment violations in Washington, D.C., but it
also claims the D.C. gun ban violates the Fifth Amendment
protection against being deprived of property without due
process, as well as the provision dealing with "equal
protection" under the law. It also claims the ban violates
the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and imposes regulations that
are not "usual and reasonable" as required elsewhere
in D.C. law. These extraneous and unnecessary claims will
only serve to muddy the waters of the much more pure Second
Amendment suit brought by Levy. It will give the court a way
to once again avoid addressing the Second Amendment directly,
and if combined with the Cato suit, it could cause it to fail.
CATO attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy even go so far as
to accuse NRA’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, of filing cases
with a built in “trap door” in an effort to “give the court
a basis, if it chose, to avoid a foursquare holding on the
Second Amendment.” That’s one of many reasons
the CATO attorneys gave the court – while trying
to get NRA to stop sabotaging their case:
In
a similar attempt to get in on the action, the NRA tried to
convince its members to give money to a lawsuit that wasn’t
theirs earlier this year. According to Gary
Gorski, the lead attorney in Silveira
vs. Lockyer, an NRA representative called
his home asking him to renew his membership for the next three
years to help take Silveira to the Supreme Court.
“I asked him the name of the case,” writes Gorski,
“and he said Silveira v. Lockyer. I then asked him specifically
what the NRA's attorneys were doing on the case, and he said
that "they were going to take the case to the Supreme
Court" to get the decision overturned. I asked where
he was calling from, and he said the NRA in Virginia (The
NRA's legal counsel is in VA - 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax,
Va. 22030.) I then told him who I was, and he was dumfounded.
He said it was a pleasure talking to me, and thanked me for
all my hard work. I asked to speak to a manager, and he hung
up the phone.”
The NRA representative had claimed that the NRA had “legions”
of lawyers working to bring Silveira to the Supreme
Court. But in fact, Gorski says NRA attorneys Stephen Holbrook
and Chuck Michel had earlier asked him to drop the suit, because
they claimed he couldn’t win, and because the suit would interfere
with other projects the NRA was working on "behind the
scenes." Why would they do this? Angel Shamaya has a
viable theory. “If the Second Amendment were resolved
by the Supreme Court in the way educated civil rights advocates
demand that it be resolved, the largest percentage of NRA's
"Save the Second Amendment" income would vanish.
The fact that NRA has never once taken a Second Amendment
case all the way to the Supreme Court speaks volumes -- they've
been around since 1871, and they've been raising money on
the Second Amendment for several decades.”
In the end, this strategy will serve to alienate numerous
gun owners. When my column mentioned the NRA’s sellout of
gun owners by their support of unconstitutional gun laws,
I was informed that the NRA offices received numerous phone
calls and emails demanding an explanation. Additionally, the
fact that one of their lead attorneys has tried
to kill a current 2A case and another of their
lead attorneys is still
trying to sabotage yet another current 2A case
has inspired more people to resign their memberships from
NRA, according to Shamaya.
Here’s the bottom line: Groups like Armed Females of America,
KeepAndBearArms.com, Liberty Belles and many other state-level
non-NRA organizations exist to preserve and protect your freedoms.
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action exists to protect
its employees’ jobs. They’ve failed gun owners too many times
to think otherwise. “I think the NRA, VPC, Brady, etc.
they’re businesses,” says Dennis Jackson. “Without
some degree of gun control there’s no need for them to exist.”
Angel Shamaya agrees. “If the NRA was doing its job, our
organization would not exist,” he writes. “I could poll 30-odd
non-NRA group leaders who'd likely echo a similar statement.
NRA's charter calls for them to defend the Second Amendment,
but they frequently attack the Second Amendment -- and we've
got so much evidence to prove that statement it turns your
stomach, when you look at it objectively.”
I’ll tell you the truth. I would rather be doing something
else. I love to write. I want to write a novel. I used to
do professional stage work while in college – musical theater
– and I’d love to get back to it. Angel, Dennis, Carma Lewis
of Armed Females of America and many others would love to
spend their time doing something other than fighting this
frustrating fight. “I'd love nothing more than to completely
END the war being waged against our Second Amendment rights.”
Shamaya says. “I have other things I'd like to do
with my life -- this movement is an ongoing series of headaches,
stresses and anxieties I'd be very happy to nullify.”
The Armed Females of America mission statement states unequivocally
“A GOD GIVEN RIGHT cannot be legislated;
cannot be turned into a privilege by a self-serving government
who may then revoke it; cannot be judged or interpreted, and
cannot be amended, added to a ballot, or repealed. OUR
RIGHTS have no ‘loopholes.’ Any law restricting use,
quantity owned or purchased, magazine capacity, configuration,
caliber, firing operation, or age limits is unconstitutional.”
This is a direct antithesis to the NRA’s actions, its
constant pandering to power-hungry politicians, its compromising
away of our God-given rights in exchange for political clout
and its historical support of unconstitutional and immoral
legislation. Enough is enough!
OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE. Our rights are
not to be used as bargaining chips in power plays. They are
not to be used as bait or manipulation. Our rights are not
the NRA’s, President Bush’s or anyone else’s toys. They are
inalienable and inviolate, and there will be consequences
to those who try to sell our rights out for a few votes.
Nicki
Fellenzer
Listen
to Nicki on the Outdoor Talk Network with Jim Slinsky
(you will need Windows Media Player)
Nicki
is a US Army veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt,
Germany on active duty at the American Forces Network. She
is a former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer
and Newslinks Director for Keepandbeararms.com. She is also
a contributing editor to the National Rifle Association's
newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook and writes occasionally
for the Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her
family. We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor
to Armed Females of America.
Copyright
© 2003 by Armed Females of America.
All rights reserved. Permission to redistribute
this article for noncommercial purposes is hereby granted,
provided that it is reproduced unedited, in
its entirety, appropriate credit given, and the author is
credited.
E-Mail
This Article
Printer
Version
|
