In politics, it’s not often that a letter or e-mail makes a difference and changes the direction of a piece of fast-moving legislation. However, a two-page e-mail, by Jay Zane Walley, communications director for the Paragon Foundation, a land-rights advocacy group in Alamogordo, N.M., could prove to be one of those few – a rifle shot that turns a herd of cattle headed for the edge of a cliff.
On Aug. 20, recipients on Paragon Foundation’s Internet distribution list, received an “Action Alert” from Jay, informing them of the National Rifle Association’s support of H.R. 701, CARA – the Conservation and Reinvestment Act or, as it’s known by its critics, the Condemnation and Relocation Act – the humongous land-grab bill that’s being stampeded through Congress by its chief author, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.
CARA, which sets up a 15-year, $45 billion trust fund (from off-shore oil and mineral revenues), spells massive land acquisition by federal, state and local governments, with predicted restrictions on the use of the land for hunting and other recreational activities.
Jay, a member of the NRA, had been amazed to learn from a Paragon subscriber that the most powerful gun lobby in the country was championing the bill, bitterly opposed by property-rights activists and groups, including the Paragon Foundation, and many gun groups. He discovered that NRA had championed the bill since early 1999, albeit not to its rank-and-file members or even its board of directors.
Hoping for a change of heart, Jay tried to interest the NRA administration in inviting Fred Kelley Grant, counsel for Stewards of the Range and a former federal attorney, to Washington to give a presentation on the pitfalls of CARA. During the last congressional session, Grant wrote two critical analyses of CARA and completed an updated analysis of its present version. (See note at end of article for how to obtain a copy.)
“Fred’s the most knowledgeable person we could send,” says Jay.
Though never allowed to talk with anyone in a decision-making capacity, the middle-level staffers with whom he did talk to, made it very clear that no one at NRA was remotely interested in hearing Grant – or anyone else – saying in effect, “Our minds are made up, don’t confuse us with facts.”
“I was surprised at how rabidly they were supporting CARA and how rabidly they were in attacking anyone who disagreed with their position,” Jay told this reporter. “I had no idea they’d start treating someone so high-handedly, if you questioned their majestic decisions.”
That’s when Jay took to the Internet. In his Paragon Action Alert, he told recipients that Fred Grant had identified over a dozen clauses in the bill that allow the government to force private property owners to sell their land. He described phone conversations he’d had with NRA staff, and its refusal to consider the dangers of CARA, and urged that they “besiege” those in charge of the issue, at headquarters, with letters and phone calls expressing their views about CARA and the unholy alliance between its promoters and the NRA.
And besiege they did, their ranks quickly augmented by activists across the country. Within hours of being e-mailed, someone (not Jay) had posted the message on the popular “Free Republic” website. The Internet buzzed as word about the NRA connection to CARA spread by word of mouse from Paragon to Free Republic and beyond. J.J. Johnson, editor and publisher of the Internet news-site “Sierra Times,” featured an interview with Jay on Aug. 24. Research analyst and columnist Diane Alden posted Jay’s alert, with appropriate commentary, on her website.
The clamor by activists beyond the Beltway grew loud at NRA headquarters. Deluged with e-mails, letters and phone calls unsympathetic to its position, NRA administrators went into damage-control mode. James Baker, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the organization’s lobbying wing, drafted a letter of rebuttal, posting it on the NRA website and e-mailing it to members. It also went out to 3.5 million people via its fax alert network.
Baker explained that the NRA’s support for CARA is tied to Title III, which would provide $350 million a year additional revenue to the Pittman-Robertson fund – an account created by Congress in the 1930s to provide money for game nurseries, habitat restoration, state hunting education programs and land purchases for refuges. The fund is currently fed by an excise tax on guns and ammunition, with the monies distributed to state fish and game departments to improve their conservation projects. Under CARA, the additional money would be dispersed, in part, through grants to organizations.
“Rest assured that the NRA would never attach its name and support to a bill if its effect was to infringe upon any of our members’ Constitutional rights,” Baker soothed. “Our support for CARA is tied to Title III which is one title of ten in the bill. Property-rights groups oppose a different title of the ten. Professional observers understand the legislative process is one of debate and amendments, and concerned individuals would be better served by an action plan to amend the bill rather than ad hominem attacks on groups such as the NRA, who are simply fulfilling their mandate to serve their own constituencies.”
Note: Title II provides nearly $1 billion a year for land acquisition by federal agencies. Moreover, Baker neglected to inform his fellow NRA members that during the last congressional session, congressional opponents offered numerous amendments designed to soften the impact of CARA and mitigate the power of government to acquire land – including specifying that condemnation would not be used. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, summarily dismissed each of these. But I digress – back to Baker’s statement.
“I have included the contact information for the individual responsible for launching this irresponsible diversion, and suggest you contact him post haste.” Baker concluded, and gave Jay’s name, e-mail address and telephone number.
It didn’t work. The NRA “constituency” did indeed contact Jay, but not for the reason requested by Baker. Jay was astonished at the response. Letters poured into his in-box from every state, from other countries. People who had never heard of him or Paragon until they received the e-mail or fax from NRA, rallied round.
“Tidal wave of support”
“I’d been away for three or four days and I dreaded opening my e-mail.” Jay recalled. “But when I did, lo and behold, there was this great tidal wave of support. I’m sitting on hundreds of these e-mails now. I’ve been e-mailed by life members, Golden Eagles and, without exception, they’re supporting our position and questioning what the NRA is doing. I have letters that will curl your toes.”
Some examples:
- “Mr. Baker, I am appalled at the lack of qualitative debate offered; rather you hide behind the shield of proclaiming that only ‘professional observers’ such as yourself are fit to understand the issues at stake. … If the State can abridge the right to property, it surely will usurp others to suit its aims, including the right to bear arms.”
– Donald Baruch, NRA life member. - “Mr. Walley, I saw that the sell-outs at the NRA are attacking you for questioning their support of CARA. You should wear their scorn as a badge of honor. … In Colorado, we have observed the NRA’s capitulations for nearly a decade, and each year they grow more bold in their defense of the politicians who have destroyed our rights.”
– Dudley Brown, executive director, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners - “Having studied CARA’s underbelly, several close associates and I have concluded that it is a frightening attack on our liberties that must be opposed with full measure. That the NRA is supporting the bill is nothing short of insane.”
– Angel Shamay, founder and executive director, KeepandBearArms.com - “I am asking NRA directors to pull your support of CARA, NOW. By doing so, I think the bill will lose steam and never come to the floor of the House for final vote. The NRA has enough negatives coming from the anti-gunners, let’s not get the property rights people against us.”
– Bob Thompson, NRA life member - “Good for you Mr. Walley … The short answer to Mr. Baker’s arrogant reply to you, what will satisfy all private property rights advocates, is exactly what they’ve been asking for: public hearings around the country, and elimination of all eminent domain authority from the Act. The establishment tried to sneak this through on the q-t. Thanks for what you’re doing to bring about a fully-illuminated public debate! (Mr. Baker, resign!)”
– John G. Lankford, contributing editor, Sierra Times
Though gratified by this outpouring of support for Paragon’s position and actions, Jay was disconcerted by the hostility expressed toward the NRA.
“I want to make it clear that I am not anti-NRA, I support NRA,” he said. “I just think they’re wrong in promoting CARA. They should be working to protect property rights. They should be warning their members about CARA and asking them to write their members of Congress to oppose it, not asking them to attack me.”
To date the NRA has not officially budged in its position, nor explained its position satisfactorily.
It’s the money – it’s cashola
Mike Hardiman, lobbyist in D.C. for the American Land Rights Association in Battleground, Wash., explains it as a matter of money – “cashola,” he calls it.
“There is $350 million in guaranteed grant money, per year, NRA can apply for,” Hardiman explained. “Not that they’ll get more than a small amount, since other groups will be applying as well, and most of it will go to left-wing groups, including, probably, some animal-rights organizations. But under Title III, under what’s called ‘Conservation,’ NRA is eligible for grant money for programs like hunter education, land acquisition and all sorts of goodies, with the result that money they have will be freed up and made available for overhead, new drapes, new carpets.”
Hardiman pointed out that when you get money from the government you can spend a certain amount for administrative costs. “So, basically, the NRA bureaucrats in D.C. will be able to enlarge the size of their kingdom – meaning they can hire more people, add more office space and pay the mortgage on that eight-story palace they have out near Dulles Airport. They moved out there less than five years ago and the mortgage is huge. Essentially, the NRA beltway bureaucrats sold out the membership for a pot of money that they’re eligible to apply for. It’s a way to get their snout in the trough.”
Groundswell continues
Judging from the burgeoning contents of Jay’s e-mail inbox, the groundswell of outrage from NRA’s membership continues. Many of the directors on the 76-member board were contacted by rank-and-filers – curious as to whether they (the directors) knew anything about CARA. If they did, were they supporting it?
Turns out that approximately 90 percent of the board had never heard of it, nor were aware the NRA was on record in its support. Here was one of the most controversial land-acquisition bills in decades – a bill, which its promoters were calling the most important conservation bill since the Wilderness Act of 1964, or even the creation of the national forest system – and the NRA administration had not informed its board of directors or membership about the issues, or that the organization was actively lobbying for it on the Hill.
With opposition growing within its ranks, there were strong indications that CARA would be an agenda item for discussion at the upcoming board of directors meeting, scheduled for September 15-17. If the board directed the NRA Institute for Legislative Action to pull its support, then support for CARA on the Hill could very well crumble, several sources have said.
However, the horror of Black Tuesday prompted the NRA to postpone the meeting until some time in October.
They never sleep
It might be expected, under the circumstances, that congressional action on CARA, too, would be postponed – at least, until next year. However, Hardiman warns that promoters may try to slip it through while most Americans are watching other legislation, now being debated by Congress:
You have to realize that when it comes to pork-barrel legislation like CARA, the promoters and those ready to belly up for the handouts, never really back away. They are there watching for an opportunity to slip it through, perhaps as part of an appropriations bill. They are watching very carefully for an opening and they never, ever sleep.
Note: For a copy of Fred Kelly Grant’s new analysis, “CARA: The Unraveling of a Free Nation,” send $6.39 (includes postage) to Stewards of the Range, P.O. Box 1189, Boise, ID 83702. Telephone: (208) 336-5922.
For more on the NRA, CARA and its threat to hunting, see Sara Foster’s “Hunters Ousted from Public Lands?”
Sarah Foster is a freelance writer and researcher whose work appears in WorldNetDaily and other conservative and libertarian publications. She is currently preparing an article on land trusts for Capital Research Center.
