On the surface, Scott Walker seems like a gun owner’s dream candidate for president. The Wisconsin governor is backed by the National Rifle Association, which lauds his signing into law concealed carry and castle doctrine legislation. The “On the Issues” political leadership website notes Walker opposes restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s unsurprising then, that NRA Director Grover Norquist has co-authored a piece for Reuters explaining “What makes Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker a good choice for 2016.” But in this case, Norquist is wearing a different hat – that of president of Americans for Tax Reform, teaming with ATR’s director of state affairs, Patrick Gleason.
So what’s not to like? Don’t both issues track with greater freedom? Where’s the conflict?
Wearing that different hat, Norquist campaigned for and endorsed Bob Dold for Congress, in spite of the “Republican’s” support for restricting gun purchases and possession which was known at the time. The unsuitability of Dold’s Democrat opponent notwithstanding, NRA Director Norquist chose his priorities and endorsed a known gun-grabber who went on to accept an award from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
There’s an issue besides taxes Norquist has yet another hat for: immigration. Just like Barack Obama, Norquist endorses rewarding alien nationals who have broken U.S. law by entering and remaining in this country illegally with a “pathway to citizenship.”
And Walker agrees with him. Again, per “On the Issues,” he endorses that pathway reward. He wants to increase the legal influx of foreigners as well, and has flip-flopped on an Arizona-style bill that would allow police to stop suspected illegal immigrants. And while he has also supported Arizona’s attempts to deny state benefits to illegals, his pathway policy would soon render that a moot point.
So what does that have to do with gun rights?
Data compiled by the Pew Research Center shows overwhelming preference among “unauthorized immigrants” for the Democrat party. And the Democrats, as part of their official party platform, call for “strengthening our background check system … reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole.”
“Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls,” Gun Owners of America warned its members and supporters in a January 24 alert. “There may be as many as 11.5 million persons illegally in the United States … [I]f illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin.”
Is it any wonder Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson insists all illegal aliens “have earned the right to be citizens”?
The problem is, GOA is alone among national gun rights advocacy organizations to make the connection, and to insist it be a factor in determining whether or not a politician truly supports the right to keep and bear arms. Why the “gun control” groups keep quiet about illegal immigration is understandable. Those in it for the long haul, who hope and believe Americans can be disarmed within a generation, recognize that this can give them an unbeatable political majority within a decade or two, to remake the legislatures and courts and reverse all the legislative and judicial victories gun owners have gained to date. But why the National Rifle Association has avoided recognizing and warning members of this real threat, opting to avoid it altogether with a “single issue” explanation, is harder to understand.
First of all, to those members rationalizing that stance as supportable due to narrow purposes and objectives, NRA’s Bylaws, rules that for them are analogous to the Constitution as an enabling and empowering document, also mandate that directors and paid staff “promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense.” Second, as NRA proved when it properly challenged so-called “campaign finance reform laws,” gun rights don’t exist in a vacuum, isolated from other legislation.
“[Americans] care about their Second Amendment freedoms but understand that all freedoms are connected,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre declared, echoing just that sentiment in a series of multi-million dollar television spots “delving into issues far beyond the Second Amendment … explor[ing] the IRS scandal, media elitism and security vulnerabilities, with a call to return ‘good guys’ to power.”
Exactly, Mr. LaPierre, and thank you for expanding association concerns beyond the “single issue.” Your acknowledgment of this important reality is why a candidate’s stance on illegal immigration and the “pathway to citizenship” has a direct freedom connection, and needs to be considered before giving out “A” ratings and endorsements. It’s why, Grover Norquist’s other agenda interests notwithstanding, Scott Walker has made himself an unacceptable presidential contender. He may have been far superior to 2014 Democrat gubernatorial challenger Mary Burke on guns, but as far as supporting amnesty goes, their agreement favors the Democrat agenda, not to mention Obama’s executive order, in the long run.
It’s also why multiple hat-wearing NRA directors who put conflicting priorities first should no longer be eligible for Nominating Committee endorsements.
UPDATE: Más Kool-Aid Por Favor!
I’ve had a link forwarded to me which, on the surface and without closer examination, would appear to contradict this report:
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon for the Sirius XM Patriots network, Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker said he does not support amnesty and the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake, who previously reported Walker supports a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants took him “out of context.”
How about the Wasau Daily Herald?
Did they take him out of context?
Who are you going to believe? After-the-fact self-interested neocon backpedaling, or your own lying eyes and ears?
Yes, Fletcher? You had something to add…?