Kline Nabs National Rifle Association Fund Endorsement

Minnesota Second Congressional District Rep. John Kline (R) has "a proven record of defending the Second Amendment," according to the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund.

Follow Eagan Patch on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter | Blog for us

Editor's Note: The following is a press release from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund.

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is endorsing John Kline for U.S. House of Representatives in Minnesota’s Second Congressional District.

“John Kline has a proven record of defending the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman of NRA-PVF. “Because of his strong support of our rights, Kline has earned an “A” rating and endorsement from the NRA-PVF.”

While serving in Congress, John Kline joined the historic briefs filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which argued that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms for all law-abiding Americans. Kline cosponsored and voted for H.R. 822, “The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act,” which would ensure that law-abiding Americans with valid concealed handgun permits would be able to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry. He also voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas related to the deadly Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and voted for an amendment to prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from circumventing the will of Congress by centralizing records of thousands of Americans’ long gun purchases.

Kline voted for H.R. 4089, “The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act,” which would promote America’s hunting heritage and positively impact sportsmen throughout the country. He also cosponsored and voted for H.R. 420, “The Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act,” to provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members could register firearms acquired overseas between 1934 and 1968 without fear of prosecution.

“Voters in Minnesota can trust that John Kline will protect our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage,” concluded Cox. “We urge all NRA members and gun owners in Minnesota’s 2nd District to vote John Kline for U.S. House of Representatives on November 6.”

Chris W. Cox is NRA's chief lobbyist. He also serves as chairman of NRA-PVF. The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund is responsible for political candidate ratings and endorsements. These are based on candidate voting records, public statements and responses to NRA-PVF questionnaires.

Paul October 03, 2012 at 08:19 PM
What good are "Liberty" or "Pursuit of Happiness", when "Life" itself is not guaranteed or at least supported? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceable assembly, and even freedom from unreasonable search ... they're all pointless rights, if the government won't also guarantee a right to self-defense. Whether I carry a gun or not, it's good that Rep Kline is looking out for ALL of our constitutional amendments, especially the right to prepare for self-defense and to be a check against an amok government. It's nice to know that if my neighborhood turns bad, that I can freely get a gun to defend myself and my family at least until the police arrive. Rep Kline deserves re-election, for standing firm on the inalienable right to LIFE both with our 2nd Amendment and other actions of his.
Charlene October 04, 2012 at 03:42 AM
I read somewhere that most members of the NRA favor some sort of gun control and that the big money for the gun lobby comes from the manufacturers of guns and ammunition.
Paul October 04, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Indeed, very few would approve of an unrestricted right to bear arms that would include personal hand-held nuclear self-defense devices. So, the question is where to draw the line, and the Founding Fathers (who wrote and approved the Bill of Rights and then governed by them) answered the question by their actions and, in many cases, by notably failing to act. The first fifty years of our Republic was within living memory of the Founding Fathers, and they would have objected to abuses, as proven by so many doing so on all topics except gun ownership. Their answer: individuals are to own freely whatever hand-held weapons are personal-sized (including grenades), while the larger multi-soldier weapons (canons, etc) were to be held in community armories. The founding fathers' "standing army" laws did not diminish individual rights. So, it's really very simple, and logical, flowing from them seeing the clear need for a last-resort defense against government tyranny. The founding fathers all wrote, of those who did write, that the tendency of all government is to accumulate ever more power, and for powerful people to never willingly give up power, either. Note George Washington set the precedents: surrendering all power as general of the army, later peaceably stepping down from the Presidency, being known to, as a private citizen even after being president, carry rifles and other personal weapons that were technology's latest inventions of his day. Note nobody disagreed.
Paul October 04, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Big Money. Hmmm. As Michael Crichton famously stated about a decade ago, "Everybody is paid by somebody." Consider the logic. Gun and ammo makers have a vested interest in securing their 2nd Amendment rights to sell weapons --- and the owners & workers have a vested interest in securing their 2nd Amendment rights to use the weapons they make. Just as much, consider the very un-wealthy backcountry dwellers, facing sometimes rabid coons, hungry wolves, deranged meth makers, and/or other perps eying a hopefully isolated "soft" crime target. Logically, even the poor in the country have just as much of a vested interest in securing their 2nd Amendment rights to use weapons. Now, of all these groups, and of all groups of all economic levels in between, where do we suppose will come the big contributions that help to secure everybody's rights? And, do any who cherish their 2nd Amendment have a problem with where the big money is and can come from, to support their 2nd Amendment, so long as the contributed money is legally obtained? "Everybody is paid by somebody." As long as contributions, big or small, are legal, there are plenty of poor who cannot contribute, who are glad others can contribute. So, if the musing does indeed prove to be true, that big money comes from gun & ammo manufacturers, does it really matter at all? In this Franked & Obamanated economy, most would be glad that anybody can contribute anything.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something