Why NRA wants Congress to vote Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt

NRA officials say the Obama administration's 'Fast and Furious' operation began as part of an antigun agenda – and that lawmakers who don't vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt will be held to account in November elections. 

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
US Attorney General Eric Holder delivers remarks to the Boys and Girls Club of America in Washington on June 26, two days before the US House will decide whether to hold him in contempt for refusing to turn over all documents demanded by lawmakers investigating a botched gun-running sting.

When the House votes Thursday whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, members will have to weigh whether the circumstances of the long-running "Fast and Furious" scandal warrant putting the nation’s top legal official in contempt for the first time in US history.

They’re also going to weigh the opinion of the National Rifle Association, which is going to put the vote on its annual scorecard.

Wait, the NRA is going to hold lawmakers' feet to the fire on a contempt of Congress vote? What gives?

Running underneath the to-and-fro allegations over Operation Fast and Furious – which began in 2009 when federal agents allowed guns to “walk” into Mexico in order to trace where they ended up and that came to a head when guns from the scheme were linked to the death of an American border agent – is an entirely different discussion: American gun rights. 

The NRA and Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, both believe the government has tried to use the Fast and Furious scandal to support arguments for more gun control.

“[T]he Department’s obstruction of congressional oversight of a program that cost lives in support of an anti-gun agenda,” wrote Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, in a letter to the leadership of the House Oversight panel explaining the group's dash into the Fast and Furious fray.

Mr. Cox continues: “Heightening the NRA’s concerns – and requiring our involvement – is the White House’s use of this program to advance its gun control agenda. The White House actively sought information from the operation to support its plan to demand reporting of multiple rifle sales by the nearly 9,000 federally licensed firearm dealers in border states.”

Those concerns were echoed by Representative Issa on ABC’s "This Week" last Sunday.

“We have e-mail from people involved in this that are talking about using what they’re finding here to support the ... basically assault weapons ban or greater reporting,” he said.

The NRA, a powerful political force, particularly in rural districts, could wield influence even over some Democrats to support the contempt vote.

“I think there are some members who will consider the recommendations of the NRA,” House minority whip Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland told reporters Tuesday.

Even though the NRA has decided to weigh in, the relationship between Fast and Furious and gun regulations is rather tenuous. As The New York Times's Jonathan Weisman points out, Internal e-mails from various government departments relating to Fast and Furious don’t show a push for more gun regulations. Those that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception of Fast and Furious, undermining the conservative argument that the entire operation was built in part on trying to influence American gun rules.

Moreover, Issa has not revealed any documents showing discussion of an assault-weapons ban related to Fast and Furious.

“If he has those documents,” Mr. Hoyer said, “he ought to show them.”

It should also be noted that Mr. Holder is not being held in contempt for attempting to tighten the nation's weapons laws. Instead, Holder faces the House's ire because he has not turned over all the documents desired by Issa. The latest document request by the Oversight chairman was met with a claim of executive privilege, blocking them from release.

But there's another wrinkle to the gun-rights angle on Fast and Furious. As Hoyer pointed out, the typical argument of gun-rights advocates – that guns don’t kill people; people kill people – casts the entire gun-walking operation in a slightly different light, at odds with the mainstream GOP view on guns.

“People kill people, not guns, I’m told on a regular basis, and controlling guns, whether it's assault weapons, would not solve the problem, I’m told by some,” Hoyer said. “I hope you see the contradiction in the position being taken."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.