No, The NRA Is Not Banning Guns At Its Convention (Updated)
Ban instituted by the Secret Service and covers only events attended by Secret Service protectees
Despite the knowledge that a growing number of Americans deem the media untrustworthy and consider much of what is reported as #FakeNews, the leftist and mainstream media just can’t seem to help themselves.
They are whipping themselves into a frenzy over an NRA flier and further exploiting the Parkland shooting in their attempt to create a sense of what they feverishly—and falsely—claim is the NRA’s hypocrisy.
The latest unfounded outrage by the perpetually outraged is captured in the following headlines:
From HuffPo: NRA Convention Bans Guns To Protect Mike Pence. Parkland Survivors’ Jaws Drop
From The Hill: Parkland survivor calls out NRA for banning guns at convention
From Think Progress: Parkland shooting survivors cry hypocrisy after NRA bans guns during Pence speech
From the Daily Beast: Parkland Survivors Call Out NRA for Gun Ban
Attendees of Trump's NRA speech had to check their guns at the door: https://t.co/PA5Y9FtSjD
— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) April 28, 2017
Guns don't make you safer: No guns allowed around Trump #NRAAM #NRAAM17 pic.twitter.com/QDhPaTeY3Q
— Violence Policy Center (@VPCinfo) April 28, 2017
The problem? It is not the NRA banning guns, it’s the Secret Service, and they are doing so only during the appearances of Secret Service protectees. This is noted clearly at the top of the sign that purportedly points to NRA “hypocrisy”: “Hall A3 is under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Secret Service during the Leadership forum.”
In an ironic twist of ironic irony, the Parkland survivor hailed as “calling out the NRA,” actually tweeted the real reason that guns are not permitted at the Leadership Conference featuring Secret Service protectee Vice President Mike Pence.
The NRA has evolved into such a hilarious parody of itself. pic.twitter.com/6Pw6NTQAe6
— Cam (@cameron_kasky) April 28, 2018
He’s in high school, so he has an excuse. The media, eager to destroy the NRA even at the cost of its own credibility and professionalism, does not.
Even the HuffPo article cited above includes the following: “The NRA posted the restrictions ― a requirement of the Secret Service ― on a website announcing the conference. [emphasis added]” They know it’s not the NRA, but they also know that “Secret Service Bans Guns During President and VP Appearances” or “Secret Service Does Its Job” aren’t nearly as click-baity as falsely demonizing the NRA.
Today, a few anti-gun organizations (and the Associated Press) sent out tweets claiming that the National Rifle Association (NRA) had supposedly banned firearms and ammunition from its annual meeting.
. . . . However, one small problem: it’s fake news. The NRA doesn’t ban these things, the Secret Service did during President Trump’s speech. People were otherwise allowed to carry weapons throughout the event.
Once again: These are Secret Service rules. The NRA does not impose these rules anywhere at the convention. https://t.co/nSsedDXRzQ
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 28, 2017
The NRA firearm policy, excluding the appearances of the President and Vice President whose security falls under the Secret Service’s purview, can be found on its website:
During the 2018 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits, lawfully carried firearms will be permitted in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center and the Omni Dallas Hotel in accordance with Texas law. When carrying your firearm remember to follow all federal, state, and local laws.
Specific events involving Secret Service protectees are noted as such on the NRA convention site:
Due to the attendance of the Vice President of the United States, the U.S. Secret Service will be responsible for event security at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum. As a result, firearms and firearm accessories, knives or weapons of any kind will be prohibited in the forum prior to and during his attendance.
These rules are backed up by Dana Loesch who is in attendance . . . and carrying.
This is a lie. I've been carrying since I got here yesterday. #NRAAM https://t.co/wclqdLK9uG
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) April 28, 2017
Secret Service controls only the speech. We went through this nonsense last year with you people. #NRAAM https://t.co/IAXUsHdXmd
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) April 28, 2017
Meanwhile, since the Parkland shooting, the “NRA posts biggest fundraising haul in nearly 20 years.”
The NRA should probably thank the mainstream media because the more #FakeNews they churn out, the worse they look and the better the NRA looks.
Update (FS, 4/30/18, 5:15 p.m.)
Not only did the Washington Post leap on the #FakeNews bandwagon with its “The NRA said guns will be banned during a Pence speech. Parkland students see hypocrisy,” but the AP doubled-down this morning. Only to be forced to delete their tweet and tweet an acknowledgement that they had misrepresented the (very clear) facts.
Twitchy has the original tweet from the AP:
It has since been deleted, and the AP issued the following statement via Twitter:
AP has deleted a tweet that incorrectly said the NRA had banned guns during Trump and Pence speeches at its annual meeting. The ban was put in place by the Secret Service. A corrected tweet is coming.
— The Associated Press (@AP) April 30, 2018
Here’s the deal, though: everyone, including the AP, knew this was a Secret Service requirement . . . because every piece of “evidence” provided shows that it was the Secret Service, not the NRA, instituting typical procedure for the protection of its charges. Why, then, does the AP (and WaPo) continue to publish what they know to be #FakeNews?
It makes absolutely no sense. Sure, the dim-witted, uninformed leftists will embrace this narrative, but the majority of Americans do not fall into this teensy-tiny little category. Why destroy your credibility with the majority by perpetrating a demonstrably false narrative, a known lie?
Where do you go when you do this kind of thing and then whinge on about the President calling you out for your obvious and unhinged bias and for publishing absolute lies (i.e. #FakeNews)? Who will defend you when you make the conscious decision to do exactly that in an indefensible display of partisan hackery?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“He’s in high school, so he has an excuse.”
No he doesn’t.
Rational, thinking high school students are perfectly capable of understanding who is actually banning firearms and for what purpose.
The little punk has run his suck since the Parkland shooting and hasn’t said anything worth listening to yet.
Rational thinking? How about just basic reading skills? You would think the high school student would at least be able to read, geez.
“In an ironic twist of ironic irony, the Parkland survivor hailed as “calling out the NRA,” actually tweeted the real reason that guns are not permitted at the Leadership Conference featuring Secret Service protectee Vice President Mike Pence.”
It isn’t ironic. It is an illustration of why we do noit listen to high school students on matter of public policy. They are stupid. And, if the test scores are any indication they are getting stupider every year.
Every intelligent being in America knows that the MSM and the liberal propaganda organs all lie. HuffPo posted a completely untrue headline. They will defend themselves from charges of false news by pointing to the body of the story where they mention, in passing, that this is being done at the order of the Secret Service. But, they do not expect their attention span challenged readers to read that far.
Same-o, same-o.
This child is not calling out anything. He is merely being a faithful parrot to those who control him. If he were a rational thinking person, then he himself would understand the humiliating and insulting position into which he has placed himself for a wee bit of fame. He has yet to learn that living as your own person in anonymity is infinitely better than being a famous shill with no allowance to think or act for yourself.
I think the applicable law is called “Excalibur”, and it even prevents our military and others from having loaded, let alone “fireable” weapons in around the POTUS and VPOTUS (possibly others). This is a non issue.
You can like it, or not. The POTUS and others create a different environment.
You seriously think there is an law called “Excalibur”?! How could anyone fall for such a ridiculous assertion?
I do recall reading that even around active duty military, the secret service are usually the only ones allowed to carry loaded firearms around the president/vp. “Excalibur” may refer to such a rule or security Protocal.
Seems a bit of common sense given how unhinged and dangerous liberals have become since 2016. I wouldn’t put it past a liberal to take it upon themselves to attempt to assassinate the President if they were allowed in close proximity with a firearm!!
Yeah, they would love someone, anyone, getting shot at the NRA convention
Yep, the really ironic part is if it did happen then it would probably be one of their psycho’s that did it, not a pro-gun conservative, lol.
It’s pretty ridiculous. I did “jury duty” last year. We can legally “open carry” here in Ohio. But I knew I would have to pass through a metal detector to enter the Courthouse, so I locked it in the trunk. Should I have been outraged?
Does that make our Government “hypocrites”?
Of course not. I know the laws regarding this, and try to follow them- mostly…
Shucky darn darns!- It edited my reference to “Newt” in Aliens 2
You can legally open carry in Ohio, but every park I’ve seen in Columbus has a sign banning guns.
That would be because of the kind of legal system you approve of, where President Trump’s lawyer gets raided and Hillary’s gets immunity.
Not at all. When a neighborhood thug mugs you on the sidewalk between the courthouse door and your parked car because he knows for sure that you’re defenseless, or trashes your car and steals your gun out of it because he watched all the gun owners disarm themselves in their cars that morning, then you should feel outraged.
It’s the reason we Arizona gun owners fought to force our state to honor a law saying that government buildings that wanted to declare themselves “gun-free zones” HAD to offer onsite storage for firearms, knives, and other legal but prohibited articles. This law has been working great now for a decade, and just think of it — the government is actually serving the convenience of the people instead of the other way around, and isn’t that precisely what government was supposed to be?
I don’t think it’s a secret service rule. I thinks it’s the law!
Really? What law would this be?
Hmmmm, so it’s one of those enforcing the laws things eh?
What a novel concept.
What law?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a52uMkEg4g
Sorry I couldn’t resist.
A convention is a large gathering of people.
Granted, in this case most of them are law abiding citizens, knowledgeable of gun safety rules, but still a large gathering of people. There are ALWAYS security measures taken when large gatherings of people are organized, especially to protect those law abiding citizens.
Even if it was the NRA banning weapons to some areas within the convention, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. The NRA exists to defend the 2nd Amendment and to promote gun safety, not to promote a Wild Wild West society.
But I would not expect a leftist activist to understand. Or to stop pushing lies.
Extremely valid point.
The United States is a large gathering of people.
Um, no, it isn’t. The USA has 85 people per square mile.
WOW!
You went full retard!
Don’t you know what they say about that?
But why isn’t the NRA pushing back? This is just like any other “gun free zone.” They should refuse to host Pence on principal.
Um, no, it isn’t. The gun-free zone in this case is centered on the protectee, and moves with him. The NRA has no objection to such security measures when protectees are present. It probably doesn’t even object if a private speaker has bodyguards who ask for similar conditions when he is present.
Did you mean to type, “when protectORS are present?” Because that would make more sense.
No, “protectee” is the correct wording. In this case the protectee is VP Pence. The protectors are the members of the Secret Service and any other persons [usually restricted to LE] that they designate. When the protectors go out to dinner, without the protectee [or principle as many protective services call him] there is no such “no firearm” security zone around them.
That’s absurd, not only on the solid points Milhouse makes, but on its face. The NRA should “push back” against the Secret Service? Insist that its protectees be . . . what? Not treated as Secret Service protectees?
That’s a win for anyone how? Are you saying that Obama didn’t deserve a higher level of security than your local school’s lunch lady?
Say we pull back Secret Service protection of our current (and former) presidents and . . . what? hope for the best? If you think we need to get rid of the Secret Service and its primary (though not sole) role of protecting its protectees, that could be ineteresting. But what do you posit in its stead? If its civilian militias and oath keepers tasked with the protecting the president, VP, et al, do you really think their rules would be any different?
Any venue at which a Secret Service protectee appears is the safest place on the planet. The Secret Service is all over every (real, unreal, surreal) form an attack on their protectee could take. These guys are pretty freaking amazing, but no, we don’t provide Secret Service protection for every school child. Instead, we know that a good guy with a gun is our best bet in our real lives. We don’t have Secret Service protection, we don’t need it, but we do need, and should be able, to defend ourselves, our families, and our homes.
The idiots at WBAP radio News in Dallas are reporting this associated with the Trump and Pence visit, noting that firearms will not be allowed during the time they are there. But then go on to point out their on-line vote on whether there should be a ban on firearms at the convention or not. Never mentioned that the USSS requires the ban on carrying during the President/Vice President visit.
Shows how safe the USSS considers the NRA, both President and Vice President will be present at the same time.
Don’t forget the classic requirement to present a valid government ID to attend the Eric Holder Event in Texas a few years back attacking Voter ID at the LBJ Library
(if you’re not from Texas, you may not know that LBJ is probably the best argument for not only Voter ID, but also against absentee ballots)
Not to mention also the best argument for voter literacy tests.
I might also add that the Secret Service might want to talk to the Texas DPS. Anyone who wishes to enter the Texas Capital has the option to present their LTC and walk right in, or go thru regular security screening and the metal detector – they know they’ve already background checked and screened the LTC folks. Of course, the SS is really picky about wanting to have the only guns in the room.