My friends in Santa Barbara got another reply from NRA in response to why the Association endorsed Bill Brown for sheriff:
Thank you for your response. When a candidate does not return a questionnaire, we do assume that it is because they are hostile to gun rights. There is always a possibility the candidate did not receive the questionnaire or forgot to return it. But in Sheriff Anderson's case, according to individuals who talked to him and know him, he was aware that he had not returned the questionnaire and he still never did return it.Here's what I sent back:
Sincerely,
Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA
I believe the correct question is not why Anderson was unrated. That’s a diversion from the real issue in this race. I would like someone from NRA HQ to go on record about what Bill Brown did, said and promised to receive an A rating. This nebulous “Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol” does not tell me why Brown deserves an A, AND AN ENDORSEMENT, which in anybody’s book ought to mean he’s a gun rights leader.I will, of course, post any response I get, unedited.
What bills did he help defeat? Specifically.
What work did he do for NRA to help defeat these bills? Give details.
What is Brown’s position on the Second Amendment and why won’t he state it for the record?
What is Brown’s position on “assault weapons”?
What is Brown’s position on concealed carry?
What is Brown’s position on .50 caliber rifles?
How does Brown define the militia?
Why did Brown endorse Gov. Moonbeam, who made gun control ads a centerpiece of his campaign?
What does Brown think “shall not be infringed” means?
People are catching on to NRA HQ duplicity. As a life member, I am sick of arrogant staffers equivocating, weasel-wording, avoiding giving direct answers to direct questions. I am sick of phony ratings. I am sick of slick talking.
How about a “for the record” reply to each of my specific concerns, Mr. Eckberg?
And when we’re done with Brown, we can move on to Shane Sklar and Judy Topinka.