POLITICO title The growing fodder codes for Congress article The code is being used as a weapon by the NRA to gain an advantage over their opponents, according to a source familiar with the new codes.
This code has been used in an attempt to undermine and divide members of the Congress from their constituents, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The NRA has also been using it to pressure members of Congress who oppose gun control, including a proposal from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which would have prohibited gun sales to those on terror watch lists.
The growing fodder code has also served as an obstacle for the Obama administration’s efforts to expand background checks and ban gun sales.
The code, for example, says an individual must be at least 21 to purchase ammunition and ammunition components from retailers or online.
The Obama administration, in response, has urged states to expand gun background checks, but has also pushed to allow more guns to be carried at sporting events, and require background checks on the purchase of handguns.
The code was introduced in January by NRA members, and is similar to one already on the books by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
But the NRA has used it to further their own agenda, as it pushes to pass legislation that would expand gun rights and create a national registry of firearms owners.
The source said that in a meeting with the NRA last week, the organization’s vice president of government relations, Stephen M. Clements, told members that the growing fodder was an “urgent issue” that they needed to take up.
Cements said the growing-fodder-code issue would be an “emotional” issue, and members should get in touch with their representatives.
In a statement to POLITICO, Clements said the increasing fodder code was a “long-standing issue” for the organization, and that it was “not a new issue,” but that they would be talking to members on the issue.
Clements added that the NRA had not yet seen any indication of a threat to the NRA’s members and that they were fully committed to protecting their constitutional rights and to their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.