Accuracy in Media

Conservative talk-show host and author Dana Loesch has been tapped by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to serve as a major national spokesperson, the organization announced Tuesday.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president and CEO, named Loesch as a Special Assistant to his office for public communication, with direct attributable authority on NRA matters.

“During the past year Dana has proven herself to be a powerful voice for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” LaPierre said. “It is clear that Dana has the communication skills, experience, and natural ability to serve our organization well as one its very public faces in the news media.”

Loesch was named by the NRA last June to serve as special advisor on women’s policy issues, serving as a commentator on NRA TV, and making numerous national media appearances on behalf of the NRA.

“I’ve been impressed with Dana’s command of the issues facing the NRA, as well as her ability to communicate our positions and connect with women, and men, on those issues,” LaPierre said.

LaPierre further reiterated that Loesch now has full authority to represent the NRA on a broad range of issues.

In addition to her television and radio appearances, Loesch is the author of two books, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America, published in 2014, and Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run a Country You’ve Never Been To, in 2016.

In 2012, Accuracy in Media presented Loesch with the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award for Grassroots Journalism.





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • If you’re going to talk Second Amendment issues to the public as an “official spokesperson” for the NRA you have a duty to your audience to know and provide the legal definition of “a well regulated Militia”. When can THE PEOPLE expect open discussion and analysis of what the Constitution itself recognizes as the only thing “necessary to the security of a fee State”. When can we expect an open discussion and analysis of this?

  • sox83cubs84

    Smart, packing and hot! Good move, NRA!

  • Tannim

    First of all, go read 10 USC 311.

    Then go read this case: http://courtroomcast.lexisnexis.com/acf_cases/9528-united-states-v-emerson. While the ruling ultimately was in error per the Second Amendment, the dicta is comprehensive .

  • Tannim

    This is really a “whatever” move as the NRA is about money and influence, not defending the Second Amendment. For real 2A work, check out JPFOA, GOA, and SAS.

  • Perhaps you should read the post again, since its only two sentences in length. It asks for “open discussion and analysis” from the NRA “spokesperson”, who has taken on the official position of speaking about it. A “spokesperson” by definition, speaks about a particular subject, in this case the Second Amendment.

    Before you read 10 USC 311 you want to read the Constitution, the supreme Law which requires all “Laws of the United States [to] be made in Pursuance thereof” (Article VI). And when we hold 10 USC 311 against the Constitution we learn:

    • there is no “militia of the United States”, but only “the Militia of the several States” ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1, which are, as the name indicates, State institutions.

    • there is no “unorganized” militia, only “a well regulated Militia” (Second Amendment) which is a militia that is “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]” ARTICLE I, § 8, CLAUSE 16.

    • The term “National Guard” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution because no such thing was known in the Founding era. The National Guard was created by Congress in 1903.

    • No mere act of Congress amends the Constitution. See Article V.

    • Congress has no authority to whimsically rename any constitutional institution like the States, the Supreme Court, or the Militia as per Article V.

    • Congress has no authority to nationalize “the Militia of the several States” ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1.

    As far as any Supreme Court decisions, Americans were not so childish in the pre-constitutional period—and should not be so silly today—as to need or to seek tutelage in their constitutional political science from the very public officials whom they themselves had or have selected, particularly judges. WE THE PEOPLE knew then and should today that

    “[i]n the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of Courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and are not of themselves laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the Courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect.” Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Peters) 1, 18 (1842).

    “I understand the doctrine to be in such cases [i.e., cases in which a court overrules a previous decision], not that the law is changed, but that it was always the same as expounded by the later decision, and that the former decision was not, and never had been, the law, and is overruled for that very purpose.” Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 68 U.S. (1 Wallace) 175, 211 (1864) (Miller, J., dissenting).

    Thank you for emphasizing the urgent need for analysis discussion on this subject.

  • Perhaps you should read the post again, since its only two sentences in length. It asks for “open discussion and analysis” from the NRA “spokesperson”, who has taken on the official position of speaking about it. A “spokesperson” by definition, speaks about a particular subject, in this case the Second Amendment.

    Before you read 10 USC 311 you want to read the Constitution, the supreme Law which requires all “Laws of the United States [to] be made in Pursuance thereof” (Article VI). And when we hold 10 USC 311 against the Constitution we learn:

    • there is no “militia of the United States”, but only “the Militia of the several States” ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1, which are, as the name indicates, State institutions.

    • there is no “unorganized” militia, only “a well regulated Militia” (Second Amendment) which is a militia that is “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]” ARTICLE I, § 8, CLAUSE 16.

    • The term “National Guard” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution because no such thing was known in the Founding era. The National Guard was created by Congress in 1903.

    • No mere act of Congress amends the Constitution. See Article V.

    • Congress has no authority to whimsically rename any constitutional institution like the States, the Supreme Court, or the Militia as per Article V.

    • Congress has no authority to nationalize “the Militia of the several States” ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1.

    As far as any Supreme Court decisions, Americans were not so childish in the pre-constitutional period—and should not be so silly today—as to need or to seek tutelage in their constitutional political science from the very public officials whom they themselves had or have selected, particularly judges. WE THE PEOPLE knew then and should today that

    “[i]n the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of Courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and are not of themselves laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the Courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect.” Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Peters) 1, 18 (1842).

    “I understand the doctrine to be in such cases [i.e., cases in which a court overrules a previous decision], not that the law is changed, but that it was always the same as expounded by the later decision, and that the former decision was not, and never had been, the law, and is overruled for that very purpose.” Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 68 U.S. (1 Wallace) 175, 211 (1864) (Miller, J., dissenting).

    Thank you for emphasizing the urgent need for analysis discussion on this subject.

  • engineer

    They all do the same thing. They refer to what someone else has said about the Constitution (usually the Supreme Court) even though the Supreme Court admits it is not bound by any decisions of previous courts—not even the same court! The people need to start with the supreme law, the Constitution, not trudge through all the mistakes made by courts, politicians, and pundits. The information you provide is badly needed. Keep doing what you are doing.

  • Gordon Miller

    Dana does a fine job when she speaks about the 2nd amendment and he NRA. It’s a good choice by LaPierre because Dana is very attractive and feminine, which breaks the stereotype that NRA people are mostly hot-headed rednecks. Also positive is the fact that she herself “packs heat.”