NRA endorsed Senator: "I never promised to vote against all gun control measures"

And it's a good thing he didn't make such a promise, because if he had, the promise would have been broken last week when his vote proved to be essential for the passage of SB 1007. I've mentioned this magazine ban bill before (also here). As David Codrea points out, even this monstrosity's author comes close to acknowledging that it will not save any lives, when he admits that "criminals are going to get guns"--but we're somehow expected to believe that they won't get magazines?

While we dig in to fight this in the House, it might be instructive to look a bit more closely at Illinois State Senator Matt Murphy, who I quoted in the title of this blog post. Here is part of an email sent by Senator Murphy to a constituent and gun rights supporter who (understandably) felt betrayed by Murphy's vote:

Re: Senator Matt Murphy: SB1007
Marc, I understand your disagreement with my vote. However, I never promised to vote against all gun control measures. What I promised is that I would oppose SB16, the defeat of which is the ISRA's number one priority this session. That bill has been abandoned by Mayor Daley's chosen senate sponsor in part because of my opposition. Others who would seek to represent you in the senate may not have been as willing as I to stand by you on this issue. I urge you to consider this reality, and the totality of my record on this issue, going forward.

Apparently, we are expected to be grateful that he stands against an enormous violation of gun rights, and ignore the fact that he is one of the perpetrators of a somewhat lesser attack on the Constitution.

This, perhaps, is not surprising in a politician, for whom adherence to principle is apparently a mortal sin (I think most would cheerfully sell their own children into sexual slavery for a big enough chunk of the electorate). The reason I think gun owners might have had a right to expect a bit more from Senator Murphy, though, is that rumor has it that Senator Murphy has received an A+ grade from the NRA. I have been unable to confirm that, but according to the Brady Campaign, Murphy did receive the NRA's endorsement in his successful race against a Brady endorsed candidate last November.

I know that I am not the first to ask this, but how seriously are we supposed to take the NRA's endorsements?

UPDATE: A source I trust lists the very favorable (except Muñoz--he's a special case) NRA grades for six Senators who voted for SB 1007:

Cronin
1007 vote Y
NRA Rating B

Dillard
1007 vote Y
NRA rating B+

Hultgren
1007 vote Y
NRA rating A

Millner
1007 vote Y
NRA rating A+

Munoz
1007 vote Y
NRA rating D
This dude's Hardcore anti-gun and he got a D

Murphy
1007 vote Y
NRA rating A

The "special case" status I bestowed upon Muñoz stems from the fact that he is so consistently, so strongly in favor of draconian legislation, that the only grade for him that makes more sense than F is F-.

As you can see, Murphy received "merely" an A, rather than an A+, as my earlier information had it. Speaking of A+ grades, it appears that the only one who actually received that grade was Senator Millner, who actually signed on as a cosponsor of the bill, immediately after Commissar Senator Kotowski hijacked it from an anti-child molestation bill, into an anti-freedom bill.

Again, I must ask--what does it take to earn a good grade from the NRA?

UPDATE II: Having found a copy of last November's American Rifleman (Illinois edition), I have confirmed that those are indeed the grades the NRA gave these enemies of the Second Amendment--great call, NRA.