NRA Member?


PDA






Robert J McElwain
January 6, 2006, 10:41 AM
I attended the Kansas City Sports Show last night and the NRA had a booth there. The guy on the other side said new member growth was down. I've got my beefs with some NRA actions but it's the only game in town. And I'm a member. In fact, I enjoy letting that information out to some of my bleeding heart friends.

Any other thoughts?

Bob

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Member?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rembrandt
January 6, 2006, 10:45 AM
NRA membership is cyclic....goes up when gun owners fear legislation and threats to the 2nd amendment....goes down when everyone feels there's no threat.

TexasRifleman
January 6, 2006, 10:47 AM
And remember this is NEW member growth only, not overall membership numbers.

12GA
January 6, 2006, 10:50 AM
Although I've been a member of the NYS Rifle & Pistol Assoc (NYSRPA) for a number of years, I've just become a member of the NRA this month and am more than a little ashamed it took me this long to join.

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 10:51 AM
I've got my beefs with some NRA actions but it's the only game in town. Bob... I enthusiastically support your sentiment above; I too have "beefs" with the NRA but support it nonetheless...

I do wish the organization would return to its roots of supporting hunters rather than lawyers!

But alas, I understand why...

gt3944
January 6, 2006, 11:19 AM
I will be joining the ranks for good..

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 11:39 AM
Bob... I enthusiastically support your sentiment above; I too have "beefs" with the NRA but support it nonetheless...

I do wish the organization would return to its roots of supporting hunters rather than lawyers!

Not to pick on Camp David but this sentinment is exactly why I "used" to be a member. Too much pressure from Hunter-types that don't truly support the Second Amendment, they just support it a little more than the VPC does. I am not saying this is what Camp david meant, but it's an issue raised by his post.

The NRA is more of a sporting purposes advocate than a true 2A group. The last thread on this ended up getting pretty ugly, I hope this one does not go that route.

I won't slam someone for belonging to the NRA, I expect the same courtesy in regards to my supporting other groups.

Robert J McElwain
January 6, 2006, 11:47 AM
NRA membership is cyclic....goes up when gun owners fear legislation and threats to the 2nd amendment....goes down when everyone feels there's no threat.

That's almost exactly what the NRA guy said. I ranted to him about getting into Kansas and getting us CCW and he said they're working on it, but I haven't seen it. It's embarrassing being in such a backward State.

Bob

Robert J McElwain
January 6, 2006, 11:51 AM
........I do wish the organization would return to its roots of supporting hunters rather than lawyers!

But alas, I understand why...

Amen Brother!!! I know too many rich lawyers but, as you said, they're a necessary evil

Incidentally, I talked to the NRA guy about having a few "Open Carry Gatherings" here in Kansas, which is legal. I understand that's part of how Ohio got their politicos off their duffs.

Bob

MarshallDodge
January 6, 2006, 11:52 AM
Not to pick on Camp David but this sentinment is exactly why I "used" to be a member. Too much pressure from Hunter-types that don't truly support the Second Amendment, they just support it a little more than the VPC does. I am not saying this is what Camp david meant, but it's an issue raised by his post.

The NRA is more of a sporting purposes advocate than a true 2A group. The last thread on this ended up getting pretty ugly, I hope this one does not go that route.

I won't slam someone for belonging to the NRA, I expect the same courtesy in regards to my supporting other groups.

I have only been an NRA member for the last 15 years but I have seen some changes for the good. In the last year I have seen more articles on black rifles and accessories than I can remember. They have taken a strong stand for the CCW laws and I know I few hunters that think CCW is bunk.
I think the NRA learned their lesson in the Clinton era about compromise.

If you want to join other groups that's OK by me but I never hear any anti-gunners talking about how they fear group X, it's always about the NRA.

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 11:57 AM
Not to pick on Camp David but this sentinment is exactly why I "used" to be a member. Too much pressure from Hunter-types that don't truly support the Second Amendment, they just support it a little more than the VPC does. I am not saying this is what Camp david meant, but it's an issue raised by his post..

Can you name me one (1) real hunter group or organization that does not support the 2nd Amendment? I'll wait...:rolleyes:

pharmer
January 6, 2006, 12:09 PM
Yes,Endowment member. Joe

ReadyontheRight
January 6, 2006, 12:19 PM
I still do not understand why anyone needs to "choose" an RKBA organization. I belong to NRA, GOA and JPFO. They all fight in their own way.

Without the NRA, our rights would be even more limited than they are today. A very recent example: the NRA jumped in and got the "authorites" in New Orleans to stop taking away citizens' firearms.

BozemanMT
January 6, 2006, 12:29 PM
Best reason to join the NRA?
Scares the poop out of the blissninnies.

Life member
HUGE sticker on the back of the truck (surrounded by libertarian stickers)
I love driving to work with it in Boulder colorado (Berkley east).

Rem700SD
January 6, 2006, 12:33 PM
+1
NRA Life member here. I'm a little more hopeful for the future with Sandra Fromen(sp) as president as she owns class 3 toys. I just keep hoping for an amnesty....

Robert J McElwain
January 6, 2006, 01:20 PM
+1
NRA Life member here. I'm a little more hopeful for the future with Sandra Fromen(sp) as president as she owns class 3 toys. I just keep hoping for an amnesty....

I understand one of the greatest increases in gun ownership is with women, so you're probably right that it's good the new Pres. is a very capable woman.

And, suddenly, my two daughters, who are both in their 30s love going to the range with me. Of course, their husbands have always enjoyed burning up my ammunition.:rolleyes:

Bob

benEzra
January 6, 2006, 01:20 PM
The guy on the other side said new member growth was down.
The second derivative is negative, but the first derivative is still positive, with a total membership way over 4 million, not even counting affiliated clubs and organizations. I'll bet the Bradyites and the Hundred Mom March wish they could say that...

I do wish the organization would return to its roots of supporting hunters rather than lawyers!
Only 20% of gun owners are hunters. So if the NRA spends 20% of its resources defending hunters and 80% of its resources defending the ownership of nonhunting style guns, it's giving hunters at least their fair share. And I dare say most hunters probably also own at least one nonhunting/defensive style gun.

GRB
January 6, 2006, 01:24 PM
lifer...

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 01:28 PM
Only 20% of gun owners are hunters...

Could I trouble you for proof for that statement Ben? I have seen proof of some states showing almost the reverse of this being true; i.e., upwards of 80% of gun-owners being sportsman...

But, I'll wait and see your evidence...

Colt
January 6, 2006, 01:34 PM
The NRA is more of a sporting purposes advocate than a true 2A group.

I agree with this sentiment, but keep in mind that some hunters see it as exactly the opposite.

I know sportsmen that won't join the NRA "because they support the right to own guns designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people as quickly as possible. That's not self-defense."

I believe the NRA walks a fine line between satisfying 2A folks and sportsman
at the same time. Neither group can be ignored, IMHO.

M2 Carbine
January 6, 2006, 01:35 PM
I've been a life member at least 40 years.

Like everyone else I've have complaints with the NRA, but I can tell you for a fact, if it wasn't for us (the NRA) fighting for our rights for all these years we would be lucky to be able to own a bolt action 22 rifle today.

So join and support the NRA and other gun organizations, because the only reason you need a gun safe today is because the people before you (NRA) made it possible.

Now it's your turn.

davera
January 6, 2006, 01:35 PM
I'm a member and gave a buddy a membership for Christmas.

cosine
January 6, 2006, 01:41 PM
Where's the option for "definitely will be some day?"

I voted "not yet," but when I become an adult and buy my first firearm I definitely will join the NRA.

wmenorr67
January 6, 2006, 01:46 PM
Lifer.

Pilgrim
January 6, 2006, 01:47 PM
Endowment Life Member since 1996.

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 02:07 PM
Okay, here we go again. In an effort to limit how often I have to post in a thread that I can assume will get out of hand fast, I’m going to try and just throw it all out there at once.


First, please understand this:
Look folks, if the NRA is actively campaigning for the issues you want them to, then you should send them your support. On the same token, let's not vilify those that choose not to support the NRA because they feel the NRA is not actively campaigning or effective in the areas or on the issues that are most important to them.

The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and while they do fight for a number of things that are positive for gun owners, they don't necessarily fight for the things that are most important to some firearms owners. There is absolutely no reason to part with your hard-earned cash if money is tight or could be better spent elsewhere (such as on local grass roots organizations that do support your interests).

There are a lot of firearms owners that don’t support the NRA for one reason or another, but when this conversation comes up, NRA members always attempt to vilify those that choose to support other groups instead of the NRA (read any of the last 4-5 threads on the NRA yes or no question for proof), and that’s just not cool. There are a lot of reasons to support the NRA, there are just as many not to, it all depends on the individual and what is important to them. Let’s let people be people and try not to insult others over who belongs or does not belong to what group. If we all cannot abide by this, then this thread will be locked fast and what good does that do us?

My opinion on the NRA:

As of late, the only admirable thing they have done that I can recall off-hand is bowing out of Ohio over the AWB. I give them a great deal of credit for that, and if it signals a move ahead in this direction from here on out, they can have my money so long as they keep moving that way.

I don’t think the NRA should go away, nor would I wish them to; I think they are an excellent advocacy group for shooting sports, hunting, firearms safety and training. There are many people that are in need of such a group, the NRA does a fine job, but that's where the fineness ends. They do help with the RKBA as well in some areas, and in some areas they hurt.

Now, understand that my baseline for judging anything related to the 2A is the position that:

Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Control is an infringement, period. ANY organization or person that says they support the RKBA but is also in favor of any gun control, reasonable or not, is defeating their own intent.
The NRA supports “reasonable gun control”, so thusly, I give them a failing grade in truly supporting the Second Amendment. This is my opinion and thus this is my call to make.

Now, consider this, when was the last time the ACLU compromised on freedom of speech or civil rights?

"Any person can say what they want at any time, but no more than 10 words at once, and not near a school, and not while wearing BDUs, and not while wearing boots, and not without a permit. Furthermore, to get this permit, we endorse having to be trained by an ACLU speech trainer for safety reasons. If your spouse says you called them a bad name, or if they say you hit them, the government will remove your freedom to speak until you prove your innocence in the court of law. Also, you may not speak in languages from other countries, and books on those languages will be banned from import. Now, all of these things aren't our ideas, but we had to compromise in order to stave off something worse. We are committed to fighting for your rights, but we do believe in reasonable speech control, and we have always supported that."

Somehow, I don't see that coming from the ACLU or ANY advocate for freedom of speech. But replace the speech talk with firearms, and that's some of what our dues to the NRA have gotten us.

In considering the NRA on a local and state level, your mileage may vary. Some local NRA state groups are excellent from what I understand, some mediocre and some downright poor. So you might not have the exact same experiences I have had with the NRA because you may see a lot of action locally and the little action federally and be happy with that.

Now, as for the common misconception that the Anti’s are afraid of the NRA, they're not really; it's simple, plain old political hype. Make the biggest monster out of your enemy as you can and trumpet your own victories as HUGE battles being won, no matter how small or even fictitious they may be. Same thing the NRA does to a point, except the NRA doesn't fabricate statistics like the anti’s.

Look at it this way, the Anti’s lie or misrepresent the truth in everything they say when it comes to firearms, but then all of the sudden we’re supposed to believe that they’re giving an accurate assessment of their opponents, publicly? Sorry folks, not true. The NRA may be the 800lb gorilla, but it’s caged in a zoo, and the opposition knows that. The NRA makes compromises and political moves, and they can be counted on to do that. They wholly support “reasonable gun control” (unlike some of the other RKBA groups such as the JPFO or the GOA) and because of this stance, which I find in contradiction to the Second Amendment and the NRA’s marketing, the anti’s and politicians can count on them to play ball when it comes to gun control. They have a history of doing this.

The NRA is a political player and a lobbyist for politicians and agendas and gun makers first, THEN an advocate for our rights afterwards. They fully and publicly endorse candidates that want to ban semi-automatic firearms, want more restrictions on CCW and more regulations on what firearms and in what calibers the unwashed masses may own. They give some of these folks "A" ratings (ILA) and urge gun owners to support them, the anti-gun rights people. The NRA does want some form of conflict and threat of gun rights being stripped away just as much as they want some amount of gun control because without those things gun owners would have no use for them anymore in the arena of political lobbying (where the real money and power is).

It gets frustrating being on the other side, wanting to believe in the NRA, but seeing the reality of it all.

They posted “No CCW” signs in their convention in Philadelphia back in 1998, hardly a “pro-gun” thing to do.

They nailed us in Pennsylvania with Act 17 in 1997, specifically in section 302 – which was primarily authored by the NRA folks and HCI which gave law enforcement officers the power to decide that an individual needs to be forced into a mental health hospital for up to 120 hours and then gave them the right to permanently seize all firearms and gun rights from the person afterwards, with no due process whatsoever.

Some of that you would not understand if you were not from Pennsylvania and were not there to see those tow things with your own eyes and hear it from the figure-mouths of the NRA right then and there.

Linkie = http://www.acslpa.org/n-liang.htm


Also, see this:
Pro-Gun Group Prompts Arrest Of One Of Its Own At National Convention
By J.J. Johnson • 05/03/03

Orlando, Florida - Leaders of a pro-second amendment, liberty activist group are outraged over the arrest of a member of their group, who is also a paid member of the well-known second amendment group that had him arrested for passing out flyers outside a gun show last Sunday.

The National Rifle Association apparently had one of its members, a pro-gun activist, arrested at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

Condon was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff's Department Sunday for "trespassing" outside the Orange County Convention Center when he refused to leave or cease handing out the Free State Project literature.


"I believe there is a First Amendment problem with prohibiting people from passing out political literature on public property where there is no problem caused by it," said Condon, who also happens to be an attorney who practices law in Tampa, Florida. "What is even more bizarre to me is that the National Rifle Association would have one of its own members arrested for passing out literature that supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

Condon, who was attending the NRA convention himself, was held for 10 hours at the Orange County Jail before being released on bond. Jason Sorens, founder and president of the Free State Project, vowed to explore legal action against the National Rifle Association. "This is just outrageous," said Sorens. "It appears that the NRA only supports the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution if it's done according to their orders. I really think members of the NRA need to question their loyalty to an organization that would have one of its own members arrested for passing out pro-gun literature at its own convention."

Condon, a longtime NRA member, vowed to plead not guilty to the charge of trespassing, and said he is considering canceling his membership in the organization. "It looks as if the Free State Project is a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment, not to mention the First Amendment, than the NRA," he quipped.

The Free State Project has their own conference (The Great Western Conference) planned for May 24 and 25th in Missoula, Montana. According the Free State Project, NRA members will not be barred from attendance.

Debra Ricketts also contributed to this report.

On the Web:

Free State Project, Inc.
http://www.freestateproject.org/

National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org
Linkie = http://freestateproject.org/news/media_archive/0036.php


And despite popular Internet fantasy and NRA marketing myth, the NRA was not solely or even largely responsible for the AWB sunset. It expired because the Democrats lost their controlling majority based largely on that VERY ban, and when the Republicans came into power, they knew that it was a loser issue for them if they didn't steer it towards expiration. The sunset was the collective work or more than one RKBA group and the political climate/conditions that existed at the time. The NRA played their part in it, as well as they played their part in the sunset clause being included initially anyway; though that NEVER would have had the support if the fence sitters could not have been wooed in with the talk of “temporary” and “study” so if not for the sunset clause, the AWB might not have ever seen the light of day anyway.


This year, the ATF announced on July 13th that they are going to reinterpret a 38-year old piece of regulation, which amounts to banning the importation of barrels and receivers (such as barrels for FAL rifles) and the NRA made little to no comment about it. When I called and asked about this (in August mind you, more than a month after the announcement), all 6 people I talked to at the NRA had no idea what I was talking about. When some folks from another forum got them information on the letter and sent e-mails/letters, the NRA said they don't agree with it. But we were all still waiting to see them do something about it. I suspected that if they were in the pockets of gun manufacturers as I had figured they were, they would do nothing. Banning imports is good for domestic manufacturers in the long run. Well, the NRA did nothing. No more imported barrels for these rifles and the directive includes the words “barrels, frames and receivers” which because the ATF went through with this unchecked, they can reinterpret any time they like until something is done about it. This ban went through on December 31st, last year.


And then S.397. While I agree that the criticisms and fears about this might be a little paranoid, people said the same thing about the "Sporting purposes" language of old, and look what it got us? Everything banned or regulated in some way, at the discretion of the ATF. So I don’t count this one against the NRA necessarily, but it is useful food for thought nonetheless.

With the New Orleans gun grabs, it took the NRA three days to even say anything, 3 days after the GOA and JPFO made public statements (the GOA/JPFO issued statements on the 9th in the AM, the NRA issued theirs on the 12th).

They have no hard line on the Second Amendment and the NFA (sporting and even semi-auto rifles do not fully encompass the idea behind the Second Amendment). This is understandable given their position and the image they are trying to put forward as the reasonable lobbyist group, but it simply is not what many of us are looking for in a RKBA advocate group.

The NRA has influence, no doubt, and they are very good in many areas, just not in the areas that happen to be most important to both myself and large number of others. I support other groups that are more in line with my values.

I was a long time NRA member before I let my dues lapse about a year ago. I wrote, I called, I asked in-person and I never got the answers I was looking for. Funding them in hoping that they will change is simply not a viable solution for me. If they serve you well, more power to you. Fund away. When they shift their focus in some areas, then I will once again support them.

Otherwise, it's like staying with your wife because she's a good woman, except she doesn't exactly share your values and never seems to be there when you need her most. I'm not that kind of gun owner.

So to answer the “NRA: Yes or No” question, it is entirely up to the individual. If you agree with their actions, intent, results and philosophies, you should not hesitate to join. If you do not, you should find a similar group to support. If you are serious about your rights as a gun owner, supporting at least one organization (GOA, JPFO, NRA etc...) is a big part of what you should be doing, but it is only part. Write your elected officials and representatives. I do this regularly, even when I am not foaming at the mouth over a hot issue. It does help. I am on a regular contact basis with at least one of the major officials in my area, and on semi-regular contact with the others. This helps out more than you can imagine as well.

As always, YMMV. I meant no offense or insult to any NRA or non-NRA member by criticizing the organization, I just call things as I see them, same as you do.

SamV
January 6, 2006, 02:09 PM
The NRA drives me nuts with all of its requests for money. I do give a little now and then because I do support most of its actions. I would give more if I could. I think my goal this year is to give a membership to a gun owner that does not belong yet. I think that this would help them more. If all of us enthusiasts could get a membership in the hands of those people that own a firearm for self defense or rare plinking, but are not actively involved in shooting sports or activities, I beleive it would help give them even more clout. There are millions of gun owners out there that would never think to join the NRA. Some have a negative image portrayed by the media. Some think 2nd amendment issues are a not a big deal. Heck I think sometimes that if the manufacturers and the NRA got together, they could probably give away the memberships free or really cheap, like $5.00. Would 20 or 30 or 50 million members have more pull than 4 million paying members?

Brad Johnson
January 6, 2006, 02:52 PM
This same thing was discussed over on HS2000talk.

There is one simple way to double the membership overnight - each current member could give a gift membership. I have already taken up the cause. My father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, and oldest nephew all got memberships as part of their Christmas.

Anyone care to one up me? :neener:

And, as said by many, I don't agree with everything the NRA has done or is doing, but they are THE number one player on Capitol Hill when it comes to gun rights. As membership grows, so does the ability to have our voices heard.

Four million people shouting is a great noise. Four million people shouting in unison is a great power.

Brad

Quantrill
January 6, 2006, 02:53 PM
Since 1957. Presently a Benefactor. Put my money where my mouth is. Quantrill

Winzeler
January 6, 2006, 03:23 PM
If group "A" matches your ideology 50% and is 75% effective, and group "B" matches your ideology 75% and is only 50% effective......support them both.

depicts
January 6, 2006, 03:23 PM
I am a life member of the NRA. I was an annual member from the time I was 18, then became Life member around age 30,

I also belong to GOAL in Massachusetts, and several gun clubs. GOAL is a great grassroots organization here in Mass., and we need it...Massachusetts is SOOOOOOO screwed up on gun rights.

I do think however that NOT belonging to the NRA because you don't agree with everything they do is like voting for a fourth party candidate in an election. Sure, you make a point, but your vote is wasted. I'd rather vote, and support someone who can win and gain some power to work on issues that are important to me. And I make sure I tell my Reps and Senators whenever I see them just how I feel, I think everyone should go out of their way to inform elected officials at every level, from town selectmen to US Senators and Governors just how you feel. Look them right in the eye and say, "I voted for you because I expect you to support my right to own firearms." Or look them in the eye and say, "I am not going to vote for you because I feel you are making a mistake with your position on firearms, CCW, Hunting, 1 Gun a month or whatever is your gripe.

My sister is a schoolteacher in Mass. She went through the liberal education here, and is very liberal. She let me take her boys shooting though, because Dad used to shoot, and the kids liked it so much they convinced their mother to try it. She ended up getting a CCW permit, and joining a neat gun club with an indoor range where she can take the boys after school.

However, she wouldn't join a club that required her to join the NRA because she doesn't want anyone telling her what political affiliations she must have or contribute money too. I ALMOST see her point.

Bill Clinton commented that Al Gore lost the election because of the NRA. That alone should be enough reason to join. If the NRA can swing that much clout in a very pro/anti gun election, it's doing yoemans work.

Things aren't always black and white like that, but when you have 4 million PAYING members, and I wish we had 6 million or more, you DO get the attention of the powers to be.

Just my 2 cents!

Bill

Ohen Cepel
January 6, 2006, 03:36 PM
Yes,
It's in the sig line. I think it's money very well spent. There are other options and I endorse most of them also. However, the NRA is still the 800lb gorilla.

Brad Johnson
January 6, 2006, 03:50 PM
When I was younger I got a "talking to" from an old (read: freakin' anchient) friend of the family. It put a lot of things in perspective. His version was long and drawn out, but the summarized version is....

"You are falling off a cliff. There are three ropes you can grab...

-A rope that looks good, but you know to be rotten at it's heart and that will break as soon as you grab it.

-A rope that looks bad, but that you know will hold your weight - at least until you can get back to the top and make things better

-A rope that is perfect in every way, but is attached to nothing.

Choosing the first is like marrying a beautiful woman you know is a gold digger that will take you for all you're worth the moment you say 'I do'. Choosing the second is like marrying an ugly woman that is caring, loving, unselfish, and pure, and that hasn't discovered the wonders of makeup. Choosing the third is like marrying the picture of the most beautiful, pure, caring, unselfish woman. You are married in your mind but in real life you have nothing."

It's one of those pieces of advice you don't thinkg about at the time, but that keeps bubbling up in your memory from time to time.

DF357
January 6, 2006, 03:57 PM
http://www.dfandkf.com/lmhat.jpg

palerider1
January 6, 2006, 04:02 PM
The NRA drives me nuts with all of its requests for money. I do give a little now and then because I do support most of its actions. I would give more if I could. I think my goal this year is to give a membership to a gun owner that does not belong yet. I think that this would help them more. If all of us enthusiasts could get a membership in the hands of those people that own a firearm for self defense or rare plinking, but are not actively involved in shooting sports or activities, I beleive it would help give them even more clout. There are millions of gun owners out there that would never think to join the NRA. Some have a negative image portrayed by the media. Some think 2nd amendment issues are a not a big deal. Heck I think sometimes that if the manufacturers and the NRA got together, they could probably give away the memberships free or really cheap, like $5.00. Would 20 or 30 or 50 million members have more pull than 4 million paying members?


great point Sam!!!!!! the fund drives that the nra does so much kills me too. i get mail it seems like every week asking for money. but all in all thank god for the nra. that probably is the only reason why we still can own firearms.

palerider1

DF357
January 6, 2006, 04:08 PM
All you have to do is call them and ask them not to send you stuff. They'll honor your request.

Camp David
January 6, 2006, 04:13 PM
I think a lot of the complaints against the NRA boil down to this:

What is the organization doing for its membership? Many sportsmen see the NRA different than non-sportsmen...

There is a growing group of Americans, mostly sportsmen, that can't understand why the NRA spends most of its money guaranteeing what the Second Amendment already guarantees. Nonetheless,

I support the NRA...

I just wish it wouldn't burn its entire agenda on legislative measures, while almost completely ignoring the needs of its members.

The NRA's Charter speaks to "the governing organization for the sport of shooting with rifles and pistols, formed in the United States in 1871"

Now it seems to be a Legislative Entity for protection of 2nd Amendment freedoms. Those are important... but...

Indeed, if you go to the NRA web site and check about membership in the organization, you will find this:

"The most important benefit of NRA membership, however, is the defense of your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

Nothing about shooting sports, hunting, advancement of shooting education, hunter safety, etc... all of which were advanced by the old NRA but have been all but abandoned by the new NRA...

So those that are rigid members of the NRA calm yourself. Most if not all sportsment that I know support the NRA, they just cannot understand why the organization abandoned the sportsman aspect to concentrate on it being a lobby organization. In this way, I personally believe Wayne LaPierre has disappointed many.

Yes we support the NRA.... but....

M2Pilot
January 6, 2006, 04:19 PM
Of course I'm a member

Lone_Gunman
January 6, 2006, 04:59 PM
As of late, the only admirable thing they have done that I can recall off-hand is bowing out of Ohio over the AWB.

Asleep during Hurricane Katrina???

ReadyontheRight
January 6, 2006, 05:06 PM
When I was younger I got a "talking to" from an old (read: freakin' anchient) friend of the family. It put a lot of things in perspective. His version was long and drawn out, but the summarized version is....

"You are falling off a cliff. There are three ropes you can grab...

-A rope that looks good, but you know to be rotten at it's heart and that will break as soon as you grab it.

-A rope that looks bad, but that you know will hold your weight - at least until you can get back to the top and make things better

-A rope that is perfect in every way, but is attached to nothing.

Choosing the first is like marrying a beautiful woman you know is a gold digger that will take you for all you're worth the moment you say 'I do'. Choosing the second is like marrying an ugly woman that is caring, loving, unselfish, and pure, and that hasn't discovered the wonders of makeup. Choosing the third is like marrying the picture of the most beautiful, pure, caring, unselfish woman. You are married in your mind but in real life you have nothing."

It's one of those pieces of advice you don't thinkg about at the time, but that keeps bubbling up in your memory from time to time.


Those are two good analogies Brad -- but in the case of the NRA, JPFO and GOA, you get to grab all the ropes and marry all three of the women for a fraction of what most of us spend on guns and ammo each year.

I can respect those who do not like the NRA because thay compromise, but PLEASE tell them every once in a while why you no longer contribute.

Your "no compromise" voice might help balance out all those hunters who dropped their NRA memberships in the 90s because they don't think Americans need "assault weapons".

Hawk
January 6, 2006, 05:06 PM
Yeah, Endowment Life.

Also went "lifer" on GOA.

GOA's mailings are both conspicuously rare and pertinant. NRA's are more like stuff you'd get from "Sharper Image" but they don't bother me enough to ask them to stop.

GOA and NRA generally play nicely together but there's an occasional food fight that seems to dissipate energy.

I'll admit to being really impressed with NRA in post-Katrina NOLA. Gotta give credit to SAF as well.

vynx
January 6, 2006, 05:08 PM
Hey Cosine - you don't have to wait until you are an adult or own a gun to join.

I too grew up in a suburb of Milwaukee (Menomonee Falls back when you could hunt inside village limits).

I joined the NRA at ten or eleven ... then I went to the NRA saftey class in the middle schools basement - it was great they had a .22 range set up and we shot rifles, got safety certified and at the end we went on a field trip to a shooting range and I shot an M1 garand that I could barely hold up but it was fun.

Plus the NRA might have discounted rated for minors?

kimbernut
January 6, 2006, 05:26 PM
Absolutely! -member since '88 -Life member since '03.

You should be a member of as many Pro 2nd Amendment outfits as you can afford. They are not in competition with each other - we are on the same team. Unless you are a part of the solution you are a part of the problem!

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 05:30 PM
Asleep during Hurricane Katrina???

No, were you?

From the GOA:
** In post-Katrina Louisiana, GOA assists Representative Steve Scalise in successfully pushing a "gun restoration" resolution in the state. His measure passes the House by an overwhelming margin of 78-1 and then is later sent to Gov. Kathleen Blanco's desk.

Scalise's resolution documents that innocent civilians did, in fact, have their guns confiscated in September and calls on the governor to bring up legislation in the next session to repeal laws that were used to justify the confiscation of firearms during the recent state emergency.

Scalise is now working on introducing binding legislation that he will actively push in January of next year. This bill will amend the state code to remove any language that could provide a pretext for the future confiscation of guns in the state. The overwhelming vote on his first resolution provides a good omen for the bill's chances next year.


And:
Gun confiscation in New Orleans. That was the shocking news in 2005.

If you've visited the GOA website in the past couple of months, you have probably viewed the actual video tape. American troops can be seen going house-to-house, smashing through doors and confiscating firearms.

It's all documented on the GOA website, and that is where most people first saw the gun thefts that occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina this past September.

Even in Louisiana, it was the GOA website that provided legislators with the evidence that gun confiscation had occurred.

"Thanks so much for sending me the link to the videos on your website," Rep. Steve Scalise said. "I showed the members of the [House] committee the video of out-of-state police confiscating weapons in the state. They watched it and couldn't believe it."

Rep. Scalise told GOA that the videos were quite instrumental in helping push his "gun restoration" resolution. "It's one thing to hear about these confiscations," he said. "It's quite another thing to see them for yourself."

With the help of our Louisiana activists, GOA was able to achieve a significant legislative victory in that embattled state. And thanks to the help of members across the country, GOA has been able to post the gun confiscation videos and keep them running on the GOA site.

They had their initial outrage press release on the 9th, less than 24 hours after the news story broke. The NRA did not comment on it until 3 days later (I believe I addressed this in my post already.


From the NRA:
Friday, September 23, 2005


(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

“This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court’s ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."

The controversy erupted when The New York Times reported, the New Orleans superintendent of police directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that “only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.” ABC News quoted New Orleans’ deputy police chief, saying, “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.

So who did they work with, who did they talk to? If you want to count this as something the NRA did admirably well based solely on their own press release, then you have to give GOA the same token and based on their releases and the quote from Scalise, the GOA obviously did more than the NRA, again, at least according to their press release. All I see is the NRA taking credit for something but I see no substance of where that credit is justified. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but they didn't do much of anything during Katrina.

In the end, it's all self-praise anyway. You need to find objective third parties that are involved and get their take. I have contact with a lot of the higher-up NRA and RKBA folks here as well as channels in the govt. I can tell you the NRA does next to nothing positive here, and sometimes they hurt more than they could help. Most of our larger RKBA groups here are like that, so obsessed with gaining influence and clout that they shuffle and back-door deal our rights and interests away one piece at a time in exchange for a place at the table, or even under it. The politicians can count on these groups to deal when it's time to deal, and both parties walk away touting their great victory. It's all a dog and pony show.

Again, YMMV, but I would not assess someone based on his or her own press releases, that's like giving your employee a raise based solely on his own review of himself.

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 05:34 PM
I can respect those who do not like the NRA because thay compromise, but PLEASE tell them every once in a while why you no longer contribute.


This is very important and I think it is a step that a lot of non-NRA folks miss. I contact them every time they do something off and explain why it has helped cause me not to renew again this coming year. They need to hear that kind of thing if anyone ever expects them to get any better or grow in the direction that benefits those of us that don't like where they're going now.

Excellent point, and it applies to any RKBA organization. Send and e-mail, or a letter, make a phone call...it only takes a few minutes but it can have a great impact.

yucaipa
January 6, 2006, 05:37 PM
I'm a Life Member, I don't see the NRA as prefect but I am proud of my Membership.


I one thing I'll never understand is, I don't go on and on about my membership it just is.


Non-members seem to have this "need" to post these long drawn out diatribes to "justify" there decision (mistaken IMO)to not join, if you don't want join don't, but, there is nothing you are going to say to make me pat you on the back and say your non-membership is OK. :scrutiny: IMO it isn't you should join up and help the cause.

To all you members out there, THANK-YOU for standing up for my rights.

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 05:39 PM
Also, to dispel the whole Katrina argument:

From the JPFO:
September 9, 2005
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TRUTH,
DON'T READ THIS ALERT!
"Police Begin Seizing Guns of Civilians - Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts..."

It sounds like a headline from _Unintended Consequences_. But it's happening now -- today -- in New Orleans. Law enforcement officials are confiscating the legally-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens without due process, without warrants, and without cause, leaving their owners utterly defenseleses and at the mercy of looters and thugs.

According to an article in the New York Times (http://tinyurl.com/9ot44), the police superintendent P. Edwin Compass III decreed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry firearms of any kind, even if they possess permits to do so. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

(Well, not quite. The New Orleans police department will not be confiscating the weapons of private security personnel, guaranteeing that only those wealthy enough to afford a private bodyguard can be assured of protection).

Second Amendment advocates have long warned that such confiscations would undoubtedly occur in the event of major catastrophe. That they were right is not a surprise. Sadly, neither is the fact that few gun owners have resisted the confiscations.

Over the years, Americans have become increasingly ignorant about what rights they really have. Inalienable, individual rights have given way to "junk rights" -- privileges to be granted or withheld at the whim of the government. So if the government demands that they give up their guns, it's only natural that they should comply. The police officers and soldiers who are confiscating the firearms are either equally ignorant about citizens' rights ... or _simply don't care_ about following unConstitutional orders.

We've stated repeatedly that we must restore a Bill of Rights culture in this country. Until the populace knows all of its rights _and insist those rights be respected_ , the "brown-shirting" now in New Orleans will only get worse.

In just a few weeks, JPFO will release its latest documentary, "Bill of Rights or BUST!" This efficient, effective tool can quickly and easily help people understand their rights, and points out how our government is stealing those rights away. The introductory price for this high-quality video is only $19.95 postpaid, a $5 savings!. You can pre-order "Bill of Rights or Bust!" today by visiting www.jpfo.org/videostore.htm#borob.

We MUST educate our fellow citizens about the Bill of Rights, or what's happening in New Orleans today probably will happen in your town tomorrow.

Wanna bet the brownshirts aren't lusting to do it?

- The Liberty Crew


They're a great propaganda machine no doubt, I'm not sure what they really did though, they don't make much of a claim to on this one that I can tell.

GeoW
January 6, 2006, 05:44 PM
The NRA is getting fat off gun owners. The Constitution guards our right of firearm ownership. What more can the NRA do? They build multi-million dollar complexes, ranges accessable to few. They bribe (lobby) politicians to vote favorable on firearm matters.

A lot of hogs getting fat from this sleezy organization on mine and your dollar. I think there are organizations that do more for us than the NRA.

I am a life member.

GeoW

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 05:49 PM
I'm a Life Member, I don't see the NRA as prefect but I am proud of my Membership.


I one thing I'll never understand is, I don't go on and on about my membership it just is.


Non-members seem to have this "need" to post these long drawn out diatribes to "justify" there decision (mistaken IMO)to not join, if you don't want join don't, but, there is nothing you are going to say to make me pat you on the back and say your non-membership is OK. :scrutiny: IMO it isn't you should join up and help the cause.

To all you members out there, THANK-YOU for standing up for my rights.

Oh I dunno, perhaps because of the loving reception we get from the NRA types when we explain that we belong to another group. It's like trying to tell someone from Pittsburgh you don't like the Steelers. We get insults, snide remarks, accusations of being lesser gun owners and not understanding the RKBA (that one is the best) and insults about being cheap, stingy, miserly, lazy etc…

Aside from that, personally, this is a discussion forum, not a quiz. If I state something, I like to explain why, especially if it's not a mainstream line of thought. I'm not looking for your encouragement or acknowledgment, I don't really care what you or anyone thinks of the choices I make. But I thought this was a discussion, where we could all maybe I dunno, share information and maybe learn something or take a new viewpoint in a different light; sorry if I posted too much info for you in my “need” to submit a “diatribe”. Of course, responses like yours are typical when one has nothing to counter the argument, because statements like yours sure beats blowing raspberries at a computer monitor.

Mongo the Mutterer
January 6, 2006, 06:03 PM
Member NRA GOA.

NRA is the 800 pound gorilla that scares the blissninnys.

GOA is the yappy dog which wakes up the NRA...

Next membership .. JFPO...

yucaipa
January 6, 2006, 06:06 PM
Oh I dunno, perhaps because of the loving reception we get from the NRA types when we explain that we belong to another group. It's like trying to tell someone from Pittsburgh you don't like the Steelers. We get insults, snide remarks, accusations of being lesser gun owners and not understanding the RKBA (that one is the best) and insults about being cheap, stingy, miserly, lazy etc…

Aside from that, personally, this is a discussion forum, not a quiz. If I state something, I like to explain why, especially if it's not a mainstream line of thought. I'm not looking for your encouragement or acknowledgment, I don't really care what you or anyone thinks of the choices I make. But I thought this was a discussion, where we could all maybe I dunno, share information and maybe learn something or take a new viewpoint in a different light; sorry if I posted too much info for you in my “need” to submit a “diatribe”. Of course, responses like yours are typical when one has nothing to counter the argument, because statements like yours sure beats blowing raspberries at a computer monitor.

I don't believe I insulted you or called you Cheap Stingy Miserly lazy or any thing else.

Perhaps you should read my post again and see what I said,not what you think I said.

I was merely stating my opinion on this discussion, you don't mind do you?

I haven't "countered" your argument because I'm sure what your upset about

I think you think the NRA dropped the ball on Katrina, well they went to court and were successful, I'm not sure what more you want?

JohnBT
January 6, 2006, 06:07 PM
"They build multi-million dollar complexes"

You want they should rent instead of owning property in a rapidly appreciating neighborhood?

Ideally we should all belong to multiple organizations.

John

ihmsa70
January 6, 2006, 06:12 PM
I was a member of the NRA for about 30 years.
I am now a member of the Texas State Rifle Association. I can see what they are doing in Austin and see the results every month.
One of the best investments I've ever made.
Clyde

Robert J McElwain
January 6, 2006, 06:30 PM
I didn't mean for this thread to become so heated. I was mostly interested in the percentages.

The percentages started, and has continued, around 80% members and 20% non-members, which is about the way I feel about my membership. I'm for the NRA about 80% of the time and highly annoyed by them 20% of the time.

I don't feel any need to criticize non-members. Nor do I feel that the NRA has to be the only option. It's good that new organizations are coming along. Competition never hurts.

It's interesting that the most polite place on the planet is at a firing range. However, that doesn't seem to carry over to the gun forums.

Bob

Brad Johnson
January 6, 2006, 06:54 PM
The percentages started, and has continued, around 80% members and 20% non-members, which is about the way I feel about my membership. I'm for the NRA about 80% of the time and highly annoyed by them 20% of the time.

It's interesting to see yet another affirmation of the 80/20 rule. I guess it should come as no surprise, seeing how applicable it is to about everything else in life.

Brad

ReadyontheRight
January 6, 2006, 06:58 PM
It's interesting that the most polite place on the planet is at a firing range. However, that doesn't seem to carry over to the gun forums.

Considering how much we all believe in the cause, we're still pretty polite (for the most part).

I bet the "PETA" vs. "Animal Liberation Front" vs. "Earth Liberation Front" discussions get considerably more nasty over at the blissninny forums.:D

Brad Johnson
January 6, 2006, 07:17 PM
I bet the "PETA" vs. "Animal Liberation Front" vs. "Earth Liberation Front" discussions get considerably more nasty over at the blissninny forums.

Let me know when it's scheduled and I have the popcorn ready...

Brad

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 07:46 PM
I don't believe I insulted you or called you Cheap Stingy Miserly lazy or any thing else.

Perhaps you should read my post again and see what I said,not what you think I said.

I was merely stating my opinion on this discussion, you don't mind do you?

I haven't "countered" your argument because I'm sure what your upset about

I think you think the NRA dropped the ball on Katrina, well they went to court and were successful, I'm not sure what more you want?


I didn't say you did, it's a lasting attitude adjustment from enduring such time and time before. Even so, your quip about the long diatribe was a bit pointed, if not an insult, and suggesting that I or others that are non-NRA have some "need" to be validated by the NRA crowd is just silly and I felt justified a response.


What court case did the NRA lodge? They had no legal right to file suit because they suffered no loss or damage. Individual gun owners filed suit and the NRA road in on their coat tails and offered support (which is awesome, so did SAF.org BTW and the GOA I believe did in a different suit) but the suit would have likely won regardless as it was a matter of law and a very simple and easy case.

Attorney Ashton O'Dwyer (the gun-toting lawyer from NO on some of the TV clips you might have seen) is representing Patricia Konie (the old lady that was gang-tackled by California LEO's for refusing to leave her home) in her suit.

In both cases, as is the law, these things required individuals to suffer the damages in order for the suit to be valid. The NRA filed suit against no one that I know of, neither did the GOA, JPFO, SAF because they had no legal standing. I wouldn't expect that. All the groups like that can do is publicize and gather support (the NRA did, 3 days after the GOA and JPFO), contribute to the legal suits filed individuals (the NRA, SAF and GOA did that I know of) and help introduce legislation after the fact to account for the issues at hand (the GOA had a big role in this, the NRA seems minor in their part).

Part of my issue with the NRA over the whole NO thing is they came out with a weak and lackluster response 3 days late, and for all of their money, size and power did not manage to do anything more than the SAF or GOA did with less money, smaller numbers and less power, yet some suggest the NRA is the only game in town. They did nothing more than anyone else, in fact, they did less or the same after the fact.

Too many people join the NRA or other groups and think that they are a necessity because they will protect your rights. This could not be more astray from the truth. You need to understand how lobbying works to get this, it's all about money, doubly so in the case of gun owners as we are not a protected group (i.e. minorities, women).

yucaipa
January 6, 2006, 08:28 PM
In NO the NRA filed an injunction along with SAF

you can read it here.

http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29295

Yes it took 3 days for the NRA & SAF to file there for an injunction

After that the NRA help several people in NO "get their guns back"

Buell Teel,Richard Styron & James Richard come to mind off the top of my head.

The NRA has provided lawyers resources help were ever it could to any gun owner it can find who needs help.

I still don't know what you think they have done wrong.

dpesec
January 6, 2006, 09:05 PM
Can you name me one (1) real hunter group or organization that does not support the 2nd Amendment? I'll wait...:rolleyes:
I remember reading some place that the Dems set up a website that was pro gun by anti-second. I think the idea was to get names.

Lone_Gunman
January 6, 2006, 09:14 PM
The NRA got the injuction against law enforcement to stop confiscating handguns in New Orleans.

The NRA has also delayed enforcement of the San Fransisco gun ban, and is in the process of filing a lawsuit to challenge it in court.

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 09:37 PM
In NO the NRA filed an injunction along with SAF

you can read it here.

http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29295

I've already read it. Like I said, it was a simple case, no problems there.

Yes it took 3 days for the NRA & SAF to file there for an injunction

Um, the document is dated 9/23, do you even know when the seizures took place? Try long before then, how about, September 8th, yeah, there we go. But the NRA had little control over that. They had to of course find some gun owners that suffered damages, or did they?

You see, this is one of the most common arguments we get from NRA supporters. They can't do anything until they find some gun owners that have suffered damages, so that's why they only fight certain fights, and sometimes later that we wish they would. But hey, wait a minute:

NRA has a long record of representing the interests of its members in civil litigation, and
its standing to do so is well recognized.18 An association may challenge a firearm ban on behalf
of its members. Peoples Rights Organization, supra, 152 F.3d at 526-27. An association
may have standing even though “it is not possible to state with certainty which of the members in
the plaintiffs’ associations will be harmed.” American Maritime Ass’n v. Blumenthal, 458 F.
Supp. 849, 855 (D. D.C. 1977), aff’d 590 F.2d 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S.
943.19

That's from a legal document that the NRA distributed to certain individuals with a "not for publication" stamp on it initially, then later made it public. You see, the seizures were first reported on September 8th, though they were technically illegally authorized on August 26th through the NO goverment's misunderstanding of their authority after declaring a state of emergency.

http://www.saf.org/new.orleans.lawsuit/memorandum.in.support.pdf

So, really, according to the NRA and the legal precedents they cite, they had authority to act a lot sooner than they did, but they did not. It took nearly two weeks before they did anything, and only after finding a victim to sail in on.

Sorry, I know I baited you, and it was not fair, but I was honestly giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd know better.


After that the NRA help several people in NO "get their guns back"

How many would never have had their guns confiscated if your 800lb Gorilla had acted sooner? Remember, it took them 3 days to even issue a press statement. That's one thing I think they did wrong.


I still don't know what you think they have done wrong.

My point is not that they are useless, they just don't do anything on their own, and tend only to act when it is in their best interest, not the interest of the individuals they collect dues from. And that is fine, most, if not all organizations are the same way and it honestly cannot be helped in most cases. My problem is not with the NRA existing, or even doing what it does, my issue is with folks that blindly believe the NRA is "the only game in town" when they do little more than smaller, local groups with 1/20 of the money, manpower and clout. Those suits against the confiscations were slam dunks, the NRA does not have the sack to take on the tough fights, they only take the ones they know they can win, or at least compromise on enough to tout what they did get as a major victory while the other side does the same.

The GOA meanwhile, alerts their members and gets more coverage in 5 days than the NRA gave it in nearly a month. The GOA had the videos and newspaper articles linked at their website. They contacted local officials and helped draft legislation to change the situation, which they got support for very quickly.

Now, the NRA got the win in court pretty quickly, like I said, easy run. The GOA helped Rep. Scalise put together and gain support for a measure that passed the House by a vote of 78-1 and then was later sent to Gov. Kathleen Blanco's desk. The resolution does three things:

1. It points out that innocent civilians did, in fact, have their guns confiscated (stolen) in September.

2. It gives a "sense of the legislature" that the governor should bring up legislation in the next session to repeal laws that were used to justify the confiscation of firearms during an emergency.

3. Finally, the resolution indicates that ALL citizens who had firearms confiscated must have their guns returned.

Scalise is now working on introducing binding legislation that he
will actively push in January of next year. This bill will amend the
state code to remove any language that could provide a pretext for
the future confiscation of guns in the state. He already has several
dozen cosponsors.

They have since been putting pressure on U.S. Inspector General Glenn Fine to investigate and hold the responsible parties accountable.

They have also since been putting pressure on the Attorney General of Louisiana to do the same.

The NRA is not the only game in town, they did not do it all alone and sometimes they hurt as much as they help.



I don't think those that support the NRA, despite all of their faults, are wrong or bad gun owners or whatever; I simply ask for the same courtesy in return.

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 09:53 PM
The NRA has also delayed enforcement of the San Fransisco gun ban, and is in the process of filing a lawsuit to challenge it in court.

Actually, they did not intend to do that, even if they make it out to be that way now. They were hoping for a quick win and they lost that particular battle:


From a CBS affiliate:

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS GUN BAN PETITION
12/11/05 3:00 PST

The California Court of Appeals will not be handling a suit that condemns San Francisco's Proposition H gun ban, which passed on the Nov. 8 special election, after rejecting a petition to keep the suit out of trial court.

On Nov. 9 the National Rifle Association filed a suit in San Francisco's Court of Appeals declaring the ban violates state and federal law.

The California Court of Appeals rejected that petition on Friday, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's Office reported.

"In rejecting the NRA's petition, the Court of Appeal has apparently recognized that there are legitimate issues involving municipal powers and the will of the voters that need to be litigated in the trial court," City Attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said in a statement.

Joining the NRA in the suit are the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Firearm Retailers, and Law Enforcement Alliance of America, as well as several individuals, according to Dave Workman, editor of the Second Amendment Foundation's Gun Week magazine.

If the measure is upheld in the courts it will prohibit the possession, manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition in the city, which supersedes state law and is much more severe than gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., according to the NRA.

Under Proposition H, current gun owners would be made to hand over their firearms.

Though this is a bump in the road for the NRA, the rejection of the petition by the appellate court does not mean the case has been thrown out, Herrera's office reported.

Rather, it means the suit will be handled in a trial court, which will likely be a lengthier process, Herrera's office reported.

"If the NRA was expecting a slam dunk in the appellate court, they didn't get it," Dorsey said.

If they commit to this fight, which is admirable, it'll start the year off on a great note for the NRA. Most critics thought that since the CA Constitution pretty much should have negated such a ban, that there was no need to fight it much. But the language we're seeing now is that "the Court of Appeal has apparently recognized that there are legitimate issues involving municipal powers and the will of the voters that need to be litigated in the trial court" is scary indeed. I did not see any alerts from the GOA or the NRA prior to this, there was some coverage, but not much. The voter turn out was terrible, and many gun owners responded with disbelief over the results, as most of them did not go out and vote on it (backed up by the turn out).

It would have been nice if one of those groups would have stepped in and made some big headlines about the issue and encouraging gun owners to go and vote long enough before the polls opened up, it might not have even passed at that point.

yucaipa
January 6, 2006, 10:56 PM
I've already read it. Like I said, it was a simple case, no problems there.



Um, the document is dated 9/23, do you even know when the seizures took place? Try long before then, how about, September 8th, yeah, there we go. But the NRA had little control over that. They had to of course find some gun owners that suffered damages, or did they?

You see, this is one of the most common arguments we get from NRA supporters. They can't do anything until they find some gun owners that have suffered damages, so that's why they only fight certain fights, and sometimes later that we wish they would. But hey, wait a minute:



That's from a legal document that the NRA distributed to certain individuals with a "not for publication" stamp on it initially, then later made it public. You see, the seizures were first reported on September 8th, though they were technically illegally authorized on August 26th through the NO goverment's misunderstanding of their authority after declaring a state of emergency.

http://www.saf.org/new.orleans.lawsuit/memorandum.in.support.pdf

So, really, according to the NRA and the legal precedents they cite, they had authority to act a lot sooner than they did, but they did not. It took nearly two weeks before they did anything, and only after finding a victim to sail in on.

Sorry, I know I baited you, and it was not fair, but I was honestly giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd know better.




How many would never have had their guns confiscated if your 800lb Gorilla had acted sooner? Remember, it took them 3 days to even issue a press statement. That's one thing I think they did wrong.




My point is not that they are useless, they just don't do anything on their own, and tend only to act when it is in their best interest, not the interest of the individuals they collect dues from. And that is fine, most, if not all organizations are the same way and it honestly cannot be helped in most cases. My problem is not with the NRA existing, or even doing what it does, my issue is with folks that blindly believe the NRA is "the only game in town" when they do little more than smaller, local groups with 1/20 of the money, manpower and clout. Those suits against the confiscations were slam dunks, the NRA does not have the sack to take on the tough fights, they only take the ones they know they can win, or at least compromise on enough to tout what they did get as a major victory while the other side does the same.

The GOA meanwhile, alerts their members and gets more coverage in 5 days than the NRA gave it in nearly a month. The GOA had the videos and newspaper articles linked at their website. They contacted local officials and helped draft legislation to change the situation, which they got support for very quickly.

Now, the NRA got the win in court pretty quickly, like I said, easy run. The GOA helped Rep. Scalise put together and gain support for a measure that passed the House by a vote of 78-1 and then was later sent to Gov. Kathleen Blanco's desk. The resolution does three things:

1. It points out that innocent civilians did, in fact, have their guns confiscated (stolen) in September.

2. It gives a "sense of the legislature" that the governor should bring up legislation in the next session to repeal laws that were used to justify the confiscation of firearms during an emergency.

3. Finally, the resolution indicates that ALL citizens who had firearms confiscated must have their guns returned.

Scalise is now working on introducing binding legislation that he
will actively push in January of next year. This bill will amend the
state code to remove any language that could provide a pretext for
the future confiscation of guns in the state. He already has several
dozen cosponsors.

They have since been putting pressure on U.S. Inspector General Glenn Fine to investigate and hold the responsible parties accountable.

They have also since been putting pressure on the Attorney General of Louisiana to do the same.

The NRA is not the only game in town, they did not do it all alone and sometimes they hurt as much as they help.



I don't think those that support the NRA, despite all of their faults, are wrong or bad gun owners or whatever; I simply ask for the same courtesy in return.



With all due respect, I think you're focused on the wrong end of the horse.

If you think that GOA wedsite changed anything in NO while the NRA took the easy ones,all I can say is we disagree.:)

NineseveN
January 6, 2006, 10:58 PM
With all due respect, I think you're focused on the wrong end of the horse.

If you think that GOA wedsite changed anything in NO while the NRA took the easy ones,all I can say is we disagree.:)

Well, Scalise gave them credit for it, but no matter. We can agree to disagree then.

Rob62
January 6, 2006, 11:12 PM
As my sig line says I'm an NRA Life Member. And proud of it.

The NRA like any other organization does have some problems. But any problems they have are far, far, outweigh by the political clout they have and can muster.

Lets face it, the NRA is the ONLY pro gun organization taken seriously by our elected officials. With about 4 million members it will get your attention. GOA and JPFO are good and more non compromising than the NRA, but they do not have the clout of the NRA. I also don't think they will ever have the membership numbers that the NRA will.

I believe that all people concerned about the constitutional right to own firearms should be an NRA member.

Rob

Wllm. Legrand
January 7, 2006, 12:19 AM
The NRA's promotion of that despicable "Project Exile" nailed the coffin for me with them. An unconstitutional wimpish appeasement to "throw some of their own" to the wolves, like the Russian folktale, they have never been supporters of the "evil black rifle" and lovers of it like me, whom they view as bastard step-children.

In addition, they are a supporter of "reasonable gun control". Historically, they have not been, in my memory, a proponent of the unabridged 2nd Amendment.

They seem to believe, as evidenced in their magazine "American Rifleman", a view of guns pretty much as hunting and sport accoutrements.

They are historically the outgrowth of a group of Yankee Lincoln-lovers.

The "suits" seem firmly in bed with the Republican Party, as if that's where one goes to find supporters of the Constitution...any part of it.

I am forced to be a member, as that is a requirement of the private club of which I am a member.

They inundate me with cash requests, while paying exhorbitant salaries to officers of the organization.

They, as almost all politicians, are whores of their own self-interest, despite proclamations to the contrary, and a wonderful example of style over substance and myth over reality.

They are unrepentent lovers of the Federal government, in all its forms, and see their moral justification from the strictly political position, as opposed to the principled moral position. Hence, their inability to take a principled stand on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

And I'm just getting started....

NineseveN
January 7, 2006, 12:39 AM
The NRA's promotion of that despicable "Project Exile" nailed the coffin for me with them. An unconstitutional wimpish appeasement to "throw some of their own" to the wolves, like the Russian folktale, they have never been supporters of the "evil black rifle" and lovers of it like me, whom they view as bastard step-children.

In addition, they are a supporter of "reasonable gun control". Historically, they have not been, in my memory, a proponent of the unabridged 2nd Amendment.

They seem to believe, as evidenced in their magazine "American Rifleman", a view of guns pretty much as hunting and sport accoutrements.

They are historically the outgrowth of a group of Yankee Lincoln-lovers.

The "suits" seem firmly in bed with the Republican Party, as if that's where one goes to find supporters of the Constitution...any part of it.

I am forced to be a member, as that is a requirement of the private club of which I am a member.

They inundate me with cash requests, while paying exhorbitant salaries to officers of the organization.

They, as almost all politicians, are whores of their own self-interest, despite proclamations to the contrary, and a wonderful example of style over substance and myth over reality.

They are unrepentent lovers of the Federal government, in all its forms, and see their moral justification from the strictly political position, as opposed to the principled moral position. Hence, their inability to take a principled stand on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

And I'm just getting started....

There's always that too. :D

+1

Freedspeak
January 7, 2006, 01:23 AM
I support the NRA and have for years, though I may not agree with all their actions, since they are the big dog on the block. However I also support the others that have more "limited" goals, and I let the NRA know this in any corresponence I have with them!

" Once I get to life member, maybe I'll go for the board or a commitee." :) ( Then they'll be in trouble!):evil:

FireBreather01
January 7, 2006, 01:58 AM
Where's the option for "definitely will be some day?"

I voted "not yet," but when I become an adult and buy my first firearm I definitely will join the NRA.

Cosine,

I live just outside Milwaukee - send your name and address to my e-mail below and I'll buy you a Junior membership! If you want to talk to your parents before sending me private info I'll understand, just send an e-mail or PM to me and I'll send you (your parents) my information, phone number, etc.

FireBreather01ATdanns.net

NineseveN
January 7, 2006, 02:22 AM
Cosine,

I live just outside Milwaukee - send your name and address to my e-mail below and I'll buy you a Junior membership! If you want to talk to your parents before sending me private info I'll understand, just send an e-mail or PM to me and I'll send you (your parents) my information, phone number, etc.

FireBreather01ATdanns.net

Now that absolutely rocks! Good on you FireBreather01.

Hawk
January 7, 2006, 03:12 PM
The "NRA member" threads generally include repeated references to the amount of junk mail one receives, and repeated responses that one can do something about it.

I believe the ratio in this thread is running about 50/50, so here's my gratuitous reminder, direct from the nra.org.
Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA?

A: Simply email us at membership@nrahq.org or dial 800-NRA-3888 and request to be placed on the "Do Not Promote" list. This will significantly reduce the amount of mail you receive without affecting important mailings, magazine service, or your membership renewal.

JohnBT
January 7, 2006, 06:42 PM
"My point is not that they are useless, they just don't do anything on their own, and tend only to act when it is in their best interest, not the interest of the individuals they collect dues from. And that is fine, most, if not all organizations are the same way and it honestly cannot be helped in most cases"

They don't do anything on their own; but it's fine; most organizations are the same way; it cannot be helped.

If it can't be helped and all organizations are that way, then why bring it up? It doesn't make any sense.

John

NineseveN
January 7, 2006, 07:26 PM
The "NRA member" threads generally include repeated references to the amount of junk mail one receives, and repeated responses that one can do something about it.

I believe the ratio in this thread is running about 50/50, so here's my gratuitous reminder, direct from the nra.org.

Yeah, the junk mail can be stopped, sometimes it would take 2-3 times of going through the process, but they're a big organization, sometimes things don't happen in light speed. I personally think if that's your only reason for not belonging to the NRA, you're only cheating yourself because that can be easily remedied.

NineseveN
January 7, 2006, 07:59 PM
I said:
"My point is not that they are useless, they just don't do anything on their own, and tend only to act when it is in their best interest, not the interest of the individuals they collect dues from. And that is fine, most, if not all organizations are the same way and it honestly cannot be helped in most cases"

They don't do anything on their own; but it's fine; most organizations are the same way; it cannot be helped."

You asked:
If it can't be helped and all organizations are that way, then why bring it up? It doesn't make any sense.

John

It doesn't make any sense? Then try actually reading. My point again, is not that the NRA is a terrible organization, just that they are no better than the GOA or JPFO when it comes strictly to Second Amendment issues and abilities. I think in many areas they are nowhere near as good, while in others they are able to flex their muscle in a limited way and it helps.

If I was trying to vilify the NRA or call for their utter demise, then your wonderment over why I would try and bridge the gap between what the NRA does and can do and what the GOA or JPFO does and can do would make sense, but I am not trying to bring down the NRA.

The difference between the NRA and the GOA when it comes to "doing what is in their own best interest" is that the NRA is a moderate sportsmen's organization with ties to the Second Amendment, the GOA is a hard-line Second Amendment organization, so what is in the best interest of each may differ.

The NRA has countless sportsmen among their ranks, many I am sure that do not feel the 2A supports machine guns or even military-style rifles. You can prove this to yourself by taking the time to visit any regional NRA meeting and talking to folks, or going to NRA events and striking up conversation as I have done over the last few years.

The NRA knows this, they have to lobby for both sides of that coin, lest they lose membership. So they have to find a fine line between hunting and shooting sports and things like so-called Assault Weapons Bans and CCW issues (the 2 most prevalent hot topic issues amongst the non-hunting or sporting crowd with the NFA issue a very distant third). The NRA has their hands in sporting competitions, law enforcement services/events, training and education, hunting issues and working towards diversifying the shooting community (increasing the ranks of youth, women and minority shooters), all of which are good things, just not the priority of some firearms owners. No one disagrees that getting more women into firearms is a good thing, nor do they think that better training and easier access to it is a bad thing, but if comes at the expense of taking a more hard line stance on the Second Amendment, it hurts as much as it helps.

What good is increasing the number of women shooters say in Pennsylvania if the NRA makes that their focus but then also pushes to not not get "Vermont style carry laws" in PA, or if they just drop the ball in supporting it because they do not have the resources? Through the back-channel RKBA and political relationships I have here, I can tell you, the so-called "fringe lobbyists" here have made a case for it and raised the issue time and time again only to never see the support of the NRA or to see the NRA directly support the opposition to Vermont Carry in PA. The GOA threw their hat in the ring behind the scenes, but could never get it off the ground here because the NRA and PA's other "Sportsmen's Groups" refused to support the idea or the individuals bringing it to the table. Their reason? the only comment I got from an NRA rep is that they wanted to introduce their own carry law updates to the state and they would throw their support behind their own piece. That's nice, but their changes to the carry laws never materialized and I still see no public plans for anything tangible down the pike. Granted, we have an easy CCW system as is, but the problem is, we still have to apply for a permit to exercise a right, and that's utterly wrong.

Misses Jones down the street owning a handgun is a very distant concern of mine when compared to finally getting out from underneath the unconstitutional chains of registering and getting permission to exercise a right. the NRA and other groups like it felt otherwise.


Whereas the GOA is a solid Second Amendment Advocate. They dabble in other areas, but their main focus is the Second Amendment (which has absolutely, positively nothing directly to do with hunting, competition, sporting, training etc...). So when the GOA acts in their own interests, their acting towards strict Second Amendment issues, whereas the NRA may be acting on that basis, and maybe they're acting on their best interest involving sporting or hunting.

Many members, even those that are more hunters than Second Amendment advocates (i.e., why do you need a Cetme, you can't hunt with it" folks) have stated that they have become increasingly disappointed with the NRA supporting their concerns, because the NRA has become so thinly stretched across all of those lines.

I appreciate some of the things the NRA has done, but they have hurt more than they have helped in many cases, cases that were important to many gun owners especially in PA...and I am sure it is the same in other states, in fact, I know of a few that are exactly like that.

On a federal level, it's not really all that much better. Again, I will say that the NRA does many great things for gun owners and sportsmen, but they get a failing grade when it comes to true Second Amendment support in my opinion. No offense, but I could care less about hunters or sportsmen if it comes at the expense of fighting for the rights of every American citizen.

The NRA is a good organization in a lot of ways, the GOA is good in a lot of ways, however, the NRA is weak where my concerns lie and the GOA is a better candidate for support those concerns.

PATH
January 7, 2006, 10:39 PM
Just answering the original question. Yes. I am a life member!

gp911
January 8, 2006, 01:46 AM
Endowment member here...

gp911

OtG
January 8, 2006, 02:33 AM
Went easy-pay life last year. Only $600 more, and I'm in for good!
:)

medmo
January 8, 2006, 02:48 AM
I'm a life member who owns guns and hunts. If you own guns and hunt and are not a member than you suck. That Simple. Just my opinion.

Ala Dan
January 8, 2006, 11:29 AM
Life Member

45crittergitter
January 8, 2006, 06:33 PM
see the tag lines below

enfield
January 8, 2006, 09:58 PM
. . . for about 30 years now. Money WELL spent.

Wllm. Legrand
January 8, 2006, 10:08 PM
I'm a life member who owns guns and hunts. If you own guns and hunt and are not a member than you suck. That Simple. Just my opinion.

That simple? More like simple-minded.

45Broomhandle
January 8, 2006, 10:24 PM
MAN! Hard to believe how much verbiage can be generated by a simple poll. Couple of you writers not only wrote long dissertations in response, but repeated and repeated and repeated your arguments!

I have a short comment on my Annual Membership in the NRA. I first joined in 1952, the year I graduated from high school in a small Hoosier town. I owned 152 firearms. Shortly after that I discovered girls and a lot of my guns were quickly converted to cash. Girls or not, I remained a collector, shooter, and hunter. My gun inventory has suffered, I'm down to a third of that now, but I no longer hunt, and shoot very little. Mainly a collector.

No, I never signed up for a Life Membership. I figured the NRA could better use the ever-increasing dues I would pay each year than the small amount I would send them up front back then. Five decades later I still sign up and pay up every May. And, yes I have an NRA decal on each end of my car.

Yes, I get aggravated at their constant solicitation of funds. Same with Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars, but I still send each of them a couple of ten spots at least a couple of times a year. I happen to appreciate what they've already accomplished and what they continue to do for their memberships. I regularly tithe to our church - same reasons.

Would appear some of you don't believe in the old saw, strength in numbers. Like one poster said, the Brady Bunch - and their anti-gun ownership ilk - have no fear of ANY gun bunch except the NRA. But, you gladly support those OTHER gun groups. Hmmmmm??? Sound like you might be driving your ducks to a mighty poor market.

http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/9238/fouremblems1ax.jpg

Stevie-Ray
January 8, 2006, 10:30 PM
Proud member for over 25 years. Give to the ILA several times a year, also. Money well spent. Sure would be nice to see over 5 million members.

IndianaDean
January 9, 2006, 12:04 AM
I just upped my membership, and also renewed to NRA-ILA.

medmo
February 8, 2006, 02:33 AM
"That simple? More like simple-minded." Wllm. Legrand

Yup, that simple. I have heard your long spiels before yet you have sold nothing but disdain for everything beyond the bounds of your extremely narrow mind. You eat from the trough ungratefully only because folks like me fill it with extra for folks like you.

CajunBass
February 8, 2006, 04:42 AM
My wife and I are both members. Plan to be for a long time.

We have also found a sure fire cure for all the "junk mail" we get from them.

On the way to the house, from the mailbox, we pass a wonderful device called a "trash can." We simply drop any mail we don't want to read in there. Problem solved. :neener:

Nematocyst
February 8, 2006, 05:13 AM
Voted 'not yet'.

But very close to becoming a member
(seems that membership in my local range requires it),
& reading every word of this thread looking for reasons
to be or not to be,
pro or con.

You, too, can influence my decision.

(Hand on the checkbook...)

Nem

(Right now, with 80%
(223; interesting caliber) voting 'yes',
I'd say the 'yes' votes have it.)

PX15
February 8, 2006, 10:06 AM
Member..

I'm an old fart but I crack up when I wear my "NRA" baseball cap and see the different reactions.

Fortunately I'm in SE Ga. and most folks are "gun friendly", but it's very seldom I don't generate a sneer from somebody.

Funny tho, those who don't appreciate the NRA don't seem too anxious to stop and chat about the reason for their attitudes.

I don't agree with everything the NRA does, and getting mail 4 times a day from the NRA does get a bit much, but the NRA is basically the "only game in town"...

There are probably several other groups out there doing good work for "us" regarding the 2nd Amendment, but for press recognition purposes the NRA is the biggest dog in the pack.. NRA membership isn't that expensive, and I think they do enough good work for us that I always felt guilty when I wasn't a member..

Go ahead and join. It'll make ya feel good, and the next time you read where the NRA has done something good for gun owners you'll know where your monies going....

Best Wishes,

bowfin
February 8, 2006, 10:08 AM
Member.

Robert J McElwain
February 8, 2006, 11:57 AM
Member..

I'm an old fart but I crack up when I wear my "NRA" baseball cap and see the different reactions..........,

Ditto here. I especially like wearing my hat when I go fishing in Canada.

Skipper
February 8, 2006, 05:04 PM
PATRON LIFE MEMBER for past several years. Been a "lifer" for about 30 years. I wish they were more hard core, but they are the only pro-gun group that the politicians fear. With 80 million gun owners in this country, if only 20% of them joined the NRA and voted, we'd NEVER have to worry about gun legislation.
Regards,
SKIP

Robert J McElwain
February 8, 2006, 05:13 PM
PATRON LIFE MEMBER for past several years. Been a "lifer" for about 30 years. I wish they were more hard core, but they are the only pro-gun group that the politicians fear. With 80 million gun owners in this country, if only 20% of them joined the NRA and voted, we'd NEVER have to worry about gun legislation.
Regards,
SKIP

Very true. However, I suspect that a large part of the power of the NRA is that, although only a small percentage of the gun owning public actually belongs, our politicians know that the views of the NRA extend far beyond it's membership. I think the NRA represents the views of the overwhelming majority of those 80 million gun owners.

Bob

brentwal
February 8, 2006, 11:28 PM
Yes, and co-chairman of the local FNRA.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Member?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!