[WAGCEVP]

GRNC Alert 8-9-03: NRA Misrepresents Suit Against GRNC

Grass Roots North Carolina, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605,
919-664-8565, www.grnc.org, GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137

Please distribute this alert to all pro-gun organizations and networks

GRNC Alert 8-9-03:
NRA Misrepresents Suit Against GRNC

As noted in previous alerts, NRA lawyer Dan Zavadil recently filed a
lawsuit against pro-gun organization Grass Roots North Carolina. Since
1994, GRNC has been repeatedly forced to reveal NRA sellouts on gun issues
to Second Amendment supporters. But even we were shocked when the
organization which purports to fight abusive lawsuits by cities against
gun
makers (e.g. S. 659) has allowed its own NRA Office of the General Counsel
to conduct conveniently-timed litigation against a small all volunteer
pro-gun group with limited resources.

Gun rights supporters should be aware that GRNC has no interest in a
national battle against the NRA. Unfortunately, however, the threat to
GRNC's survival left no choice. Worse, statements released by both the NRA
and its board members have misrepresented the lawsuit, GRNC's actions, and
the legislative issues on which NRA has repeatedly sold out its own
members
for self-serving purposes. Below, we respond to specific
mischaracterizations.

NRA BOARD MISREPRESENTATION: Board members such as H. Walt Walter and
David
Coy claimed GRNC is not a defendant in the suit.

FACT: The lawsuit (case # CA 03-906-A, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division) lists both Francis Paul Valone
II and GRNC/FFE, Inc. "Jointly & Severally", seeking $75,000 in damages.

NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Board member Walt Walter has claimed, "the NRA is
not part of the suit." Official NRA communications claim: "NRA has not
filed suit against Grassroots North Carolina..."

FACT: As noted by GRNC attorney James Jeffries IV: "First, the lawsuit was
filed by Dan Zavadil, Assistant General Counsel for the NRA. Mr. Zavadil
signed the Complaint as Ms. Palmer's counsel and gave his address as 11250
Waples Mill Road, 6th floor, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. Mr. Zavadil listed
his phone number as (703) 267-1250 and his fax number as (703) 267-3985.
This address and telephone information corresponds exactly to the
information shown on Mr. Zavadil's official NRA letterhead. Further, Mr.
Zavadil sent a demand letter to Mr. Valone as a precursor to the lawsuit
that was issued on NRA letterhead. While it is true that the NRA is not
the
plaintiff (which is not legally possible) it is not true that the NRA did
not file the litigation. Their own counsel did, in fact, file the suit and
continues to pursue it against F. Paul Valone II personally and GRNC."

NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Say official NRA communications, "Mr. Valone sent
an
email to numerous people falsely claiming that [NRA lobbyist] Mrs.
[Jennifer H.] Palmer was committing adultery."

FACT: Responds attorney Jeffries: "It is not true that F. Paul Valone II
sent an email to various people falsely claiming that Ms. Palmer had
committed adultery. Instead, he reported a conclusion made by another
party
(which had been reported to him by this third party after observation of
Ms. Palmer's rapport with an Assistant North Carolina Attorney General).
That report occurred in the context of an explanation of the NRA's and Ms.
Palmer's activities undermining GRNC's legislative initiatives at the
North
Carolina General Assembly. This conclusion is confirmed by the plain
language of the allegedly defamatory statement recited in the Complaint
filed by NRA Assistant General Counsel Daniel Zavadil. Finally, Valone did
not vouch for the accuracy of the information or assert its truth, but
simply reported what he had been told."

NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Says the official NRA communication: "Despite
several opportunities to do so, Mr. Valone refused to apologize for making
the false statement and refused to retract the false statement."

FACT: Says GRNC's counsel: "It is not true that Valone was offered an
opportunity to apologize. He was instructed to print a retraction, once by
Ms. Palmer and once by Mr. Zavadil (on a demand letter written on NRA
letterhead) under direct threat of litigation. The retraction he was
instructed to print included facts about which he had no personal
knowledge
and, therefore, could not truthfully assert. The retraction demanded would
have also constituted a legal admission of libel on his part thereby
leaving him legally defenseless against claims like those ultimately filed
by Mr. Zavadil. Further, both Ms. Palmer's letter and Mr. Zavadil's letter
left him with no options because they both indicated that the retraction
must be issued in exactly the form demanded or suit would be filed."

NRA BOARD MISREPRESENTATION: Board member H. Walt Walter made the
following
representation in a letter addressed to "GRNC Members": "On the 15th of
July the lawyer for the defamed individual received a letter, (here I must
presume) from the lawyer representing either GRNC or Paul Valone
personally, stating emphatically and in a condescending manner that they
would not honer [sic] the deadline and answer the request for an apology
in
their own time."

FACT: The letter in question was faxed on July 16-the same day NRA lawyer
Zavadil filed the lawsuit TWO DAYS PRIOR TO HIS OWN DEADLINE. As to
whether
it was "condescending" or said GRNC would "answer the request for an
apology in their own time", decide for yourself: GRNC has posted the
letter
at: http://www.grnc.org/Zavadilletter.pdf

GRNC CHALLENGE: GRNC invites NRA to post Palmer and Zavadil's demand
letters, GRNC's response, Jeffries' letter and the Complaint on their web
site and let people decide for themselves who is being truthful and who is
not.

NRA MISREPRESENTATION OF SB 919: Says the official NRA statement of this
"domestic violence" bill: "As for the complaints by Grass Roots North
Carolina regarding NRA's efforts with respect to SB 919, they are without
merit... At no point was there ever any mention of 'registration' or
storage fees."

FACTS:

?? "CATALOGING" EQUALS REGISTRATION: Again, decide for yourself by viewing
Section 1, G.S. 50B-3.1(b) of the bill at
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/html2003/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S919vr.html.
Note that the judge is required to "catalog" the defendant's firearms at
ex
parte domestic violence hearings REGARDLESS of whether he determines a
protective order should be issued, meaning that even if the judge decides
the complaint has no merit, the "cataloging"--including any relevant
identification numbers--would still be required. Note also that nothing
restricts use of registration information collected. It would even be
permissible for law enforcement authorities to send it to the BATFE.
Calling the scheme "cataloging" instead of "registration" changes nothing.
Finally, by definition an "ex parte" hearing DOES NOT REQUIRE
PARTICIPATION
BY THE DEFENDANT, meaning that defendants may be unable to defend
themselves prior to having guns seized.

?? GRNC DID OBJECT TO REGISTRATION & CONFISCATION: Contrary to NRA claims
that registration and confiscation measures were not issues for GRNC
during
debate over the bill, GRNC objected to the entire bill--not just sections
of it--during the first alert sent on the issue (GRNC Alert 5-24-03). GRNC
also issued alerts and position papers opposing the bill prior to the
bill's House Finance Committee hearing. In fact, GRNC Alert 6-4-03 is
entitled "Stop Gun Registration & Seizure Act." These alerts are still
available via GRNC's web site.

?? NRA SUPPORTED THE BILL: Although the NRA's official line is that "NRA
took no official position on this legislation..." during the NC House
floor
debate over SB 919, pro-gun Rep. Carolyn Justus said: "And this bill, in
its present form, has the support of the Attorney General, North Carolina
Victims Assistant Network, the Governor's Crime Commission, Commission on
Domestic Violence, the North Carolina Sheriff's Association, The Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, the NRA and the Women's Caucus here in
Raleigh."
(Considering the anti-gun records of NC Attorney General Roy Cooper and
Governor Mike Easley, the NRA is in great company here). At the bill's
House Finance Committee meeting, NRA lobbyists Joe and Henri McClees
offered no objections to the bill. Indeed, the Raleigh "News & Observer"
noted: "In the end, Grass Roots North Carolina, a gun-rights group, was
the
only organization actively opposing the bill."

?? "ALL FOR YOUR PROTECTION"? Most absurd, however, is NRA's defense that:
"Regarding the issue of 'registration,' this is simply a red herring. It
would seem that anyone who has had his property seized would want that
documented, so as to facilitate its proper return in a timely and accurate
way." Instead, it should be obvious that in order to protect gun owners,
the GUN OWNER should be given a signed receipt for property seized, not
the
LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel who seized the firearms.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

?? CONTACT THE NRA (1-800-672-3888 & 1-800-392-8683) and let them know
that you don't want your membership dues used to sell out gun rights and
silence legitimate pro-gun activists. Regretfully, the only way to get the
message across is to convince them that their abuses will cost them money.
GRNC has always encouraged gun rights supporters to join the NRA and to
keep memberships even when the NRA has undermined the Second Amendment.
This time, however, the NRA is going to far. While GRNC does not advocate
any particular action that means annual membersnot Life membersmay
consider
resigning their memberships. Life members and others might consider
letting
the NRA know that they will not contribute a dime to the organization for
as long as it compromises gun rights.

?? CONTACT NRA BOARD MEMBERS listed below and let them know what the
organization they direct has been up to.

?? FIGHT THE LAWSUIT by donating to the Rights Watch Activist Defense
Fund, care of Rights Watch International, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC
27605. Because RWI is a chartered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, all
donations are tax deductible. Bear in mind that if GRNC and RWI don't have
enough money to fight the lawsuit, the fact that it is frivolous will be
moot. Moreover, it will encourage the NRA to use the same tactics against
other pro-gun activists who refuse to "toe the line." To donate using a
credit card, go to http://www.rightswatch.org/help_the_good_fight.htm

?? USE GRNC's AUTOMATED E-MAIL: Go to http://www.grnc.org/nra_sellout/ and
sign your name. In just a few minutes, you can send e-mails to the NRA and
many of its board members.

CONTACT THESE NRA REPRESENTATIVES

?? NRA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION at: ila-contact@nrahq.org
?? NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS using the addresses below or GRNC's automated
e-mailer at http://www.grnc.org/nra_sellout/

NRA Contact Numbers:
NRA-ILA phone number: 1-800-NRA-3888 (prompt #1 to resign memberships;
prompt #5 for input on state and local affairs).
Membership Account Information 1-877-672-2000
NRA Member Programs 1-800-672-3888
NRA/ILA 1-800-392-8683
NRA Sales 1-800-336-7402

Mr. Sanford M. Abrams 25 Cotswold Court, Owings Mills MD 21117-1275
Dr. Thomas P. Arvas 7905 Spain Rd NE, Albuquerque NM 87109-3117
tomarvas@inetmail.att.net
Mr. Scott L. Bach P.O. Box 651, Newfoundland NJ 07435
sbach@mindspring.com info@bachbio.com
Mr. William A. Bachenberg Bethlehem PA bbachenberg@dbsintl.com
Mrs. M. Carol Bambery 1124 S. Geneva Drive, DeWitt MI 48820-9537
CarolB@mcrgo.org
Hon. Bob Barr 3760 Sixes Road, Ste. 126, PMB 247, Canton GA 30114
Mr. Wilbert G. Bauer 209 Someday Road, Boerne TX 78006-7024
Dr. David E. Bennett, III 11828 Caribou Avenue, NE, Albuquerque NM
87111-7215 nmssa@home.com Hon. David O. Boehm 2470 East Avenue,
Rochester
NY 14610
Hon. Bill K. Brewster 601 13th St. NW, Suite 410S, Washington DC
20005-3864
LTC Robert K. Brown 5735 Arapahoe Avenue #A-5, Boulder CO 80303-1340
editorsof@aol.com Mr. David A. Butz 65 Oak Grove Drive, Belleville IL
62221-2535
Dr. David I. Caplan 247 SE 3rd Avenue, Delray Beach FL 33483-4511
Mr. Ron L. Carlisle Rt. 1, Box 55, Kopperl TX 76652-9716
Mr. J. William Carter P O Box 2127, Fredericksburg TX 78624
Mr. Donald M. Causey 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd #605, Miami FL 33156-2721
Causey@HuntingReport.com
Mrs Patricia A. Clark 25 Point O Rocks Road, Newtown CT 06470-1933
lpclar@bpthosp.org Mr. Jeff Cooper Gunsite Ranch, Paulden AZ 86334
Mr. Allan D. Cors 7413 Georgetown Court, McLean VA 22102-2123
Mr. Charles L. Cotton 110 Eagle Lakes Drive, Friendswood TX 77546-5852
Prof. David G. Coy 1020 Brookside Drive, East Adrian MI 49221-3248
dcoy@adrian.edu
Hon. Larry E. Craig 313 Senate Hart Bldg., Washington DC 20510
Hon. Barabara L. Cubin 2241 Belmont Road, Casper WY 82604-4649
barbara.cubin@mail.house.gov
Mr. John L. Cushman 107 Truberg Avenue, Patchogue NY 11772-1748
jcushman
juno.com
Mr. William H. Dailey 1528 6th Ave., Moline IL 61265-2049
whdaileylaw@compuserve.com
Mr. H. Tom Davison 2304 Oxford, Bryan TX 77802-1941
Mr. Donn C. DiBiasio 1284 North Main Street, Providence RI 02904-1830
Ms. Diana Dunigan 161 Mackay Drive, Brunswick GA 31525-2862
didunigan@spynet.com
Mr. Manuel Fernandez P O Box 7832, Mission Hills CA 91346-7832
Ms. Sandra S. Froman P O Box 36228, Tucson AZ 85740-6228
sfroman@aol.com
Mr. Thomas F. Gaines 947 Ithaca Court, Chula Vista CA 91913-3011
Ms. Marion P. Hammer P O Box 7530, Tallahassee FL 32314-7530
Lt. Philip Hemphill 418 Simpson Circle, Clinton MS 39114-3418
Mr. Charlton Heston 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax VA 22030-9400
Mr. Steve Hornady P O Box 1848, Grand Island NE 68802-1848
mfitzke@hornady.com shornady@aol.com
Ms. Susan Howard P O Box 1456, Boerne TX 78006-1456
Mr. Roy Innis 817 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York NY 10003-4809
core@core-online.org corenyc@aol.com
Mr. Joaquin Jackson 1010 N. Bird Street, Alpine TX 79830-3206
Mr. David C. Jones 155 Covert Lane, Ellisville MO 63021-4603
daviejones@prodigy.net Ms. D. Cynthia Julien 37A Pheasant Run,
Smithfield
RI 02917-2535
Mr. David A. Keene 5899 Parenham Way, Alexandria VA 22310-5301
keened@carmngrp.com
Mrs. Sue King 515 Timber Terrace, Houston TX 77079-2463
girlgun@aol.com
Mr. Herbert A. Lanford, Jr. 6530 Davidson Road, K-6, Columbia SC
29209-1736
Mr. Michael A. Lee P O Box 540, Denmark ME 04022-0540
Mr. Karl A. Malone 301 W 100 S, Salt Lake City UT 84101-1209
Ms. Carolyn Meadows 2665 Holly Spring Road NE, Marietta GA 30062
Mr. John Milius Warner Bros., Bldg. 81, Room 215, Burbank CA 91522
Mr. William A. Miller, Jr. P O Box 1992, Beckley WV 25802-1992
Mr. James D. Nicholson 7305 Arbor Oaks Drive, Dallas TX 75248-2203
jamesd@akamail.com
Mr. Grover Norquist 718 N. Carolina Avenue, SE, Washington DC 20003-1359
jzysk@atr.org friends@atr.org
LTC Oliver L. North 22570 Markey Court, Suite 230, Dulles VA 20166-6915
north@msnbc.com
warstories@foxnews.com
Mr. Theodore Nugent 4133 W. Michigan Avenue, Jackson MI 49202-1862
NugentUSA@cs.com
Dr. David A. Oliver 16537 Winter Leaf Drive, Wildwood MO 63011-1824
orangedoc@worldnet.att net
Det. Lance R. Olson 705 William Avenue, Marengo IA 52031-1047
Mr. Ernie Padgette 11719 Blue Smoke Trail, Reston VA 20191-3701
epadgette@spynet.com
Mr. James W. Porter, II P O Box 128, Birmingham AL 35201-0128
jwporterii@aol.com
Sheriff Jay Printz 226 Marcus St, Hamilton MT 59840-3144
jprintz@bitterroot.net
Mr. Todd J. Rathner 802 E. Hedrick Drive, Tucson AZ 85719-2531
trathner@mul deer.org
Mrs. Edie P. Reynolds 3709 Marlin Court, Raleigh NC 27604-3319
Chief Kayne B. Robinson 3100 St. Johns Road, Des Moines IA 50312-4529
Col. Wayne A. Ross P O Box 101522, Anchorage AK 99510-1522
mvpa-hq@mvpa.org
Mr. Carl T. Rowan, Jr. 2910 Fessenden St., NW, Washington DC 20008-1025
rowgro@aol.com
Mr. Don Saba P O Box 42486, Tucson AZ 85733-2486 info@sierrab
oresearch.com
Mr. Robert Sanders Punta Gorda FL
Mr. Ronald L. Schmeits 200 S. 2nd Street, Raton NM 87740-3908
Mr. Harold W. Schroeder 24 Irwinwood Road, Lancaster NY 14086-2415
BIGBUD9 @aol.com Mr. John C. Sigler 11 Waterwheel Circle, Dover DE
19901-6261 jsigler@dmv.com
Mr. Bruce Stern 935 White Plains Road, Trumbull CT 06611-4547
Mr. Jim Supica P O Box 14040, Lenexa KS 66285-4040 Jim@Armch
irGunShow.com
Dep. Dwight D. Van Horn 27859 Quincy Street, Castaic CA 91384-3530
ddvanhor @aol.com
Mr. Robert L. Viden, Jr. 318 N. Delsea Drive, Glassboro NJ 08028-1497
Hon. Harold L. Volkmer 719 Country Club Drive, Hannibal MO 63401-3035
Mr. Howard J. Walter P O Box 39, Flat Rock NC 28731-0039
hwalter1@compuserve.com
Mr. J. D. Williams Keystone Road, Pearsall TX 78061
Mr. Robert J. Wos 10100 Boston Road, North Royalton OH 44133-6123
ogcaman@aol.com
Hon. Donald E. Young 2111 Rayburn House

[Rick Daniel]

If there is nothing to this suit then Mr. Valone and GRNC have nothing to worry about. The facts will come out in court. Instead they seem to be fanning the flames. In the South we like to say a hurt dog howls. Sounds like alot of howling to me.

This suit is not NRA vs GRNC. It has nothing to do with legislative issues or past differences. The suit is brought by an NRA employee (Mrs. Palmer) who in the course of her work was defamed, lied about, and damaged. Mr. Valone, representing GRNC, made flase statements about Mrs. Palmer. He had several chances to set the record straight but arrogantly refused.

As far as Mr. Zavadil representing Mrs. Palmer, so what? I'd expect any employer to provide assistance for damages incurred in the performance of duties. That's one reason large companies (or associations) have an Office of General Counsel.

All of this stuff from GRNC is an attempt to cloud the issue. Its all smoke and mirrors.

[Ironbarr]

Long read, (I did) with several links (I didn't - - - - yet).

As you posted this, I wonder what WAGC position might be. I ask since I'd suspect you have info and perspective I do not yet have.

Please, and thanks.

-Andy

[WAGCEVP]

i've delt with both NRA and GRNC, personally I would believe GRNC before I would believe NRA. I have had NRA lie to me before, not so with GRNC..... GRNC is a no compromise state level org, NRA is known for compromising, GRNC did NOTHING but expose NRA's compromise... THey desrve NO kind of lawsuuit from anybody, esp wnyone linked to NRA. I like NRA Safety courses ect, but they need to saty out of the legislative arena with their compromises....... MY personal NSHO

[Ironbarr]

Roger that.

I appreciate your reply - I had a one-year membership with the NRA years ago and never renewed. Now I'm into firearms (that I have some time). I've thought about it but my experiences with monster organizations haven't warmed the cockles of my heart.

The more I read (like the threads grouped here) of internal "strife" I could imagine all kinds of things - scary things of the activities of supposedly friendly folks; friendly to the cause, that is.

Kind of lets me want to put my head in the sand; yet it's scary enough that that can't be allowed to happen. Maybe that's the saving grace of it all - strangely, my sig seems to have it covered..."SAVE - Situational Awareness and Vigilance Eternal". Could this be the tactical and strategic - the "short and long" of it?

[WAGCEVP]

Ironbarr, the best thing you can do , IMNSHO , is to join your local gun group. What state are you in?
I personally haven't financially supported the NRA since about 1990, I got half way thru a life membership with NRA and that's where I stopped.
our local gun group here in Ga is CSG. We've been trying to get our CCW law with less restrictions every year,. Every year we have to fight the NRA, who says that our CCW law is "up to par" , I'm still waiting for the answer to the question as to "whose par it is up too??????? As I said GRNC tried to get a better law than NRA would have gotten. They exposed NRA and now they pay for it..... if the NRA NC lobbiest wins, whose next????

I support GRNC wholeheartedly! I get my info that I pass on directly from the state groups, that's where it SHOULD come from!

[Ironbarr]

I went with VCDL (http://www.vcdl.org) last year - it has a can-do, vibrant leadership and, piece by piece, gets things done. But like others around the country, each fighting its own state (usually) battle, there's a constant fight to work the local side while the well-heeled antis float all over the country stirring the pot (I still wonder where they get the money).

Organization - nation-wide - is required (as we all know), before our side will be a respected force to be reckoned with. Why, by this time, haven't there been an arrangement whereby all of these small local/regional pro groups haven't amalgamated under one umbrella? A local fee for a local group... plus a five dollar bill for the umbrella is at least a start. It might help us to stop preaching to the choir and attract, educate, and train new blood. We must off-load our passive, reactive ways and become proactive... we are like a swordsman who is ever parrying the onslaught of blows but seldom if ever, surges to the attack.

Face it - TFL was a fantastic place to seed our hopes; to learn our equipment; to meet and befriend others; to commiserate in our respective tales of woe, and to crow our successes. But this is THR; spawned to build upon the base; to "go where no man has gone before"; to grow that force to be reckoned with.

We should be planning the work, and working the plan - now... since time doth march on.

There are a lot of targets out there... AWB, for one; a mess of bills crawling around that need to be addressed before folks think we don't care. And one area that truly worries me: Future politicos/administrations using the law (today's and tomorrow's) to turn our world to their agenda(s). I suspect that there is language buried deep in some of these (monstrous) bills, both in force and in the hopper, that bears a careful read and fitfull action to neutralize.

Question: What could a (Mrs) Clinton administration do with the Patriot Act for instance?

If you allow yourself to think of it - there's a veritable feast on the table of "The Vigilant". But vigilance requires action else it is but a "see and wait" effort.

Where are OUR shakers and movers?

[/rant]


-Andy

[Rick Daniel]

WAGCEVP:

You say GRNC has never lied to you. Based on what you've posted here GRNC apparently has you believing the following lies:

1. This lawsuit is NRA vs GRNC.
2. GRNC did nothing but report a compromise.

The widely reported facts prove the above two items are false.

[Ironbarr]

Just a few minutes ago I was called by an NRA person to listen to a 1:45 minute Wayne Pierre tape - a "real push" to defeat Senate Bill 22 (Clinton/Schumer) re the alleged gun show loophole.

It was, as I expected, a recruiting effort to increase membership.

Scare 'em and collect the money.

As mentioned earlier I'm not a member now and don't expect to be any time soon.

Just thought it strange that we've been talking NRA this past few days and here I have an offer to join.

Anyone happen to have the latest on how much support SB-22 has now? Any chance for its passage?

Thanks.

-Andy

[seeker_two]

If there is nothing to this suit then Mr. Valone and GRNC have nothing to worry about. The facts will come out in court.

Tell that to Marlboro, Firestone, and Microsoft... :rolleyes:

In a lawsuit, the NRA doesn't have to win on the facts. All they have to do is spend the other side into bankrupcy and/or settlement through endless appeals & motions that keep the lawyers employed.

If this is what NRA is spending my membership money on, I'll not be renewing next year... :cuss:

[Rick Daniel]

Tell that to Marlboro, Firestone, and Microsoft...
You're comparing apples and oranges. The Valone/GRNC lawsuit is brought by an individual who alleges defamation. The lawsuits you mention were brought by AG's (with considerable resources) from various states. I doubt the individual bringing this suit has unlimited resources.

If this is what NRA is spending my membership money on, I'll not be renewing next year...
Again, this is not an NRA matter. NRA is not a party and member money is not at stake. Its an individual bringing the suit. NRA is not a party to this lawsuit. If you decide not to renew, don't do so on the basis of this lawsuit. Its a non-issue.

[bountyhunter]

Again, this is not an NRA matter. NRA is not a party and member money is not at stake. Its an individual bringing the suit. NRA is not a party to this lawsuit. If you decide not to renew, don't do so on the basis of this lawsuit. Its a non-issue.


That's not what the text of the article says:


"NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Board member Walt Walter has claimed, "the NRA is not part of the suit." Official NRA communications claim: "NRA has not
filed suit against Grassroots North Carolina..."

FACT: As noted by GRNC attorney James Jeffries IV: "First, the lawsuit was
filed by Dan Zavadil, Assistant General Counsel for the NRA. Mr. Zavadil
signed the Complaint as Ms. Palmer's counsel and gave his address as 11250 Waples Mill Road, 6th floor, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. Mr. Zavadil listed
his phone number as (703) 267-1250 and his fax number as (703) 267-3985. This address and telephone information corresponds exactly to the
information shown on Mr. Zavadil's official NRA letterhead."


If the general counsel for the NRA is filing lawsuits "as an individual matter" which are in direct conflict with the avowed positions and purposes of that organization, then he needs to have his sorry ??? kicked to the curb.

[Rick Daniel]

The whole point of the GRNC Alert is to confuse the issue. Its all hype. All smoke and mirrors. A lot of words, but very little substance.

They want you to think NRA is a party to the lawsuit. They are not.

They want you to think the lawsuit is about legislative issues. It is not.

They want you to think NRA member dues are being used. They are not.

GRNC has presented no evidence that NRA money is being used. Yes, the attorney and the plaintiff both happen to be NRA employees, but the "connection" ends there.

Don't be so eager to crucify the NRA. Be discerning and read between the lines.

Could it be that the attorney is simply helping a friend and co-worker? Could he be working for free? Could it be he uses the NRA contact information because in the event of service, that's where he can be found?

The truth is, attorneys have a legal duty to be available for process service. If Mr. Zavadil has an office at NRA, he must disclose that for such purposes.

The whole point of the address thing is that GRNC wants you to conclude NRA letterhead was used by Mr. Zavadil, but read carefully and you'll see it wasn't.

Pretty sneaky..... pretty crafty......pretty sad.

[JohnBT]

"...he reported a conclusion made by another party (which had been reported to him by this third party after observation of Ms. Palmer's..."

Sounds like somebody ought to sue his dumb butt.

I'm siding with the lady. Us southern boys are suckers for a damsel in distress. I don't know what happened to this guy to make him act like some newspaper gossip.

John

[scbair]

I received the "canned" response from the NRA; while it initially looked OK, I'm still considering it.

I have no "insider info" regarding this case or GRNC, but will offer a couple of observations.

I am a member of Grassroots SC (GRSC), and appreciate GRSC's successful efforts to improve the laws affecting SC CWP holders. The local NRA affiliate, Gun Owners of SC (GOSC) was notable by its lack of support for these enhancements. At least, I saw GRSC lobbying for the improvements, but never saw any evidence of GOSC support. I am no longer a member of GOSC.

Mr. Rick Daniel is (I believe) the NRA rep for this area. Nothing wrong with that, just thought I'd point it out to everyone. Rick, if this info is incorrect or outdated, I'm sure you will let us know.

[David Roberson]

I initially wanted to stay out of this but have changed my mind.

I'm a Life Member of the NRA since the 1970s and am also a member of GRNC. I won't go into all the details, but there have been instances here in NC where the NRA and GRNC have been at odds in supporting or opposing various bills. There have been arguments between GRNC and NRA staff because of this. (NRA's practice of giving unrealistically high ratings to anti-gun politicians has also been a source of some unhappiness, but that's not the main issue here.) So there's a history of occasional friction between the two groups, and frustration with us here in NC about the way the NRA tries to do things in our state.

A few other points:

1. Paul Valone of GRNC made the comment in question -- quoting something that he attributed to others -- on a private, members-only discussion group to which I belong. It was not a public comment. He has since offered a formal apology to the woman in question, and his apology appeared in the same forum. (It is not clear how Valone's initial comment made it to the NRA. Forwarding messages outside that discussion group is a violation of the group's charter.)

2. An NRA board member initially claimed that the suit was against Valone personally and not against GRNC. This statement was later shown to be a falsehood -- the suit names both Valone and GRNC.

3. Does anyone here actually believe that an attorney in the pay of the NRA and filing a lawsuit using his office address and phone number wouldn't get permission from his superiors first? What would happen if a member of your company's legal staff tried something like that?

The issue here is not whether the NRA is using member dues inappropriately. The issue is that NRA staff are taking actions that, if successful, will destroy North Carolina's most effective and efficient RKBA organization, and I don't know anyone who believes that this is being done without the quiet blessing of the NRA. Readers of this thread can draw their own conclusions whether such actions are warranted or are a gross overreaction that will ultimately harm the cause that both organizations allegedly support. I'm firmly in the latter camp.

[Rick Daniel]

Mr. Rick Daniel is (I believe) the NRA rep for this area. Nothing wrong with that, just thought I'd point it out to everyone. Rick, if this info is incorrect or outdated, I'm sure you will let us know.

I am not an NRA employee. I was for many years president of GOSC which is the NRA state association in South Carolina. I currently serve as Public Affairs Director for GOSC and as such I do coordinate closely with NRA on legislative issues.

The local NRA affiliate, Gun Owners of SC (GOSC) was notable by its lack of support for these enhancements.

GOSC led the effort on the right to carry law which passed here in 1996. We supported most of the changes advocated by GRSC a couple of years back, but could not endorse the original bill as it sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars. NRA/GOSC suggested that CWPs be allowed only if they refrain from alcohol consumption. We could not come to an agreement on this and were forced to remain neutral.

BTW, GOSC is currently leading the way on repeal of South Carolina's awful one handgun/thirty day law. It has passed the House by an overwhelming margin and awaits action in the Senate.

Now might be the time to re-join. :)

[Wild Bill]

Now might be the time to re-join.
Perhaps not quite yet Rick.

To get my cash and support any group needs to actually be doing what they purport to be doing. Twisting the facts is (at best) self-aggrandizement that does nothing to further the cause. At worse it’s misleading and thereby truly counter-productive.

No offense meant, sir, but perhaps we should take a wee stroll through the historical record so as not to lead the good members of this fine board astray.
GOSC led the effort on the right to carry law which passed here in 1996. We supported most of the changes advocated by GRSC a couple of years back, but could not endorse the original bill as it sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars. NRA/GOSC suggested that CWPs be allowed only if they refrain from alcohol consumption. We could not come to an agreement on this and were forced to remain neutral
The leaders in getting the 1996 CWP law passed have mostly come to reside in GrassRoots, not GOSC. But, you are partially correct - they were part of GOSC at the time because GrassRoots DID NOT YET EXIST YET.

Indeed, GrassRoots was built up because real gun rights supporters needed a SC organization devoted to protecting our rights, not pushing gun control as GOSC did.

To say that the original GrassRoots CWP and gun law reform bill "sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars ." is an outright fallacy. This link might help clarify the issue: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess114_2001-2002/prever/3010_20010522.htm You’ll note this link is to the public record – an unassailable source of truthful documentation concerning legislative thrusts.

H. 3010 NEVER DID ALLOW CARRY INTO BARS. All H. 3010 did was make it legal to possess a firearm outside of an establishment that sold alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. Prior to passage of the GrassRoots proposed bill, there was a three year prison term for having a gun in your vehicle in the parking lot of such an establishment. A CWP holder who left his gun in his vehicle to go eat at a nice restaurant was breaking the law. A hunter eating at a place that also served beer was breaking the law if his shotgun was in his vehicle in the parking lot.

Rick, you should know that since you led the GOSC fight to stop the GrassRoots reforms.

If you’re here to truly join the RKBA fight Rick then welcome to The High Road. Mr. Volk and all have created one of (if not the) best gun related sites on the net. Here we can freely interchange ideas and discuss issues in a frank and open manner. We can even agree to disagree.

But, quite frankly and with all due respect, I doubt playing fast and loose with the truth advances either the quality of discussion here or the political fight for our gun rights. It certainly does nothing to further your organization, gather widespread support, or create a bridge to other groups in the fight.

We all make mistakes in these political battles Rick. Those we all can forgive. But spin doctoring amongst the converted is divisive and unforgivable. If we can’t stick to the facts then one has to seriously consider the utility of joining a group who’s integrity is perhaps questionable.

Nuff said.

[Futo Inu]

This is outrageous - some heads need to roll if the NRA is lying. I'm sending a letter today demanding an explanation from the NRA.

[Rick Daniel]

H. 3010 NEVER DID ALLOW CARRY INTO BARS

I mispoke and I apologize. I was not triying to mislead, because the fact remains that GRSC was indeed seeking carry into bars, just not through this legislation. I stand corrected on this point.

I recall now that the problem with H.3010 was that it sought to allow carry on school grounds. NRA and GOSC could not publicly support such an effort. We told GRSC this and suggested they remove that provision. They would not and we were forced to remain neutral.

Interestingly, GRSC was forced to compromise on this when the news media brought public opposition. Once the compromise was reached the record shows that we fully supported the bill. It was a good thing and GRSC earned, deserves, and gets all the credit.

If you’re here to truly join the RKBA fight Rick then welcome to The High Road.

That's why I'm here and thanks for the welcome. This is a great site.

[Robert D. Butler]

Friends,

I was forced to join this discussion to help ensure the truth gets told. I thank the person who informed me that Rick Daniel posted a reply that stated the GrassRoots CWP and gun law reforms allowed carry into bars. I provided the factual basis to show that Rick failed to tell the truth.

It is interesting that Rick nows claims it was an honest mistake. It is interesting because this is the same story that the NRA told to outraged callers when the NRA was originally caught trying to kill our bill a couple of years ago. Rick knew it was untrue then and he knew it was untrue now. But, this is a different forum and maybe he thought it would fly here.

I have another complaint about Rick Daniel's post. Rick states GOSC and the NRA "could not endorse the original bill as it sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars." As proven earlier, that is not true. But, an even bigger problem is the way the issue is framed in an anti gun rights way.

SC does not legally have any bars. We only have restaurants, some of which serve alcoholic beverages. Yet, Rick frames the issue as "guns in bars" when a real pro rights person would frame the issue as "carry in nice restaurants."

Thirty of the fifty states allow CWP carry into nice restaurants, virtually all allow consumption of alcoholic beverages while there. There is no problem with CWP holders in these states. Yet, Rick continues to fight against the rights of law abiding citizens who want to drink a beer or a glass of wine with dinner.

Going out to eat at a nice restaurant at night in SC brings all the factors that a criminal is looking for - it is dark, the victims are disarmed by law, and the victims have money. When I go to a nice restaurant with my family, I want to have the means to defend my family if need be. Rick wants us disarmed. Why?

I believe the reason Rick wants us disarmed is because changing this law has become one of the major goals of GrassRoots GunRights SC. If Rick wants to see cooperation between GrassRoots and GOSC, then it is as simple as getting GOSC to support real pro gun rights positions. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

On another note (and this will become a separate thread later), what would you think of a so called pro gun rights group that proposed legislation that would require the registration of all private transfers of all firearms, even gifts to family? If you support registering all private transfers of firearms, then join Rick and the NRA in SC. If you oppose the registration of all transfers of firearms, then you will understand why GrassRoots GunRights SC came into being to oppose GOSC and their support of gun registration.

Robert D. Butler, J.D.
VP & Legislative Director
GrassRoots GunRights SC

[Futo Inu]

The plot thickens. :scrutiny:

[Rick Daniel]

Yet, Rick continues to fight against the rights of law abiding citizens who want to drink a beer or a glass of wine with dinner.
I'm not fighting anything. I'm personally opposed to mixing alcohol and guns. We fought too hard to get right-to-carry to let someone who can't refrain from drinking ruin it for everyone else. I have many times stated my support for allowing carry into bars provided the permit holder refrains from drinking. I'm consistent in my position, yet others are not.

For example, there is a long-standing gun safety rule in place at the local Mid-Carolina Rifle Club (MCRC) concerning mixing alcohol and guns. Simply put, it is prohibited there. Can't drink before or during shooting. If Mr. Butler (who is an officer at MCRC) is truly committed to absolute freedom then he'll move to rescind that rule at MCRC. When I see him do that, I'll take him seriously. Otherwise, his tone (and tune) suggests he is only interested in driving a wedge. I want to unite gun owners, not divide them.

Instead of fighting each other, I'd like to see us work together on things everyone can agree on. I don't think anyone would oppose carry in bars provided no alcohol is consumed. Plenty of people (both gun owners and the general public) oppose the current GRSC proposed method of allowing carry in bars.

SC does not legally have any bars.
This is truly a distinction without a difference. I've seen restaurants that serve alcohol and bars that serve food. Perhaps they are all classified as restaurants. I don't know that to be the case, but its irrelevant. Anyone who thinks South Carolina doesn't have bars need only visit any college town on the weekends..... plenty of bars to be found.

Rick wants us disarmed.
This is outrageous and insulting. No one has worked harder than me at securing our right-to-carry. I support allowing carry in bars provided the permit holder refrains from dinking. I personally can refrain from drinking. I supsect Rob can too, after all his gun club has a rule against guns and alcohol.

On another note (and this will become a separate thread later), what would you think of a so called pro gun rights group that proposed legislation that would require the registration of all private transfers of all firearms, even gifts to family?
I'm certain my friend will provide details. This happened several years ago and quite frankly I've forgotten all of the details. Its just not important. It is water under the bridge. I do know that I encouraged the bill sponsor to withdraw the bill which he did. It did not pass and we never pushed it once the problems were noticed. It is truly a moot point.

Apparently it provided some motivation for GRSC which is fine with me. As I said they have done a great job and I'm proud of them. I think its silly and couterproductive to live in the past, but if others want to, that's up to them. I prefer to keep working on pro-gun legislation rather than nurse a grudge.

If you support registering all private transfers of firearms, then join Rick and the NRA in SC. If you oppose the registration of all transfers of firearms, then you will understand why GrassRoots GunRights SC came into being to oppose GOSC and their support of gun registration.
For the record, I don't support registering firearms for any reason. As stated above, the bill that apparently had such potential was pulled at my request. As I recall the original purpose was to maintain our in-state instant check system rather than go to the NICS system. Long guns are not regulated at the state level so a change allowing such was necessary. Once the proposal was drafted it became apparent that it went further than we intended. We withdrew the bill. Again, it never even came up. We have NICS and it is a moot point.

That's all I'll have to say on the above subject. If Rob chooses to post more, please understand why I have nothing more to say about it. Its ancient history and I'd like to move forward, not look back.

Finally, the above silliness notwithstanding, I encourage folks to join both GRSC and GOSC. I spoke with a candidate for Solicitor (district attorney) yesterday. I told him how to join NRA and encouraged him to join both GRSC and GOSC. I intend to join GRSC myself. I think they are doing a good job and deserve support.

Personal note to Rob: I sincerely (and publicly) apologize for anything I've done to offend you. I let it go along time ago. I sleep very well at night. I hope you will forgive me and I hope we can work together in the future. Don't let minor differences stop us from making progress. We aren't that far apart. I've made the first move. I hope you'll consider what I've said.

[FPrice]

More like, the plot sickens.

Reading all of this makes me think that HCI, VPC, and the Million Misguided Mommies can all sit back and just watch. Our own little internal squabbles will sink us more certainly than all the anti-gun legislation they can come up with.

:barf:

[Al Thompson]

Frosty, it's not that bad. If you look at the progreess we've made in the last few years, some friction is bound to occur. As Rob Butler once said, "we didn't lose our gun rights overnight and we won't get them back overnight".

Nothing like these organizations even existed prior to the '90's.

[44Brent]

Rick Daniel: You appear to be the NRA's designated hatchet man.

[Rick Daniel]

Rick Daniel: You appear to be the NRA's designated hatchet man.
I think whipping boy might be a more appropriate term. :)

I've been a member of NRA my entire adult life. We have made many great strides here in South Carolina with the help of the NRA. I'm proud of my association with them.

The NRA is not perfect but I think they are the best thing we have going. Unfortunately, I've noticed a growing anti-NRA sentiment amongst certain gun activists particularly in internet circles. I think this is sad partly for the reasons FPrice outlines above. In essense when we squabble we accomplish for HCI, the Brady Bunch and others what they can't on their own. They'd like to divide and conquer and in my view, we're helping them.

[Rick Daniel]

Al:

You are absolutely right and I agree with you:

.....some friction is bound to occur.
I liken it to a family feud. We've all seen it, perhaps in our own families. One or more family members get their feelings hurt and a root of bitterness takes hold. Resentment, petty jealousy, and stubborness often leads to sniping and other non-productive actions.

Healthy, well adjusted families are eventually able to move past petty differences. Sometimes it takes years, but effort born of maturity can overcome such rifts. We are all mature, well adjusted adults and we should be able to put this silliness behind us and move forward.

I regret my contributions to this "family feud". I'm trying to move past the differences and get the work of regaining our rights done. Our "family" has too much in common to let past hurts effect the major progress that is clearly possible in South Carolina.

Hopefully others will join me in the desire to see all gun owners in South Carolina working for mutually agreed upon goals.

[44Brent]

Rick:

Let's start with your quote regarding a ban on right-to-carry on school grounds, aka the "Columbine shooting gallery".

I recall now that the problem with H.3010 was that it sought to allow carry on school grounds. NRA and GOSC could not publicly support such an effort. We told GRSC this and suggested they remove that provision. They would not and we were forced to remain neutral.

Interestingly, GRSC was forced to compromise on this when the news media brought public opposition. Once the compromise was reached the record shows that we fully supported the bill. It was a good thing and GRSC earned, deserves, and gets all the credit.
.

Then in another quote you pointed out how we should be sticking together to fight the Brady Bunch.

In essense when we squabble we accomplish for HCI, the Brady Bunch and others what they can't on their own.

I agree that we should be sticking together to fight the Brady Bunch, but in the first quote you seem to be representing the Brady Bunch view with your support for creating safe zones for disturbed individuals to go on a shooting rampage.

I know of at least two states (Connecticut and Alabama) which allow the right-to-carry for self defense in schools. Your opposition to self defense in schools is going to eventually give us another Columbine-type situation in which victims will have no means of protecting themselves.

I think that you have perfectly illustrated the points that the GRNC made regarding NRA "sellouts". GOA doesn't give us these kind of sell-outs, so why does the NRA?

[Ironbarr]

One of my major pet peeves is the school (property etc.) "scare" bans.

I agree with you - there are thousands of schools within the 48-state-sponsored safe zones for those who decide to create havoc in and around school properties/events. Seems to me that "those sworn to protect us", which includes EVERYONE raising their hands to assume an authoritive role in government (at whatever level) would see the fallacy of the current protection umbrella. There is NONE.

If a couple locals can put together a real mess on school property, I wonder what potential a mess can be brewed by a highly trained, well-financed - and committed - terror group/cell????

I shudder to dwell on the possibilities.

-Andy

[Rick Daniel]

44Brent:
Your opposition to self defense in schools....
You very effectively point out the quandry we pro-gun activists find ourselves in. The truth is I am not opposed to self defense in schools or carry on school grounds. However, I am opposed to shooting ourselves in the foot. We have to be smart and choose our battles carefully. The problem was with public perception.

The bottom-line, as I stated, we could not publicly support carry on school grounds. That does not make us the Brady Bunch who is opposed to carry on school grounds.

Unfortunately some think if you're not with us, you're against us. This truly is counter productive. The truth is, if we had publicly supported the change, the media would have drummed up opposition much sooner. As it was the effort nearly made it through and the media didn't catch on until late in the game.

Once they did the outcome was exactly as we expected.

The NRA is a HUGE target for the media. That is why the local grass roots groups can be so effective when they focus on the objective rather than bash the NRA. When the NRA is involved more people know about it and more attention is focused on the issue. Sometimes you want more attention, sometimes you don't. We should use our strengths wisely.
I know of at least two states (Connecticut and Alabama) which allow the right-to-carry for self defense in schools.
I actually learned this from GRSC. Rob Butler researched the issue and found that CWP holders are exempt from the federal law that prohibits carry on school grounds. This is the kind of information that will eventually lead to the needed changes. If I didn't know this, you can bet the general public doesn't know it. We have to win their hearts and minds first. Otherwise the news media will deal a knock-out blow on such emotional issues every time.

Again, we should all work together, but do so wisely and with a willingness to wait when its the right thing to do. On issues we can't agree on then we should stay out of each other's ways. We should not accuse each other of being against gun owners or with the other side. Its wrong and it needs to stop.

Look at any road map and you'll see several different routes to any given destination. As pro-gun activists we are working towards the same final destination. When we can help each other along we should. When were on different paths we should wish each other well and keep the ultimate goal in mind.

[44Brent]

The truth is I am not opposed to self defense in schools or carry on school grounds. However, I am opposed to shooting ourselves in the foot. We have to be smart and choose our battles carefully. The problem was with public perception.

Rick, I will accept your statement at face value. I would hope that the NRA will fight to end the victim disarmament in schools, but I don't expect to see that happen.

I personally believe NRA should have come out fighting with a national ad campaign at the time of the Columbine massacre. At the time I was a distinteresed third party observer. I saw NRA silence as a tacit admission that "guns don't belong in schools", and concluded that the Brady Bunch was correct. I later became aware of the error of my thinking, and if the NRA had come out swinging, I think I would have seen the light about 10 years sooner.

Indidentally, I believe the Utah legislature recently fixed that problem in that state over the virulent opposition of school administrators.

[Rick Daniel]

I would hope that the NRA will fight to end the victim disarmament in schools, but I don't expect to see that happen.
This may seem counter intuitive but one way NRA can help on such issues is to stay out of the way. Pretty much like I suggested above. They attract too much attention particularly early in a legislative effort.

Here in South Carolina we initially handled right-to-carry exclusively at the local level. The Gun Owners of South Carolina took it upon ourselves to draft, introduce and shepherd our bill through the House. Early on we had no help from NRA. Without NRA around our necks we easily "flew beneath the radar" to get it through the House.

I wish I could say we knew what we were doing, but we didn't. We learned some very valuable lessons about timing, dealing with the media, dealing with public perception, etc. I'm clearly not against working independently of the NRA, but I am against bashing them if they are neutral or simply don't take a position on an issue. Sometimes its best if they stay out of it.

The NRA came along the next year and helped tremendously in getting our bill through the Senate. It passed on the very last day of the session. Just moments before Sine Die.

NRA was invaluable that second year. We were broke and needed the help. Also, they had some procedural know how that we lacked. We couldn't have finished right-to-carry without NRA's help that second year. But I'm afraid we would have failed if they had come along an sooner.

[PWK]

So what was the outcome of this suit. Is it still in the courts or have they settled it.


Finally made senior member. Took a little over 3 years. This must be some kind of record.

[TexasRifleman]

IIRC Valone finally stopped acting like a spoiled child and issued his written apology and the whole thing went away.

His group still continues to whine and moan more about what NRA does than actually fighting in the state they supposedly serve, but that seems to be par for the course for the guy.

[JohnBT]

Thanks for the update. JT

[David Roberson]

TexasSIGman, Valone had already apologized for the incident before the suit was filed. That didn't make it go away. The case was, however, settled out of court.

As a member of both NRA and GRNC, I take strong exception to your allegation that GRNC "still continues to whine and moan more about what NRA does than actually fighting in the state they supposedly serve." Perhaps you could back up this charge with some facts to prove your claim.

I see GRNC education booths at every gun show I attend, and I get regular e-mail updates and alerts from them throughout the legislative season. I know from personal conversations with legislators from my district that they are aware of GRNC and its work. GRNC is not reluctant to point out when NRA is not working on their side -- say, for example, when NRA gives A-ratings to state legislators who support anti-gun bills -- but this is only a small part of what I see GRNC doing in our state on a regular basis.

If, as I strongly suspect, you can't back up your charge with facts, perhaps in the future you might consider confining your comments on this board to topics about which you actually know something.

[TexasRifleman]

Half the "notices" on their web page are rallying calls asking for complaints to NRA board members. There's just no purpose in all that infighting but if you enjoy it, have a big time.

You're not going to be able to spin this where Valone was some poor picked on victim of the big bad NRA and all the continued attempts to do so take energy from the real fight.

This is all old news. He insulted the hell out of an employee of NRA. He was wrong to do so. Supporting someone with a mouth like that is probably not a good idea anyway. Then when asked to apologize he didn't do it in the manner requested. Guess what... when you're wrong you are sometimes asked to eat a little crow. He didn't want to do that, so suit was filed. he finally realized the error of that thinking and apologized like he was asked to do by his VICTIM, then it all went away.

I realize that this is a pointless debate, so you can declare "victory" and move on. The recent poster asked the outcome, and he has it. Nuff said.
Good luck to you.


By the way, he's also stealing copyrighted graphics from Packing.org without giving credit.

[David Roberson]

You're right, it is old news, and your unwillingness to substantiate your charges is duly noted. We can move on to other topics.

DR

[TexasRifleman]

unwillingness to substantiate your charges

All it takes is the reader to point their browser to grnc.org and they can figure it out for themselves. It won't take much reading.

http://www.grnc.org/who_to_complain_to.htm

They have an entire page off of their home page dedicated to a list of "Who to Complain to" at the NRA.

What else do you need to see? That's plenty for clear thinking people.

[JohnBT]

WHO TO COMPLAIN TO:
NRA Exec. Vice President Wayne LaPierre 703-267-1020
Director NRA-ILA James Baker 703-267-1144
Mr. Charlton Heston at NRA HQ:
Voice: 703-267-1060
Fax: (703) 267-3909

-----------------------
Mr. Heston?

This list must be at least 3 or 4 years old.

JT

[David Roberson]

Sorry, but pointing out that a page of their website is dedicated to complaining to the NRA is not proof that GRNC "still continues to whine and moan more about what NRA does than actually fighting in the state they supposedly serve."

Look, if GRNC did nothing but operate their website, you might have an argument, but I actually live in North Carolina and I can see with my own eyes that their not-frequently-updated website is only a small part of their efforts. GRNC was a major player in getting concealed carry of handguns approved in NC and in getting the state CC permit accepted in lieu of NICS purchase checks; in both cases, the NRA jumped on the bandwagon after it was rolling. Each election year GRNC publishes a guide to candidates that covers more offices than any guides published by the NRA, and that rates candidates solely on their RKBA views. Fountain Odom, a gun-grabbing NC politician who enjoyed high ratings from the NRA despite repeated treachery against NC gunowners, was voted out of office largely because GRNC shone a light on his duplicity. GRNC's newsletters and frequent e-mail alerts carry breaking news about the progress of gun-related bills in the state legislature, and about pending legislation that gun owners might want to support or oppose. It also helps alert us about the activities of the state sheriff's association on gun-related matters. I'm a life member of the NRA and an NRA-ILA contributor, but I get far less information from the NRA about state legislation than I get from GRNC (although NRA does send me far more requests for money than GRNC does). And as I already mentioned, at every gun show I've attended in the last many years, GRNC has volunteer-staffed education booths helping inform NC gun owners about state-level RKBA legislation.

When the NRA held its annual convention in Charlotte in 2000, and anti-gunners organized demonstrations outside the convention center, who was it that organized a counter-demonstration? That's right, it was GRNC. I know because I was there, marching with them.

At the national level, NRA does more than any organization for the RKBA cause, although like some others here I believe the NRA is sometimes too quick to compromise. But at the state level, NRA does not begin to approach the activity or the effectiveness of GRNC in helping educate North Carolina gun owners about defending their rights.

Apparently you are upset that GRNC and NRA have had some conflicts and that GRNC is still sore about some of them. Fine. I, too, think some of the friction is not productive. But as someone who actually lives and works and votes in North Carolina, I can say with confidence that your statement about GRNC, as quoted in the first paragraph of this post, is quite simply a falsehood.

DR

[TexasRifleman]

Apparently you are upset that GRNC and NRA have had some conflicts and that GRNC is still sore about some of them. Fine. I, too, think some of the friction is not productive. But as someone who actually lives and works and votes in North Carolina, I can say with confidence that your statement about GRNC, as quoted in the first paragraph of this post, is quite simply a falsehood.

I certainly hope that is true but perception is 90% of reality.

If they are not advocating what it appears, then why does their website, their public image maker, noti reflect their views.

You can't expect people to divine their intentions through ESP. The published statements of a group are all anyone has to go on in these kinds of things.

If I had a web page that said I hated all children, but I did charitable works for children in my home town, would that make much sense.

So, if the public image maker of your group is wrong, maybe look into having it updated to more accurately reflect the groups views?

Dunno..... I don't live in NC clearly, all I can go on is the publications of the group itself.

[thereisnospoon]

The bottom-line, as I stated, we could not publicly support carry on school grounds. That does not make us the Brady Bunch who is opposed to carry on school grounds.

Is the NRA the most powerful lobbying group in America or not? I decided immeadiately after elected W to the WH the first time that htey ARE NOT! How well I remember the jubilation that "Our" President was in office because of us.

Now we're told we have to be "careful" how we go about this?

Then why does the NRA even exist on a State or National level. This idea that we have to be careful is ludicrous. The idea that we have to give "A+" to indiviuals who are anything but is ludicrous. In fact, the NRA is ludicrous, as it curently exists.

Thankfully there are some good grass roots organizations that have sprung up to actually fight for our rights!

I HAVE to be an NRA member to be a member of my club, otherwise they would NEVER, EVER get a dime of my money.

Perhaps there was a time when the NRA was an effective members oriented organization, but now I see only a big office and nice suits...:banghead:

[David Roberson]

TexasSIGman, Is your opinion really based on GRNC's publications -- the newsletters, the mailings, the handouts and videos at gun shows, the e-mail alerts -- or just on the website?

You're right about one thing, though: You don't know. Maybe that should have been a hint to hold your comments in the first place. But, since it's too late for that, maybe you're a big enough man to admit you were wrong and retract the remark?

DR

[TexasRifleman]

Again, my argument is that your group's public persona is pretty bad.

Maybe it's all just PR, but EVERYTHING I have access to read on your group shows a consistent message of bitching about the NRA.

It's clear you're into whatever it is they are doing, but FROM WHAT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE to read, they don't seem to be doing much other than complaining.

As a non member of course I dont' see every publication. That's my point (for the third time).

What is published for public access does not show what you say.

THAT is the point, and if you haven't gotten it by now, there's no use in this.

As for retracting any remarks, you still have not show me anything to change my mind. I'm sure what you say is true, don't get me wrong, but your organizations PUBLICY AVAILABLE MATERIAL do not show that.

So, from the point of view of an outsider, I get the message that GRNC delivers publicly; that most of what happensin NC is the NRA's fault.

So you're going to blame the fact that what I read on your groups website is MY fault? Has a familiar ring to it doesn't it? You've taken this as some kind of personal insult. The NRA makes plenty mistakes, that is not the point here. All of the pro 2A groups make mistakes and compromises that they think is in the best interest of their membership.

What is a problem here is that the public persona of GRNC is of a group that worries more about NRA than local issues. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, it's how the group has decided to present itself.


Somehow that just because their email alerts to members says something different than what they put on their publicly accessible website we're all supposed to just ignore the web page? And let's not pretend that the web page isn't updated. It shows the last changes to be on Feb27, 06.

So if CNN.com flashes a headline that Iran was just nuked by Israel, but the email alerts from Fox news say otherwise, I'm supposed to be OK with that?

That's the analogy here.

And I do find it kind of funny that you've spent this time arguing how it's someone elses fault, when that's EXACTLY what I've said the groups public image portrays.

It's not GRNC's fault their web page says that, it's TexasSIGman's fault for only reading what he can find publicly available. That's not a very compelling argument.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Don't you folks have better things to do than try to prove that the other pro-gun group is somehow evil?

[David Roberson]

Nice change of topic and use of false analogies, TexasSIGman. And both the NRA and GRNC are "my" groups.

How do you know how GRNC presents itself? By your own admission, you've based your assessment on a single sample of GRNC's work, but you're using that sample as the basis for a characterization of everything the group does.

My points remain the same. There is plenty of publicly obvious material and activity going on here in NC to disprove the false allegation you have made based on sitting in front of a computer in Fort Worth and reading a single website. Complain about the website all you want, but don't try to tell me that you have any understanding of all the group's activities. You already admitted (and proved) that you don't.

And the issue isn't that GRNC and NRA tell different stories about what happened in the lawsuit. The issue is that you falsely claimed that complaining about the NRA constitutes the majority of what GRNC does; when I called you on that, you said it constitutes half of the items on their website. Then you admitted that you really don't know. I guess we should leave it at that. You don't know, but also aren't willing to listen to anyone who does because it might confuse you with facts.

There's been enough energy expended on this. I'm happy to correspond by PM or e-mail with anyone interested in learning about, not misrepresenting, GRNC activities.

DR

[k_dawg]

Rick Daniel:

Is this a correct summary of your position:

You believe that no South Carolinian should have the right to bear arms, and protect the life and liberty of his family, in *any* resturant that can serve beer? That he must disarm himself, even if he is not drinking?

[TexasRifleman]

Don't you folks have better things to do than try to prove that the other pro-gun group is somehow evil?

I'm not, and could honestly care less about GRNC. The question was asked about the lawsuit. The president of GRNC clearly made a horrible mistake of judgment, and he had to be prodded at "lawsuit point" to apologize in a manner that was OK with his victim.

He tried to steer the discussion from his mistake by making it about the big bad NRA picking on him and using their resources to go after him. He tried to say he apologized in his own way, but that isn't the way it works. When you screw up like that you should expect to eat public crow, and he avoided that as long as possible.

That didn't work, he apologized like he should have, and the lawsuit was dropped.

The problem now is that the same old thing continues, that somehow everything this guy does is not his fault, he's misunderstood, picked on etc.

Whether or not he makes progress towards 2A freedom for the members of his group, he still does not PUBLICLY present either himself or his organization in a favorable light.

Anyone that points that out is somehow "attacking" him and anyone else that agrees with him. The group continues to blame NRA for problems. Maybe it's true, we all know the NRA makes plenty of mistakes. The problem with this group is in the way it's presented to outsiders.

I began to research the group after this lawsuit, and from what's publicly available it looks like the guy is a whiner. That is how it's presented on their webpage, and if you don't think the web page matters, take the darned thing down or change it but don't dare say that anyone that takes information directly from that web page is somehow "distorting the facts". Hell, it's GRNC's website, how can the facts THEY present be distorted when presented exactly as they intended?

[Merkin.Muffley]

This is a discussion Sarah Brady would enjoy.

[cliffstanc]

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I am not a member of GRNC or the NRA.

Mr. Roberson, I live in NC, so maybe my opinion will count for you. The GRNC website is lousy. I mean, 1995 lousy.

Look , the days when an organization that depends on public interest, such as a non-profit group, could not have an effective web presence are over. The very first thing I do when I want to know more about a group is go to their website. Why?

it's fast
it's easy
it's free
it's convenient


If GRNC is going to depend on convincing the public on their value in spite of their badly-designed (where are the recent alerts?), infrequently-updated (the most recent message is from October 2005?), poorly-documented (what, exactly, did the GRNC have to do with reciprocity in NC?...the website doesn't give any details in their link!), and all-around amateur looking site (here's their contact info on the front page, reproduced exactly: ) You can contact us at:
CompanyLongName
CompanyAddress
CitynZip
Voice: CompanyPhone
Fax: CompanyFAX
GRNC HotLine: GRNCHotline....

Between sending these guys a check and buying some more ammo, which do you think people are going to choose?

Look, maybe these guys are the best thing to happen to NC since NASCAR was invented. But to claim that they are, and that it's up to the undecided people like me to have to research that claim, and ignore the very first source I and people like me will use....well, I've got better things to spend my time and money on than a pig in a poke.

Bottom line: if they can't even manage their own website effectively, why should I believe that they will manage to be politically effective?

- Cliff

[The Freeholder]

Probably a mistake on my part, but since I live in NC...

I've watched the NRA and GRNC for several years now. GRNC has done more with less for NC resident's 2nd Amendment Rights than the NRA, and by a large margin. Guess which one gets my hard earned?

The web site, on the other hand...:barf: Lord, I could do that good.

[Art Eatman]

Almost 11PM. Time for the children's hour to close and all get tucked in, for beddie-bye.

:barf:

Art