NRA-ILA letter... reprehensible!

[azredhawk44]

The NRA-ILA just sent me a newsletter.

It spoke with glowing praise of the recent Parker v. District of Columbia landmark second amendment ruling.

On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a landmark ruling known as Parker v. District of Columbia. That ruling overturned the ban on personal ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. --a decades-old gun ban that also required long guns to be stored locked or disassembled, and thus outlawed the right to self-defense in our nation's capitol city.

This was a great victory for the citizens of Washington, D.C....

...But more importantly, this District Cour ruling was a huge victory for gun owners across the country.

This is the very first time in our nation's 230-year history that a federal court has overturned a gun ban specifically on Second Amendment grounds.

I am SO horribly offended by this. The NRA did everything in its power to scuttle this court case and AVOID a second amendment derived decision.

As referenced here by CATO lawyers, the NRA deliberately attempted to derail a decision based on 2A grounds, and also attempted to hijack the case from CATO by means of filing for consolidation.

All this occurred prior to July 8th, 2003.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3175

In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.

Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the Court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?

Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.

Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.

Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.

One week later, under direction of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced this bill on July 15, 2003.

http://www.gunweek.com/2003/dcban0810.html

The intent? To deliberately derail Parker before it can reach the Supreme Court.

NOW THE NRA IS ASKING FOR MONEY BASED UPON THE MERITORIOUS DECISION THAT CATO OBTAINED IN THE PARKER CASE!

And I need your financial commitment as well, to make sure that NRA-ILA can take immediate and effective action to defeat gun-ban legislation in Congress during the dangerous weeks and months ahead.

That's why I'm urgently requesting that you and other NRA-ILA leaders pledge a special contribution of $45 or, if it's more convenient, $15 per month for the next three months.

You can use the first envelope, marked "May," to forward your very generous $45 gift. Or, you can use each of the three envelopes I've enclosed to send a $15 contribution in May, June, and July.

How does this relate to activism?

I think all THR members should send a copy of this post, or a similar letter, back in the NRA-ILA envelopes (all three are postage paid) WITH NO MONEY.

The NRA cannot be allowed to lie to us, attempt to derail promising Second Amendment cases, then ask us for money.

It is dispicable.

Shame on you, Chris Cox.

 

[D.S. Ambrose]

Ouch, you're in for a rough time for that one on this forum.

 

[.cheese.]

to be honest, I kinda agree.

I got the letter too and thought that it was ironic given the NRA's stance on that.

At the same time though, The NRA-ILA has been annoying the hell out of me... I get a letter a week asking for donations, and they're calling my cellphone every 2 days. I already renewed my NRA membership very very early to take advantage of the free video offer, but no video ever came and it's been months.

I think I will send a note back to them with that mailing saying that if they expect me to donate, they need to:

A) Stand up for our rights and not cower in the corner when it comes to these cases
B) Stop calling me every 2 days
C) Send the darn video already!

 

[mec]

For several years, I was donating a few hundred dollars every few months.They had me on their A-list and sent requests very regularly. Then, one day they sent me a video and said " Now pay for it or send it back." I forgot about the thing and never have been much inclined toward that sort of fund raising considering it heavy handed and dishonest so I did nothing. I started getting dunning letters for this video that I had never requested. I ignored the situation. Apparently, they decided that I was a bad guy and stopped sending me requests for donations.
I still maintain membership but use the extra money to buy guns and ammunition.

 

[hunttheevil]

One thing to remember is once 2A is blessed by SCOTUS, if they ever do, is NRA will be out of a job. Self preservation way I see it.

 

[mec]

There might be fewer opportunities to raise funds but I don't believe the problem would go away with a SCOTUS validation. The left would simply peck away with partial "commonsense' regulation until they could appoint enough dialectically pure justices.

 

[tinygnat219]

Just do what I did, send a donation to the CATO Institute along with a note thanking them for their defense of our Constitutional Rights.

 

[S.P.E.C.T.R.E.]

I've not studied the NRA's involvement in all of the this, but is it possible they were trying to kill the case to prevent the possibility of a negative ruling?

 

[princewally]

One thing to remember is once 2A is blessed by SCOTUS, if they ever do, is NRA will be out of a job. Self preservation way I see it.

Not true. They were around for 60 years before 2a rights became a major issue.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Got the same letter. I actually agree completely that the NRA is not playing above board in this matter though I'm not particularly surprised.

The political model is changing (mostly via the internet) and small groups have far more reach and power than they ever did before. Some of the larger political organizations (on both sides of the issue) are having a really tough time figuring out how to work with that.

Rather than slap the NRA on the wrist over it, maybe we should find a way to educate them as to how working together with these grass roots groups makes us all stronger and how glory grabbing hurts everyone.

 

[BigG]

One thing to remember is once 2A is blessed by SCOTUS, if they ever do, is NRA will be out of a job. Self preservation way I see it.

Not true. They were around for 60 years before 2a rights became a major issue.

Well, I hate to be a cynic but NRA was only interested in National Matches prior to gun control. The ILA would definitely be interested in self preservation, which is unfortunate, but characteristic of the life cycle of an organization.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Rather than slap the NRA on the wrist over it, maybe we should find a way to educate them as to how working together with these grass roots groups makes us all stronger and how glory grabbing hurts everyone.

The problem with this idea is that Wayne, et. al. don't like competition.

They also do not understand the mindset of (part of?) their target audience. For the long history of the NRA, I would assume- and yes that's dangerous- that an overwhelming majority of their participants were hunters. As long as they had a gun to hunt with and a place to do it, the NRA was doing a good job.

Unfortunately for the NRA (and hunters who turn up their noses at "the evil black rifle"), those of us who enjoy the "non-sporting" part of gun ownership are a very vocal and action oriented group (i.e. Zumbo), and will no longer sit still while the NRA plays politics with the true intent of the Second Amendment.

The NRA must accept this and deal with it in their hierarchy (with a strategy to UNITE gunowners-of all stripes) or lose a large portion of their support to organizations such as JPFO, GOA and smaller grass roots organizations. I don't hink you'll ever hear a hard core 2A guy say something like "yes, as long as they don't take my AR, they can have all the deer rifles they want"- while the reverse is not always true. However, as recently as 3 months ago, the Zumbo incident revealed the true stripes of a large portion of the hunting community and their feelings about the 2A.

I am an NRA member, but only because I have to be to participate at my local range.

The NRA has been the 800lb Gorilla for long, long time, but even 800lb Gorillas must adapt to the ever changing landscape or die...

 

[buzz_knox]

The problem with this idea is that Wayne, et. al. don't like competition.

Neither do JPFO or GOA, which is why they and their members have membership drives centered around how evil the NRA is, including via threads on the forums discussing how wrong the NRA is, how it's never done anything for gun rights, and how only JPFO/GOA/etc will save the day.

Right now, the gun rights movement is doing its best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as the various organizations slam each other.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Well, I am a member of the NRA, and I have been considering writing them a letter telling them to keep their hands off the Parker case. That is, refrain from filing a brief.

They will ignore it, but if they received thousands of similar letters from their members . . .

 

[buzz_knox]

Well, I am a member of the NRA, and I have been considering writing them a letter telling them to keep their hands off the Parker case. That is, refrain from filing a brief.

If DC doesn't appeal, no one will be filing anything.

 

[JohnBT]

"For the long history of the NRA, I would assume- and yes that's dangerous- that an overwhelming majority of their participants were hunters."

And you would be wrong. I encourage you to read the history of the NRA. They taught rifle shooting, promoted rifle competition and built rifle ranges. They were not into setting up hunting preserves and promoting shotgun skills.

I'm not claiming members didn't hunt, but it wasn't a hunting organization. It was founded by Union vets after the Civil War.

"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church."

www.nrahq.org/history.asp

Here is a little more.

"An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.

Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey.

The NRA's interest in promoting the shooting sports among America's youth began in 1903 when NRA Secretary Albert S. Jones urged the establishment of rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies. By 1906, NRA's youth program was in full swing with more than 200 boys competing in matches at Sea Girt that summer. Today, youth programs are still a cornerstone of the NRA, with more than one million youth participating in NRA shooting sports events and affiliated programs with groups such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts of America, the American Legion, U.S. Jaycees and others.

Due to the overwhelming growth of NRA's shooting programs, a new range was needed. Gen. Ammon B. Crichfield, Adjutant General of Ohio, had begun construction of a new shooting facility on the shores of Lake Erie, 45 miles east of Toledo, Ohio. Camp Perry became the home of the annual National Matches, which have been the benchmark for excellence in marksmanship ever since. With nearly 6,000 people competing annually in pistol, smallbore and highpower events, the National Matches are one of the biggest sporting events held in the country today."

It wasn't until 1934 that they got into politics, although there was no formal lobbying at that time.

The small groups have made many gains, especially VCDL, but they're still playing catch-up and have a long way to go to have the kind of influence the NRA has.

We will see if the ILA cares to address the complaints in this thread. I e-mailed it to them, although I don't know if they do internet forums.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron

 

[thereisnospoon]

JohnBT,

Thanks for the information! I don't care to just bash the NRA. I not only outlined what I thought was the problem, but the idea that the NRA has to adress the situation and find a way to unite all shooters...

They seem to focus on the Sporting Purpose and are happy to do so. If they have the power and ability their die-hard supporters believe they do, why can't they get the unreasonable gun legislation removed from the US Code and/or addressing the overgrown out-of-control organizations such as the bATF(E)? Is it possibly because they don't want to?

That's how I, as a member of the NRA (and several other gun organizations), feel and where the hostility towards the NRA comes from. They are great at scaring people with gun-grabbing horror stories to get contributions, yet can't seem to scare up the votes to remove the draconian gun laws in the US Code. The scarey propaganda on one hand and the go-along-to-get-along attitude on the other is disingenuous and frustrates me (I won't pretend to speak for anyone else).

I would (and previously did) donate hundreds of $$$ if they would just stand up and fight for the 2nd under its true meaning...the right to keep and bear arms.

buzz knox:

I don't want to throw the NRA under the bus, but the organization doesn't seem to get it at all. If I ran this organization (and I have run several businesses and currently manage a medical practice for three physicians) I would hear all this ruckus and wonder what I should do about it, rather than ignoring a part of the people I am trying to reach the most.

Maybe that's just me.

I have never accused the NRA of doing nothing, rather, I have said that they are failing to change as the landscape does around them.

I liken it to the current Republican Party...they have lost the initiative and sqaundered any chance they had of making effective change. The NRA had a Republican in the White House and control of both the Senate and House. I remeber the talk of "our boy is in the House"...why didn't the NRA move during that time to make effective change.

And BTW, what is your observation of the initial topic of this thread- i.e. the way the NRA tried to derail the Parker case? (This is not meant as a personal atack, I just don't recall you responding to the initial question/thread topic)

 

[buzz_knox]

And BTW, what is your observation of the initial topic of this thread- i.e. the way the NRA tried to derail the Parker case?

My observation was in the second part of the post: Parker scared them. Parker scared me. From a legal point of view, it should have come out as it did. But from a realist point of view, given the particular ban and the particular court, it probably shouldn't have gone our way.

The NRA has for years waited for the right climate and right plaintiff to pursue a 2nd Amendment claim, because the consequences of screwing up are nightmarish. The NRA is rather risk averse, as many big organizations are. That's why they don't follow the call to push for each and every case to go all the way on 2nd Amendment grounds, even if doing so builds up a history that undermines the individual interpretation.

Times have been changing as has the legal landscape. I don't think the NRA fully grasped that at the time (and things have changed even after Parker started going forward). But I think it's coming around.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Times have been changing as has the legal landscape. I don't think the NRA fully grasped that at the time (and things have changed even after Parker started going forward). But I think it's coming around.

So how do the "disinfranchised" barf: I just threw up a little when I typed that) members help the NRA change? The only outlet I've had is to ask the NRA to stop calling me every 2-3 days for contributions and stop sending the scare literature to my home and to get on the net and bitch. The die-hard supporters appear to ignore the fact that there are a lot of us out there that want a good organization to defend us, but don't want to continue to throw money into an organization that

...is rather risk averse, as many big organizations are.

as you stated.

Maybe I am a romantic at heart, but I'd rather support a loser that goes down in flames trying, than a "winner" who appears to support the slow erosion of our rights. The words Vichy, France come to mind.

Maybe that is unwarranted, but everytime I hear the NRA mentioned or this debate crops up- that scene from Casablanca pops into my head...

ETA: Do the powers that be know that many feel this way and are ignoring it, or are they oblivious to it?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

If DC doesn't appeal, no one will be filing anything.

They'll file a petition.

 

[buzz_knox]

Maybe I am a romantic at heart, but I'd rather support a loser that goes down in flames trying, than a "winner" who appears to support the slow erosion of our rights. The words Vichy, France come to mind.

Following that rather inappropriate and insulting analogy, the Resistance members who were successful were the ones who used their heads and fought smartly, not the ones who made fool hardy charges in to the enemies' guns.

The die-hard supporters appear to ignore the fact that there are a lot of us out there that want a good organization to defend us, but don't want to continue to throw money into an organization that

And many of us are tired of all the attempts to tear the gun rights movement apart or undermine the RKBA altogether.

And the advances in the effort to support the RKBA are being made by changing the environment, not by going for broke. Parker was the result of a lot of effort over years, that luckily came together at the right time and place. It could easily have gone the other way. If the NRA had pushed it and lost, it would have been castigated for being stupid. I doubt anyone would have castigated CATO for setting back the RKBA.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not to belabor the point but:

Insulting or not, there are obviously enough people who feel the way I do (and as you do)or this type of "debate" wouldn't happen on every internet gun forum.

Let's set aside the rhetoric for a moment and answer the question: How do we fix the problem? How do we reconcile the hard core NRA supporters (for lack of a better term) with the hard core NRA bashers (for lack of a better term)? How do we help the NRa recognize their loss of credability with a large number of their would be supporters?

 

[buzz_knox]

Not to belabor the point but:

what do the rest of us do?

Simple. Hit them where they live. Go to Friends of the NRA meetings and start working the crowd, finding those who think similarly and converting those inclined to your point of view. Turn those meetings into "Friends of the NRA Who Want Change" meetings. If the powers that be won't allow it, then bypass them and have your own internet meetings, even on places like this. Don't be one person badgering the NRA to adopt a particular view, be hundreds.

But at the same time, don't tell them that it's either your way or the highway for your dollars. If you want to do that, fine. But you've eliminated any further influence you or anyone affiliated with you will have. Grow to understand why the NRA acts as it does, and find a solution that works with its tendencies and your needs and accept that you might not get all you want. Strangely, though, you'll get far more than you expected.

The NRA is the way it is because 1) it plays politics and does so quite well, 2) most gunowners are not members, 3) most members are apathetic, and 4) too many nonapathetic members drown themselves out by the stridency of the message. Change 4 and you can change 3 (you get other members intersted and listening to you). Change 3 and you can change 2 (you get members talking to fellow shooters and others, demonstrating that the NRA isn't the ultra-radical anti-cop anti-establishment organization the media makes it out to be, and maybe the NRA gets a few new members who think the way you've helped your fellow members think). Change 2 and 1 becomes irrelevant. Whether it plays politics or not, it's got too many members who think as you do to step too far out of bounds.

Radical idea? Yes. Sounds hard? Absolutely. But it's the same grassroots method that has caused the RKBA to expand (building a de facto power base that politicians can't ignore). It's the same effort that set the stage for Parker. It's also the only way I can see things changing. The "bloodbath" (in terms of influence and membership) and time required before another organization had the influence the NRA does would probably see the RKBA mortally wounded before the influence could be felt.

As an aside, it's funny to think that to many,in the public the NRA is a "ultra-radical anti-cop anti-establishment organization." To many here, it's a weak part of the establishment. Recognizing the two ways of how the NRA is seen, and how carefully it has to walk, makes me realize why it acts the way it does. And it reinforces the belief that the only way it will change is when the public and the membership changes enough to 1) force it to be tougher (from our viewpoint) and 2) give it permission (from the public) to be tougher without causing backlash.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Not to belabor the point but: what do the rest of us do?

Thereisnospoon,
I'm not making fun of you, really I'm not!
But WOW, it still astonishes me that people have to ask that question.

WRITE LETTERS (real, honest-to-God, on paper, via snailmail, letters)
Nobody can cover every cause but pick one, build yourself a solid, logically backed, stance and start hammering away.

For example I've chosen to operate locally with the VCDL and participate in their campaigns (with regards to the NRA and with regards to anti-gun opponents or mis-informed politicians). I've also chosen the "right to carry in the national parks" as my other pet project. Once a month I try to send some sort of letter or at minimum an email to the various points of contact. Long term work is what's needed. It's not exciting or sexy but it's what actually works if you want the voice of the people to be heard.

 

[buzz_knox]

They'll file a petition.

Last I heard, the current thinking is that DC was going to pull back and try to write a de facto ban that comported with the ruling, in order to avoid further losses.