NRA Member?

[yucaipa]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JohnBT]

"They build multi-million dollar complexes"

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

Ideally we should all belong to multiple organizations.

John

 

[ihmsa70]

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

 

[Robert J McElwain]

I didn't mean for this thread to become so heated. I was mostly interested in the percentages.

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

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

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

Bob

 

[Brad Johnson]

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

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

Brad

 

[ReadyontheRight]

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

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

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

 

[Brad Johnson]

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

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

Brad

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[yucaipa]

In NO the NRA filed an injunction along with SAF

you can read it here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dpesec]

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

I remember reading some place that the Dems set up a website that was pro gun by anti-second. I think the idea was to get names.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The NRA got the injuction against law enforcement to stop confiscating handguns in New Orleans.

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

 

[NineseveN]

In NO the NRA filed an injunction along with SAF

you can read it here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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


From a CBS affiliate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[yucaipa]

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



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

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



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

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

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

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




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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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

 

[Rob62]

As my sig line says I'm an NRA Life Member. And proud of it.

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

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

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

Rob

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I'm just getting started....

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I'm just getting started....

There's always that too.

+1

 

[Freedspeak]

Support

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

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

 

[FireBreather01]

Where's the option for "definitely will be some day?"

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

Cosine,

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

FireBreather01ATdanns.net

 

[NineseveN]

Cosine,

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

FireBreather01ATdanns.net

Now that absolutely rocks! Good on you FireBreather01.

 

[Hawk]

The "NRA member" threads generally include repeated references to the amount of junk mail one receives, and repeated responses that one can do something about it.

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

Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA?

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

 

[JohnBT]

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

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

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

John

 

[NineseveN]

The "NRA member" threads generally include repeated references to the amount of junk mail one receives, and repeated responses that one can do something about it.

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

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

 

[NineseveN]

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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