BSA1
member
I fail to see the reason for remaining aboard a sinking ship.
So your sole source of information is another discussion forum?
Leaked Documents: NRA Racked Up $24 Million in Legal Bills
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
I fail to see the reason for remaining aboard a sinking ship.
So your sole source of information is another discussion forum?
AlexanderA
Member
Feeble efforts. Remember that the NRA was originally opposed to going forward with the Heller case, and more recently it didn't join in the lawsuits to overturn the bump stock ban. (How could it, when the bump stock ban was largely of its own making?) A lot of the money that the NRA spends for legal services, when not for a fictitious slush fund, is for defending itself and its insiders, and not for promoting gun rights generally.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
No. The cited thread on ar15.com is just a convenient place that pulls it all together. (Remember that I'm banned from participating in that forum, so this is hardly an endorsement.)
AZAndy
Member
True, and the McDonald decision was mostly due to the SAF. It's one of the reasons my only life membership is with them rather than the NRA, from which I resigned when the Loesch ads started running. Not that the NRA cares, of course, and they still send me plenty of mail.
This is like complaining about a leaky, rickety house while there’s a major thunderstorm outside and no other house to run to.
Try to build a new house in the storm or fix the leaks?
P.s. Turns out the leaks are being made by the building manager!
Try to build a new house in the storm or fix the leaks?
P.s. Turns out the leaks are being made by the building manager!
Yo Mama
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,230
It would be crazy but NY then would be the birth and ending places for the nra
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,150
Because if the goal of the NRA is to be an effective lobbying group for gun owners, they need as many members as they can get. And if they can't speak for the majority of their 5 million members now, they will have a harder time with a consensus of 10 million or 20 million. I am not a NRA member and only held membership for a single year under their LOD program. Reading about issues like this are among the reasons why I have not and will not renew my membership for the foreseeable future. The NRA has to do some serious attitude changes in order to entice me back, and I know I am not alone either.
The NRA was not enthused about Heller as they were not sure that it would have a positive outcome. There was real risk of a decision that would not support the 2nd Amend. Heller was a mixed bag because of the necessary compromises that Scalia made to Kennedy. In fact, those compromises have been used in lower court decisions to strongly support various state bans and restrictions. Folks say that they are misinterpreting Scalia's wisdom and he strongly opposed the later occurring state bans. However, they weren't taken up and his strong dissents are meaningless as they led to no actions and the state bans still stand and are supported now by many precedents. That is the fear that if another case gets to the Court, Roberts will support precedent and enshrine such bans as Constitutional.
The NRA-ILA, separate from the NRA (supposedly), does good work. However, the organization is now tainted by the top scandals and it's unwavering support of one party and an untrustworthy POTUS. Could Democratic support become a force again. There are developing pockets of gun support in minority groups that should be nurtured and overt babble about conservative principles not related to the RKBA and sometimes hateful rhetoric on social issues must be avoided. The latter aids in fund raising from a targeted and shrinking demographic, so it is short term gain and long term loss, IMHO.
Also, their messaging of why the RKBA is important is focused only on the demographic - it works for funding raising for the moment, but is a long term problem. Fighting the Socialist Wave is ridiculous as a primary goal. No one is taking to the streets with an AR to fight Medicare for All, the Green New Deal or Free College. Yes, Free College is the first step to the gulags? Won't sell outside of true believers.
When an organization gets into such a fight, one faction 'wins' and chortles about it. However, if that faction stays - it still degrades the organization.
The NRA used to be 'feared'. Such battles reduce their intimidation factor. It was clear in the HPA debacle, that they underestimated the GOP support for gun rights. The bump stock debacle was another instance where it should have been clear to POTUS that he did not have to leap into the fray (his personality flaws are not really a THR topic). The issue could have been turned over to the Congress for hearings and legislation rather than another executive precedent against gun rights (even if bump stocks are stupid). Democratic candidates are promising antigun executive actions, continuing in the vein of past ones (import bans) and the Donald's tantrum.
The NRA-ILA, separate from the NRA (supposedly), does good work. However, the organization is now tainted by the top scandals and it's unwavering support of one party and an untrustworthy POTUS. Could Democratic support become a force again. There are developing pockets of gun support in minority groups that should be nurtured and overt babble about conservative principles not related to the RKBA and sometimes hateful rhetoric on social issues must be avoided. The latter aids in fund raising from a targeted and shrinking demographic, so it is short term gain and long term loss, IMHO.
Also, their messaging of why the RKBA is important is focused only on the demographic - it works for funding raising for the moment, but is a long term problem. Fighting the Socialist Wave is ridiculous as a primary goal. No one is taking to the streets with an AR to fight Medicare for All, the Green New Deal or Free College. Yes, Free College is the first step to the gulags? Won't sell outside of true believers.
When an organization gets into such a fight, one faction 'wins' and chortles about it. However, if that faction stays - it still degrades the organization.
The NRA used to be 'feared'. Such battles reduce their intimidation factor. It was clear in the HPA debacle, that they underestimated the GOP support for gun rights. The bump stock debacle was another instance where it should have been clear to POTUS that he did not have to leap into the fray (his personality flaws are not really a THR topic). The issue could have been turned over to the Congress for hearings and legislation rather than another executive precedent against gun rights (even if bump stocks are stupid). Democratic candidates are promising antigun executive actions, continuing in the vein of past ones (import bans) and the Donald's tantrum.
CoalTrain49
Member
Where does that get him. He probably gets to vote. I don't even get to do that.
True, and the McDonald decision was mostly due to the SAF. It's one of the reasons my only life membership is with them rather than the NRA, from which I resigned when the Loesch ads started running. Not that the NRA cares, of course, and they still send me plenty of mail.
Actually, if a person wanted their RKBA defended in the courts the NRA isn't the org to support. The SAF will use the money much more effectively.
The NRA is 501(c)(4) non profit.
501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. That's why they're being investigated. They've gone off the rails. They just need to man up as a for profit organization.
SAF is 501(c)(3) and doesn't get involved in any politics.
AlexanderA
Member
Yes, I think so, if we are talking about the judicial arena.
Regarding the lobbying and political arena, it's often said that the NRA is the "elephant in the room" and that the RKBA would be lost without it. This may no longer be true; Trump himself said that "nobody is afraid of the NRA any more." That's because an NRA endorsement no longer brings a candidate any more votes than he would otherwise get. It used to be that an NRA endorsement would get pro-gun Democrats to cross over and vote for a pro-gun Republican. Now, the NRA is seen as a 100% arm of the Republican party, and those pro-gun Democrats don't listen to it any more. (They may be relatively few in number, but they're critical in certain states.) The NRA has forfeited all its credibility with those people by taking the partisan stance that it has. (The NRA-Republican connection is only deepening; Carolyn Meadows, the new NRA president, is a former Republican National Committeewoman and is also on the board of the American Conservative Union. Her interest in conservative Republicanism preceded her interest in gun rights, and not the other way around. In other words, to her, guns serve conservatism more than conservatism serves guns. I'm afraid that's going to be the watchword for the entire organization.)
The financial scandals are just the final thing that will kill the organization for good.
BSA1
member
"However, the organization is now tainted by the top scandals and it's unwavering support of one party and an untrustworthy POTUS."
Which is why the NRA needs more members rather than folding like so many members of THR want it too.
Presidents live in a bubble with only select very few having his ear and giving advice. One thing all politicians understand is the need for voters to get reelected. Those few of us on THR that want strong anti-gun restrictions understand that. Imagine the access the NRA would have to the President if they were speaking with 10,000,000 members.
"There are developing pockets of gun support in minority groups that should be nurtured and overt babble about conservative principles not related to the RKBA and sometimes hateful rhetoric on social issues must be avoided."
A common argument is people want the NRA to return to it's target shooting club organization. Just to be clear what they really want is the NRA to become a racist, sexist gentlemen's shooting club again. How many minorities and women were members of the "Old Guard" NRA?.
"The NRA used to be 'feared'."
If the NRA isn't feared why is Bloomberg, Soros and other billionaires trying to bankrupt it?
"The bump stock debacle was another instance where it should have been clear to POTUS that he did not have to leap into the fray (his personality flaws are not really a THR topic). The issue could have been turned over to the Congress for hearings and legislation rather than another executive precedent against gun rights."
And the issue would continue to drag on until the elections next year with pro- gun supporters being on the defense and the media playing and replaying the shooting over and over and over.
With the ban the media and Liberals are silenced. Only supposedly pro-gun people are turning on the NRA and other gun owners. It is even more discouraging to see how a forum with as many members and influence support the end of the NRA.
Which is why the NRA needs more members rather than folding like so many members of THR want it too.
Presidents live in a bubble with only select very few having his ear and giving advice. One thing all politicians understand is the need for voters to get reelected. Those few of us on THR that want strong anti-gun restrictions understand that. Imagine the access the NRA would have to the President if they were speaking with 10,000,000 members.
"There are developing pockets of gun support in minority groups that should be nurtured and overt babble about conservative principles not related to the RKBA and sometimes hateful rhetoric on social issues must be avoided."
A common argument is people want the NRA to return to it's target shooting club organization. Just to be clear what they really want is the NRA to become a racist, sexist gentlemen's shooting club again. How many minorities and women were members of the "Old Guard" NRA?.
"The NRA used to be 'feared'."
If the NRA isn't feared why is Bloomberg, Soros and other billionaires trying to bankrupt it?
"The bump stock debacle was another instance where it should have been clear to POTUS that he did not have to leap into the fray (his personality flaws are not really a THR topic). The issue could have been turned over to the Congress for hearings and legislation rather than another executive precedent against gun rights."
And the issue would continue to drag on until the elections next year with pro- gun supporters being on the defense and the media playing and replaying the shooting over and over and over.
With the ban the media and Liberals are silenced. Only supposedly pro-gun people are turning on the NRA and other gun owners. It is even more discouraging to see how a forum with as many members and influence support the end of the NRA.
Last edited:
Will you say the same thing when an executive order or process bans MSSAs and higher capacity magazines across the country?
The problem was precedent.
As far as 'feared' - wasn't it POTUS who said you don't have to be scared of the NRA? Oops, for the Trump true believers.
I said before, belief in the cause doesn't mean blind support of incompetence.
It is fascinating to watch the sharks circle when there's blood in the water, but I won't draw any conclusions until more is known.
I do know that every anti-gun interest in the country would like to see the NRA humbled. The enemy (NRA) of my enemy (gun grabbers), if not my friend, may still be useful. Every organization has issues and competing interests. It's how they are resolved that determines their future.
I do know that every anti-gun interest in the country would like to see the NRA humbled. The enemy (NRA) of my enemy (gun grabbers), if not my friend, may still be useful. Every organization has issues and competing interests. It's how they are resolved that determines their future.
All of which does nothing to address the question of whether or not the expenditures in question are normal or unusual and is, if anything, an admission that the poster does not know.
Until someone can provide a baseline for the types of expenditures in question, we don't know if this is even a problem.
J-Bar
Member
When discussing lobbying expenditures, maybe actual data might be helpful. OpenSecrets.org has a wealth of information that can be very interesting:
https://www.opensecrets.org
For instance, here is a chart of lobbying expenditures by the NRA since 1998:
The top year was 2017 at nearly $5 million. Look at the chart for the Top Spenders for 2017; The NRA is way below the top 20 lobbyists for 2017 (and every other year).
There are folks in this forum who are better at analyzing financial data than me, and who can better decide if the NRA should be spending more or less on lobbying. And I have nothing to add about the conflict between LaPierre and North. I guess my point in posting this is, I think the general public has the perception that the NRA is one of the biggest lobbying organizations in the country. It isn't. So far the NRA has been getting quite a bang (yes, pun intended) for its comparatively small lobbying bucks.
https://www.opensecrets.org
For instance, here is a chart of lobbying expenditures by the NRA since 1998:
The top year was 2017 at nearly $5 million. Look at the chart for the Top Spenders for 2017; The NRA is way below the top 20 lobbyists for 2017 (and every other year).
There are folks in this forum who are better at analyzing financial data than me, and who can better decide if the NRA should be spending more or less on lobbying. And I have nothing to add about the conflict between LaPierre and North. I guess my point in posting this is, I think the general public has the perception that the NRA is one of the biggest lobbying organizations in the country. It isn't. So far the NRA has been getting quite a bang (yes, pun intended) for its comparatively small lobbying bucks.
That's an additional complication. The lobbying is done by the NRA-ILA which is, for practical purposes, a completely different organization.
I assume, based on the reporting, that this is about the NRA proper, not the NRA-ILA.
I assume, based on the reporting, that this is about the NRA proper, not the NRA-ILA.
No, by NY State Atty General at present. That is a problem because the NRA is chartered in NY State.
AlexanderA
Member
The listed expenditures from the leaked documents (which are available online) are abnormal on their face. $274,000 for the CEO's suits is not a normal business expenditure, especially when he can afford to buy his own from his million-dollar-plus salary. Spending tens of thousands for chartered jets is not normal when he could fly first class commercial for a fraction of the cost. Underwriting $4,500 a month for a 23-year-old intern's apartment rent is not normal. Spending millions on a law firm whose chief partner is related to the head of your exclusive PR firm is not normal. And these are just a few of many examples. One would have to be willfully blind to continue to make excuses for these sorts of things.
AlexanderA
Member
Now that's interesting. 2017 was a year in which Republicans had complete control of Congress and the White House. No need for "defensive" lobbying. You might say the NRA was doing "offensive" lobbying, but then you come up against the fact that they had zero results -- no national reciprocity, no Hearing Protection Act, no nothing. It's a fair conclusion that the lobbying money was wasted.
1. From the beginning, my comments have been focused on the legal fees which were characterized in the article as "debilitating" but without providing any frame of reference to demonstrate that they are out of line for the NRA's normal legal expenditures.
2. I don't know anything about how much WLP normally expenses for travel and clothes, and apparently neither do you or you would have provided that information for reference. I'm certainly not happy about those expenses, even if they are normal, but that's a separate issue from expenses that are being characterized as having the potential to literally cripple the organization.
So that's a new expense or a different company compared to previous years?
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,875
I think the connection is not those specific policy proposals, but the overall historical reality that socialist regimes are really about power for the elites that run them, and disarming citizens is an important (and early) step toward accomplishing that. Imagine what Kristallnacht would have looked like if the Jewish shopkeepers had been up on their roofs with long guns like the Koreans in the L.A. Riots.
Or as a friend emailed me today:
Venezuela 2012: Citizens lose their right to own firearms, millions of guns turned into the government
Venezuela 2016: Citizens are starving and line up for hours in breadlines
Venezuela 2019: Citizens are fired upon by their government and denied humanitarian aid
CapnMac
Member
Every single maker of automobile tires sold in the US has been sued. Evidence of being sued does not constitute evidence of guilt or malfeasance, only that one took appropriat eaction after being sued.
If a person were of a mind to write a "hit piece" against an organization, it might behoove that author to conflate all legal fees paid out and describe them as some form of defense against the presumed malfeasance. It would also be handy to take an organization with a number of disparate branches and lump it together, the better to smear it in general from the, presumed, sins of the speciifics, particularly when those individual cases hinge or obscure and convoluted points of law.
An organization which gets more done politically with a tenth the spending is going to be very much the target of those who keep coming up in second place to that organization.
If a person were of a mind to write a "hit piece" against an organization, it might behoove that author to conflate all legal fees paid out and describe them as some form of defense against the presumed malfeasance. It would also be handy to take an organization with a number of disparate branches and lump it together, the better to smear it in general from the, presumed, sins of the speciifics, particularly when those individual cases hinge or obscure and convoluted points of law.
An organization which gets more done politically with a tenth the spending is going to be very much the target of those who keep coming up in second place to that organization.
JTHunter
Member
Any of you remember the North American Hunting Club? For several years, I was an annual member, then upgraded to Life. Several years ago, they were "bought out" and their magazine, forums, etc., disappeared like smoke in the wind. This may be another and similar situation but I hope not.
BSA1
member
Precedent?
Hardy.
In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of some semi-automatic firearms after a mass school shooting Stockton, California. He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act and used it to ban the shipment of what could be considered “assault weapons” unless they were used for sporting purposes.
In 1998, then President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order to ban the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic “assault weapons” that had been modified to get through that “sporting purposes” exemption.
In 2001, Clinton moved again via executive order, banning the importation of assault pistols.
https://www.politicususa.com/2013/0...clinton-executive-orders-reform-gun-laws.html
Obama issued the 23 Executive Orders regarding firearms.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...y-signed-today-by-the-president/#139ad3462312
Do you really think that President Kamal Harris will care about the Executive Order Trump issued on bump-fire stocks?
This is your discussion forum and I respect your (and the other moderators) right to use it to oppose the NRA and President Trump. However be honest when making statements that when fact checked do not hold up.
- Status
