NRA Membership Required for Gun Club Membership

Texas10mm said:

Not here in Texas. Here the land is owned by people that pay taxes on it. Not the Federal Government who doesn't.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas are 'Federally' owned..

The U.S. Forest Service manages approximately 675,000 acres of public land in Texas. This land is divided into four National Forests (Angelina, Davy Crockett, Sabine, Sam Houston) in east Texas and the Caddo-Lyndon B. Johnson National Grasslands in northeast Texas.

Click to expand...

I am glad my club does not require any political allegiances or agendas to be a member. If you enjoy shooting, sign up. Come on in, be safe and pleasant, and that is enough. Bad idea to start requiring agendas. If the club held a shoot and decided to send some money to the NRA, that might be different and would be voted on and each side would have a say.

I was a life long supporter of the NRA and became a life member as of about 5 years ago. I now regret that decision. I currently would not join a gun club that required me to support the NRA. I hope the NRA will change and make me not regret that investment and support but right now I am very disappointed in the organization and those that would require me to support them.

Axis II said:

It’s very odd IMO that every 100-150 member club around me requires NRA membership but the largest club in my region with trap and sporting clays leagues, weekly pistol and rifle matches and all of their equipment and facilities are brand new and very well taken care of does not require NRA membership and is actually cheaper than anywhere else. They also have about 1k members too.

Click to expand...

Is it a club or Public range? We also have two of those. They are ranges with memberships and not cheap. Most are there as a business and to make a profit not a family club by any means.And they do not require a NRA membership.
I use to belong to one, just not me. But certainly that is the way other folks prefer to go.
I do not care if people hate the NRA. They would not be a good fit for my club and we are happy to not have them, on the flip side It is obvious that others are much happier to not be a part of our club which is a much better for them as well.
That is what is so nice about America. You have the right to choose.

hso said:

Not likely. Local leadership and local participation in up keep is far more influential than some distant association.

Click to expand...

Exactly! There is no pre-qualification to become a member of the NRA, except to pay dues.

My club encourages but does not require NRA membership and I'd say most are members. The NRA does still sanction some matches and shooting leagues and gives out grants for range improvements. Its my feeling that they should do more of that to encourage shooting but maybe things will change in that direction again some day. I'll stay a member.

I think it's just as much a function of personal money invested as it is quality of people involved.

There are plenty of people who espouse membership to the NRA who are, for want of a more polite term, "idiots".

Range membership may run hundreds of dollars a year. Add to that the dues for NRA membership that generally have to be paid up front as well and the idea of intentionally damaging or destroying range property/equipment starts becoming even more rare.

Fees tend to do a good job of weeding out "undesirables" in the membership.

If the range is otherwise successful, and has a robust membership that likes this, I say more power to them.

To be frank, the NRA of the last 5 years or so downright pisses me off. That said, I've paid for and have the patron membership, and I see no real benefit -- other than salving my temper -- to canceling. And since I also have GOA and SAF life memberships, I guess I don't sweat it much when I actually do go to join a new club ... but I'm not terribly thrilled with mandatory memberships in A to join B.
But, with that said, joining a club is putting yourself forward for membership in an existing, private organization, and it's that organization's rights to set the terms.
Bottom line: I live in town and I don't own property to shoot on, so I guess if want to dance, I gotta pay the band. Life's like that fairly often. I shrug and roll on.

No matter what requirements you would set for membership there would always be one to not like the requirements and belly ache no matter what. For those people a private club of just one would be the best option. The amount of money required to be a member of the NRA can actually be worked off by attending our work groups we have throughout the year to maintain the Bern, facilities, work during various matches etc. But guess what. Some people resent that as well. They do not want to put anything into the sport or club. It is what it is. You can never please everyone.
The one thing I have noticed being a member of the club, attending meeting, working in the work groups, assisting in matches, family events etc. is I have never heard anyone complaining about the NRA membership. And I have no doubt if someone did, it would not be something our members want to hear.
I guess that is what makes us OUR private club.

The NRA has never defended anyone legally or through force

Click to expand...

I am a member of the NRA (even thought I am not happy with it's cuirrent leadership) and the CRPA.

Both pay legal fees (or have lawyers that work for them) to file suit against laws that abuse our 2nd Amendment rights.
CRPA has taken a couple cases to the Supreme Court. (they may or may not be heard but they got them there)
I am quite sure that took a bit of some lawyers time, and as they say time=money.

As an example
"CRPA and The CRPA Foundation work on behalf of our members to fight the battle for Second Amendment and firearm owners in many ways. These are some of the many cases that we are involved with on behalf of our members.

Bauer v. Harris – PLAINTIFF – Federal court lawsuit challenges the California Department of Justice’s misuse of DROS fee revenues collected from lawful firearm purchasers at the time of sale as violating the Second Amendment. Extensive discovery has been completed and Plaintiffs expect to file a motion for summary judgment next month.

Link to case back page: Bauer v. DOJ
password: DOJ2011

CRPA v. ATF – PLAINTIFF – Lawsuit brought on behalf of CRPA members affected by ATF’s determination that certain 80% receivers are considered “firearms.” CRPA seeks modification of ATF’s position that certain 80% receivers are “firearms” because they do not require a jig to complete.

Link to case back page: CRPA v. BATFE

Fyock v. Sunnyvale – AMICUS – Lawsuit seeking to confirm Second Amendment protections for standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, and challenging Sunnyvale’s ban on the possession of these magazines. A similar lawsuit was also filed against the City and County of San Francisco. These lawsuits are part of a coordinated nationwide litigation campaign to confirm Second Amendment protections for standard-capacity magazines. In March 2014, the district court issued a ruling confirming that the Second Amendment protects standard-capacity magazines over ten rounds, but that the City’s total ban on their possession and use does not violate the Second Amendment. The case is now fully briefed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral arguments were held on September 17, 2014.

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Fyock v. Sunnyvale

Jackson v. City of San Francisco – AMICUS – Lawsuit challenging three San Francisco ordinances requiring handguns to be locked up while in the home unless being carried, banning the discharge of firearms (the lawsuit already forced amendments authorizing defensive and other lawful discharges), and prohibiting sales of common self-defense (hollow-point) ammunition. Plaintiffs received a favorable published opinion after opposing the City’s challenge to their standing, paving the way for other plaintiffs to bring Second Amendment challenges in the Ninth Circuit. In March 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision denying Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. In July 2014, the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case by an en banc panel of 11 judges. Plaintiffs request for review by the United States Supreme Court is due December 2014.

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/heller/

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Jackson v. San Francisco

McKay v. Sheriff Hutchens – PLAINTIFF – Lawsuit challenging Orange County’s strict requirements for obtaining a CCW, filed after the California legislature banned the “unloaded open carry” of firearms. This case is a follow-up to the Peruta and Richards cases which relied (partially) on the plaintiffs’ ability to openly carry an unloaded firearm. Plaintiffs have fully briefed and argued their appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is currently stayed, awaiting a final mandate from the Court in the Peruta matter.

Link to case back page: McKay v. Sheriff Hutchens

Parker v. State of California – PLAINTIFF – Lawsuit successfully struck down main portions of California’s AB 962, which would have banned mail order ammunition purchases and required registration and thumbprinting for in-store purchases. Plaintiffs defended against the State’s appeal of the case to the California Court of Appeal, resulting in a 41-page published opinion affirming the victory in full. The case set groundbreaking precedent for due process vagueness challenges, confirming that gun laws must provide heightened levels of clarity in order to withstand vagueness challenges. The case was also the basis for the Governor’s veto of subsequent legislation similar to AB 962. The State recently asked the California Supreme Court to review the decision, and the Court accepted the case. Briefing before the California Supreme Court will be complete in December 2014, and oral arguments are expected to take place sometime in 2015.

Link to case back page: Parker v. State of California

Peruta v. County of San Diego – PLAINTIFF – Lawsuit challenges San Diego County’s policy that requires residents to demonstrate a special need or “good cause” beyond self-defense to obtain a license to carry a firearm. On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, confirming that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry a firearm for self-defense, and finding that policies denying that right to average, law-abiding citizens, are unconstitutional. San Diego decided not to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The California Attorney General’s office, however, filed a request to intervene in the case to continue the appeal process. In November 2014, the Court denied the Attorney General’s request. The Attorney general now has the option of appealing the denial of her request to intervene in the case, either to an en banc panel of the 9thCircuit or the United States Supreme Court.

Link to case back page: Peruta v. San Diego

Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller III) – AMICUS – This case raises a Second Amendment challenge to the District of Columbia’s draconian registration requirements and its prohibitions on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” The lawsuit is currently being briefed before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral arguments are expected to take place in 2015.

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Heller v. District of Columbia

Kolbe v. O’Malley – AMICUS – This case raises a Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s recently enacted bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” The lawsuit is currently being briefed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Oral arguments are expected to take place in 2015. In November 2014, CRPA Foundation submitted an important amicus brief explaining that laws totally banning constitutionally-protected arms lack the required fit with government’s interest in keeping those arms from criminals under any level of heightened scrutiny the court could apply.

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Kolbe v. O’Malley

Mehl v. Blanas – AMICUS – Filed amicus brief and participated in oral argument in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals review of this ill-conceived and poorly prepared case challenging CCW laws and policies. The brief explained the procedural defects in the case and argued that better cases existed for deciding the CCW issues. This dangerous and closely watched case could have created bad case law that would have impacted other CCW cases. Perhaps due to these efforts, the Court disposed of the case in an unpublished decision that avoided reaching the substantive legal questions, leaving those important questions to be decided favorably in Peruta.

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Mehl v. Blanas

Nichols v. Harris – AMICUS – Filed an amicus brief in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that convinced the Court to temporarily stay this lawsuit. The case was filed by a well-intentioned but incompetent non-attorney. The case threatened the future of the right to bear arms for all Californians. The stay allowed other cases involving the right to bear arms to be decided first and provided experienced litigators a better opportunity to evaluate the case to determine whether assisting the plaintiff made sense.

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Nichols v. Harris

People v. Nguyen – AMICUS – The law challenged in this case imposes liability for a person who possesses parts that could be assembled to make an illegal “assault weapon,” and who intends to assemble the parts to make an unregistered “assault weapon.” Under the law, an individual can be convicted of attempted illegal “assault weapon” manufacturing and attempted illegal “assault weapon” possession. CRPA filed a request for depublication with California Supreme Court to prevent having this potentially dangerous appellate court decision from being used as precedent in future cases against firearm owners. The request was denied. The request for depublication can be view here:

Link to Depublication Request: Depublication Request

Link to case back page: People v. Nguyen

Richards v. Prieto – AMICUS – Filed amicus brief in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the Second Amendment Foundation and other appellants who sued Yolo County, challenging its restrictive CCW policies.

Link to Amicus Brief: Amicus Brief

Link to case back page: Richards v. Prieto

CRPAF v. Regents of the University of California – PLAINTIFF – Lawsuit successfully forcing government compliance with the California Public Records Act. The lawsuit is part of an ongoing comprehensive battle over the use of lead ammunition. This suit was brought to force the government to turn over documents it was shielding from disclosure that purportedly supported the government’s claim that lead ammunition found in harvested game is poisoning California condors.

Other Litigation Efforts:

CRPA’s counsel and the NRA are also involved in a number of other critical Second Amendment cases in California and across the country. Many of the cases being litigated in other jurisdictions could set valuable precedent for future challenges to California gun laws.

Gentry v. Harris (Sacramento County Superior Court, California) Sister state court case to the CRPA’s federal court challenge to the DOJ’s improper theft and use of DROS fees surplusage for general law enforcement activities.

SFVPOA v. City and County of San Francisco (Northern District California, United State District Court.) Sister case to Fyock v. Sunnyvale, challenging San Francisco’s recently enacted ban on the possession of so-called “large capacity magazines.” The lawsuit was temporarily dismissed by the Plaintiffs while the Fyock (Sunnyvale) case is on appeal. Should the Fyock case be successful, this case will immediately be re-filed in San Francisco.

Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle & Revolver (State of Washington Court of Appeals, Division II) Lawsuit challenges repressive zoning restrictions for shooting ranges.

Beicker v. Hickenlooper (10th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals) Lawsuit challenges Colorado’s recently enacted legislation banning so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”

NYSRPA v. Cuomo (2nd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals)- Lawsuit challenges New York’s “Safe Act” banning “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”

Shew v. Malloy (2nd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals) Lawsuit challenges Connecticut’s recently enacted legislation banning “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.”

On the Local Front:

City of Santa Cruz – Submitted an opposition letter to the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 5.62 to the Santa Cruz County Code regarding the regulation of firearm dealers. Opposition Letter

City and County of San Francisco – Submitted an opposition letter to the proposal to ban the possession and sale of certain ammunition, File No. 130040 [Police Code — Possession or Sale of Law Enforcement or Military Ammunition]. Opposition Letter

City of South San Francisco – Submitted an opposition letter to a proposal to prohibit the sale of hollow-point ammunition and to require registration of all ammunition sales. CPRA’s lawyers also worked directly with the city attorney, prompting him to recommend that the City pull consideration of the ordinance, which it did. Opposition Letter

City of Los Angeles – Submitted multiple opposition letters to a proposed ordinance declaring any “large-capacity magazine” within the City to be a public nuisance and consequently subjecting such magazines to confiscation and summary destruction by the Los Angeles Police Department. Opposition Letter; Opposition Letter

City of Los Gatos – Submitted an opposition letter to the adoption of draconian restrictions on licensed firearm dealers concerning the sale of firearms and ammunition. Opposition Letter

City of Pleasant Hill – Submitted an opposition letter to the adoption of proposed amendments to Chapter 9.35 of the Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, which introduce several new regulations affecting firearm-related businesses. Opposition Letter

City of San Francisco – Submitted an opposition to the adoption of File No. 130585 — Police Code — Large Capacity Magazines; Sales of Firearms and Ammunition; Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms; Shooting Ranges. Opposition Letter

City of Los Angeles – Submitted an opposition to Council File No. 11-0962 “Imitation Firearms/Ordinance” Proposed Ordinance seeks to ban, with limited exceptions, the manufacture, sale, or other transfer of imitation firearms unless it is colored bright orange or bright green. It also prohibits the open display or exposure of imitation firearms in public places. Our clients oppose adoption of the Proposed Ordinance because it is preempted by federal law, and it ultimately does nothing to address the City’s concerns with imitation firearms. Opposition Letter

City of Pleasant Hill – Submitted an opposition letter to a proposed zoning ordinance restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition. Opposition Letter

City of Pleasant Hill – Submitted a letter opposing proposed zoning requirements restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition. Opposition Letter

City of West Sacramento – Submitted a letter opposing a proposal to amend zoning regulations restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition Ordinance 14-9. Opposition Letter

Each of these comment and opposition letters can be viewed here: CRPA Local Ordinance Opposition Letters."


My range requires NRA membership, so I don't have an issue with it.
BTW CRPA is on Amazon smile for those of you in CA who might like to help them.

Ernie Bass said:

The are so many reasons why our club decided to require the NRA membership. We did not have this requirement at the beginning. I will not get into all the negatives before this requirement but just say that there is a huge improvement in the years since before and after. And just because we require both the NRA and also the State association does in no way mean that you cannot belong to any other organization. We don't care. But there is a lot of things about running a club that are not mentioned here. Running a club is a lot of work and responsibility. Most people take a club for granted. Just pay some dues come and shoot and go. That is not what our club is about.

We have a great club, run a tight ship and NRA has benefited us in so many ways. It is simple, so easy, to join but there are requirement likes NRA membership and our Safety requirements. And NRA instructors. Hey, this is a private club. We learned the best way to run a good ship. And people love our club. Very family oriented. Don't like the requirements simple go to a public range. Maybe you will like it more. And there is even a course to learn about how NRA will benefit a organization. .

What You Will Learn

• Organizing Your Club
• Club Leadership
• Incorporation
• Club Finances
• Marketing and Media
• NRA Recruiting

• Insurance
• Range Development
• NRA Programs
• Youth Programs
• NRA Competitions
• 
  
• Grants Online

Click to expand...

As a former club President, Match Director and Executive Officer!
There are advantages of NRA Membership for most clubs especially when just getting started or having difficulty with local ordinances, EPA or other legal issues. Just about the only resource for setting up and continuing a well coordinated club, shooting and training programs.

The club pays for club membership but doesn't require individual membership. The membership claims that so many are retired and on fixed income that it shouldn't be required!

Typical club politics, benefits without commitment or participation!

JF, NRA Benefactor

When I was a kid the NRA was pretty much only about Hunters Safety. I probably had my first membership in around 1970. I did shoot NRA programs as a kid, that taught gun safety etc.

What I would like to see is the NRA do something pro-active to show the left anti-gun people where they are being mislead, not just come out and say, the 2A allows us to have any gun and do anything with it. These are the things that piss the left off so much about the NRA.

I have very close friends that are left leaning, but fair and reasonable. I spent an afternoon with them showing them the difference between a real Assault Rifle and a Military look alike. Not Surprisingly they initially look at a Ruger 10-22 with a thumb hole stock and compensation and said that was fine, though I explained why it was outlawed her in New York State, but a Ruger Bolt Action Precision Rifle on a chassis to them was an Assault Rifle, which I explained as a bolt action rifle, it did not matter what it looked like, it met certain criteria and was not at all banned. Then explained the difference between the number of rifle caused murders and handguns and last reviewed the difference between the different rounds that we use and for what. They believed that the .223 was designed to tumble and cause excess damage and did not know about military rules on things like Full Metal Jackets.

I got the husband (His daughter is a very well known actress, you all would recognize) to go to the gun club with me and shoot some skeet. They now understand why I enjoy my guns without me just saying it is my constitution right.

As a pilot we used to have issues with Air Traffic Controllers, surprisingly most of which are NOT pilots. So the AOPA started a program - Fly A Controller. I would like to see the NRA do some positive things to help us rather than just a lot of spouting off. Getting anti-gun people to some shooting events might go a long way in changing their opinion of us.

At our private club, we had protests and damage to signage when we had signs up advertising a Turkey Shoot, open to the public. The non-gun owning public were under the impression we were setting out live Turkeys to be shot for a fee. Perception is fact until proven otherwise.

Keep in mind, all the ruling in Heller vs The District of Columbia really accomplished was to set the record that the 2A did not only apply to organized militias, but it went on (for those who want to take the time to read all of it) that the government has the right to restrict firearms and usages when and if they want. Its why you can't own a bazooka or bump stock. Yes, Heller can keep his weapon IN HIS HOME in the District of Columbia, but it did not overturn any of the state Semi-Automatic Rifle Bans or Magazine Limitations.

Bob

Ernie Bass said:

Is it a club or Public range? We also have two of those. They are ranges with memberships and not cheap. Most are there as a business and to make a profit not a family club by any means.And they do not require a NRA membership.
I use to belong to one, just not me. But certainly that is the way other folks prefer to go.
I do not care if people hate the NRA. They would not be a good fit for my club and we are happy to not have them, on the flip side It is obvious that others are much happier to not be a part of our club which is a much better for them as well.
That is what is so nice about America. You have the right to choose.

Click to expand...

It’s a private club that allows 5 new members a month where my club is maxed at 150 total for the year and only opens membership from a waiting list at the end of the year when guys don’t pay work hours or dues. My club is $250yr if you don’t do 12 work hours and if you do work hours they knock $15 off dues up to 12hrs. 100 yard range with 25-75 inline with the 100 benches, benches falling apart and no pavilion, pond that’s a swamp now, if you want to shoot pistol your out of luck if someone is shooting rifle cause it’s the same range. No shotgun shooting permitted either. The other private club without NRA dues has a 25 target 3D course for archery, 4 trap houses, 2 sporting clays houses and separate ranges for pistol through 300yards and it’s $120yr with no work. The other NRA private clubs make you work and sell $75 in raffle tickets and whatever you don’t sell you must purchase. Just kind of makes me wonder why the NRA clubs are so expensive and have crappier stuff and the two non NRA clubs I’ve visited are cheaper and have more and better stuff. I could take or leave the NRA. It is kind of irritating that each year I can’t get the new gate code because the NRA has my ID held up and now instead of $250 now I’m almost $300 for a crappier place. I do the work and it’s 5min from home and the other is 1hr.

rkittine said:

When I was a kid the NRA was pretty much only about Hunters Safety. I probably had my first membership in around 1970.

Click to expand...

Same here. I was still in High School('69) when I bought my lifetime membership. That was back when you could work 40 hours a week during the school year and you could take your gun to school for show and tell. They were about responsible gun ownership then and worried very little about the loss of gun rights. Heck, a year before I bought my membership, they backed the GCA of '68. Over the years I have agreed and disagreed with them. Lately, I don't have a lot of respect for those in charge and their little or no regard for the average gun owner. I still get their American Hunter magazine after half a century and where once I could identify with the type of hunts written about, not so much lately. Lately it's more about African and other exotic hunts that only a few well to do folks can afford. Odds are, it's probably those folks giving the most when called at suppertime for more money. I have a private range on our hunting land that I do not have to contend with others not as responsible as me. I also belong to a small Sportsman's club that has a 100 yard range along with a trap range. Neither require NRA memberships, altho many folks there do.

Their business, their rules. For what it cost to shoot or belong to those ranges/clubs, odds are the little bit more to NRA is not a hindrance. For me, it would be not having a choice(even tho I am a life member).

Ernie Bass said:

...I have never heard anyone complaining about the NRA membership. And I have no doubt if someone did, it would not be something our members want to hear.
I guess that is what makes us OUR private club.

Click to expand...

Gee, Ernie, you think maybe the attitude of not wanting to hear it might have something to do with people not voicing it?
Some of us are smart enough to understand the environment were in and aren't going to start a political brushfire at the club.
But don't make the mistake of thinking anyone who doesn't agree with the NRA can't be a good club member.
Outside of the training division, I wouldn't take a leak on the current NRA if it was on fire. Yet I've got plenty time in club work and donated RO, instructor or coach work.
Decency doesn't necessarily come from walking lockstep with Wayne & Co. in Fairfax.

Mark1964 said:

Gee, Ernie, you think maybe the attitude in not wanting to hear it might have something to do with people not voicing it?

Click to expand...

No.

One of the ranges I am a member of requires an NRA membership. I like it. Proud to be a member.

FFGColorado said:

Pretty sure the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas are 'Federally' owned..

Click to expand...

Do you realize how small 675,00 acres is in relation to Texas?

In Colorado the Feds own 35.9% of the state.

In Texas the Feds own 1.8% and most of that is military bases. That 675,000 acres in the Forests and Grasslands is 0.3% of the entire state.

Not to mention shooting isn't allowed in either the grasslands or the forests here.

Texas10mm said:

Do you realize how small 675,00 acres is in relation to Texas?

Click to expand...

Too true. King Ranch is 825,000 acres. The Four Sixes is 275,000 acres. Texas has had several governments who encouraged settlement by extensive land grants. Which were taken up.

Public fishing area vastly exceeds public hunting land in Texas, and virtually none of the public hunting land supports public shooting except on the most ad hoc basis (and doing more than "sighting in" is likely to net a person a visit by the local GW).

It is what it is, and we Texans cope with it.

kcofohio said:

I, for one, don't believe there should be lobbyist that are allowed to effect our government decision making. I would like to see it outlawed.

Click to expand...

This was attempted at least once in the late 1800's IIRC, but the supreme court said that was a counter to your first amendment right of freedom of speech and the redress of grievances. I guess I agree with the USSC sentiment.

Now, what this discussion really highlights is the damage one person can do to a large organization's reputation and day to day operations.

One of the benefits of large national organizations is in being able to afford to fund things like gun range insurance (and thousands of hunter and shooter education classes and instructor certification classes).

All of which can be spoilt by one flawed person at the top (or a cabal of 6 or 7).

Whether it behooves places like gun clubs or ranges to encourage membership in gun rights organizations is a bit more complicated than which one in particular.

Human organizations are as flawed as humans are, so tying them as requirements for expressing innate natural rights is a complex ethical argument. Organizations that wind up enmeshed in politics are equally likely to be tainted by that contact as any other human frailty.

I have no simple answers. I'm no fan of WLP and I'm eager to see him retired into obscurity. But, I also know that insurance for places like gun ranges is complicated, and political (even though that shouldn't be the case).

So we probably need a middle ground of some sort.