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

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

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

Click to expand...

I think whipping boy might be a more appropriate term.

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

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

Al:

You are absolutely right and I agree with you:

.....some friction is bound to occur.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Rick:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

44brent...

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

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

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

I shudder to dwell on the possibilities.

-Andy

44Brent:

Your opposition to self defense in schools....

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Once they did the outcome was exactly as we expected.

The NRA is a HUGE target for the media. That is why the local grass roots groups can be so effective when they focus on the objective rather than bash the NRA. When the NRA is involved more people know about it and more attention is focused on the issue. Sometimes you want more attention, sometimes you don't. We should use our strengths wisely.

I know of at least two states (Connecticut and Alabama) which allow the right-to-carry for self defense in schools.

Click to expand...

I actually learned this from GRSC. Rob Butler researched the issue and found that CWP holders are exempt from the federal law that prohibits carry on school grounds. This is the kind of information that will eventually lead to the needed changes. If I didn't know this, you can bet the general public doesn't know it. We have to win their hearts and minds first. Otherwise the news media will deal a knock-out blow on such emotional issues every time.

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

I would hope that the NRA will fight to end the victim disarmament in schools, but I don't expect to see that happen.

Click to expand...

This may seem counter intuitive but one way NRA can help on such issues is to stay out of the way. Pretty much like I suggested above. They attract too much attention particularly early in a legislative effort.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Thanks for the update. JT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

DR

unwillingness to substantiate your charges

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JT

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

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

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

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

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

DR

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

800lb. Gorilla?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

That's the analogy here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR

Rick Daniel:

Is this a correct summary of your position:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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