Anyone a member of GOA?

[Owen Sparks]

I just read an interview with Gun Owners of America president Larry Pratt.
They claim to be the only "no compromise" 2A orginization and have a libertarian attitude about the natural right of the individual to protect his life, liberty and property.

Tell me more.

 

[dannyr3_8]

yeah i was i don't know enough about them to go high road on the subject i recall they constantly sent letters asking for money, don,t get me wrong i don,t mind contributing but i felt as if i was funding they,re organization by myself that said i do here about them from time to time fighting for our rights

 

[TexasRifleman]

They claim to be the only "no compromise" 2A orginization and have a libertarian attitude about the natural right of the individual to protect his life, liberty and property.

Personal editorial, not reflective of THR etc etc:

They are "no compromise", and that makes them "no progress". As far as I know GOA cannot claim to have had any success in getting any legislation passed. The idea that you can't compromise sounds great but doesn't work. We had our gun rights chipped away at for decades, it's not going to be undone in one fell swoop. Creeping incrementalism got us here, it has to creep back the other way. The group also spends too much time, again in my opinion, complaining about the other pro 2A groups instead of focusing on the enemy. Splintering gun owners isn't the way to get anything done, it's just a good way to raise money.

 

[Justin]

I couldn't have said it any better than TexasRifleman.

The only thing I might add is that if you want to donate to an organization other than the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation is very effective.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

 

[RandyC]

Texas Rifleman, I respectfully disagree. And I strongly encourage, member or not, going to their website and using their shortcut way of contacting your senators and reps through e-mail to let them know of your stand on current legislation.

You do not have to be a member to use their system.

Their $20 yearly membership is in itself more of a donation because you can use their services without joining. $20 ain't much and I gladly pay it.

And always hitting you up for more money? Are you a member of the NRA? They're certainly the big dog on the block but they're also constantly beating on you with their the-sky-is-falling direct mail asking for more money. Far more so in my experience than GOA.

I'm a member of both for different reasons.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I also get lots of thick envelopes from GOA asking for donations.
I don't get hardly any from the NRA (you can opt out of mailings on their website).

 

[cavman]

I am a member and although I don't honestly know the extent of what they do in terms of push or influence directly (as compared to the 2nd Amendment Foundation or the NRA and NRA-ILA), I get frequent packets of updates showing that they are "doing something".

As was mentioned above, a lot of the packets contain form letters with my various Reps and Sens on little post cards to send.

I have read that they are not very "transparent" in terms of their finances, but, again as is mentioned above, $20 isn't too much for me. They do seem to be at least active in trying to get members such as myself to be active in contacting gov't representatives.

Some things they send I deem superfluous and trite and even knee-jerk reactions, but others I find legitimate.

So as can be seen in my Sig., I try to donate and be involved with as many groups as I can afford. My few dollars being a member of a few 2nd Amendment-promoting groups is not as important as any actual "active" participation, whatever that may be.

I personally believe that me taking as many people who have never handled firearms to the range and teaching them everything I can on safe and fun handling and shooting and the importance of the 2nd Amendment as I see it, is probably even more important than $20 here or $50 there that I spend on being a member.

And don't ever forget to vote! (and encourage fence-sitters to vote as I do)

 

[Matthew Courtney]

I'd like to echo what Texas Rifleman and Justin said and add that we should participate in our State Associations as well. A lot of our current momentum was started at the state and local level, plus the guys we end up with as Federal office holders usually cut their teeth at the state and local level and mutually beneficial relationships don't need to end when a pol moves up.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Texas Rifleman, I respectfully disagree. And I strongly encourage, member or not, going to their website and using their shortcut way of contacting your senators and reps through e-mail to let them know of your stand on current legislation.

OK, so that's a nice feature of the website. But what does GOA provide specifically? I can email my representatives on my own, or through similar tools from lots of other groups.

I'm not trying to argue but I seriously cannot find any reference from a politician saying that GOA ever swayed his vote, or influenced the language of any proposed legislation.

So, what does GOA do exactly if they don't influence legislators or legislation? What court cases have they funded or influenced? I'm open to hearing about it, I simply have never been able to find any evidence of it.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Texas Rifleman, I respectfully disagree.

I agree with TexasRifleman 100% on this. When I contacted GOA concerning possible membership in the 1990s,the only response I got was a request for a donation without membership information. After that I got dozens of "updates",not on the fight to save our 2nd amendment rights but about how the NRA was failing in that fight. I responded by becoming a life member....of the NRA. No more GOA for me.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I am not a member. No quarrel with them, but name a piece of anti-gun legislation they helped to block, or pro-gun to pass. Put another way, they are dismissed, not feared and hated, by anti-gun politicians. They are analogous to a smoke-filled bar filled with grumpy old men complaining about everything.

 

[camar]

I am a life member of GOA. I quit the NRA with the 1968 gun control legislation that the NRA said that they "could live with". They lost a lot of membership over this.
By having Charlton Heston come aboard as spokesman is a sad commintary of their true hidden agenda.
Heston was a spokesman for banning assult weapons in 1967. He was all over T.V. in Calif. saying why anyone would need or want an assult weapon. He was holding up an AK-47.
Also remember when he said "from my cold dead hands ...". He was holding up a flintlock rifle.

Where was the NRA when the 1934 ban on full autos came in ?.

Where was the NRA when Randy Weaver's wife and son were murdered over a bogus charge?.

George H.W. Bush joined the NRA when he was compaigning for president and when he was elected he quit the NRA. Where was the NRA response on this? Also where was the response of the membership on this?

 

[Robert]

Where was the NRA when Randy Weaver's wife and son were murdered over a bogus charge?.

Where was the GOA? Not that that has anything at all to do with the issue at hand.

Can anyone provide any kind of proof that the GOA has influenced a vote or funded a legal defense? Anyone? Like it or not the NRA, and the 2nd Amendment Foundation, have done far more for our gun rights than any other group. Are they perfect? No? But at least they have the power to be heard.

 

[lobo9er]

I hear larry pratt speaking on all sorts of radio shows local mom and pop radio stations and national. I like that. I like that he makes himeslf accessible. wayne lapierre on the other hand I only hear on the big time news broad casts a handful of times a year. I think GOA does a good job reaching people. not that the NRA doesnt.

 

[galena]

TexasRifleman said it all. Keep shootin'

 

[00]

The only "no compromise" 2A group is you and I. NRA, GOA, XXX.......DOA IMO.

Do it the free way and write your politicians. $35 worth of postage or emails goes a long way IMO.

 

[relentlessknives.com]

I agree with camar........GOA is what the NRA claims to be.

ACTIONS TALK, and being on local radio shows influences people.
Certainly the NRA does the same, but allows and promotes selected infringements.

"The idea that you can't compromise sounds great but doesn't work."

As for that......the result of compromise on the 2A is slavery......that doesn't work either.....but it has been a human habit throughout history.

Any ideas on how to change that........?

 

[orionengnr]

NRA was involved in Heller and McDonald.
GOA? SAF? (crickets)

 

[Robert]

NRA was involved in Heller and McDonald.
GOA? SAF? (crickets)

If I remember correctly SAF was in on both before the NRA. Once it looked like a win the NRA swooped in to save the day. But I will have to do some digging around and see if I can find supporting information.

ACTIONS TALK

Ok, again, what actions has the GOA taken that have directly resulted in a changed vote or case won? Texas Rifleman and Justin are absolutly right.

Edit:
Found the press release from SAF citing the win in McDonald v Chicago.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=328
Press release of the filing of the lawsuit:
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=270

Brief for SAF supporting Dick Heller.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/..._RespondentAmCu2ndAmendFound.authcheckdam.pdf

All the case files:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/

Those are some pretty loud crickets.

 

[hso]

They claim

That's about it.

They claim to be a no compromise organization, but it is easy to not compromise when you actually do nothing.

I was a GOA member, as well as SAF and NRA and ILA. I don't support GOA any more because they don't actually do anything.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This thread is not about the NRA. You can't answer the question "What does GOA do" by responding "What does NRA do". NRA does good stuff, they do dumb stuff too, this isn't about NRA or SAF though, that's a different discussion.


I will ask again, since no one has answered it yet. Has GOA ever successfully lobbied any politician or made any legislative progress on a state or national level? Has GOA successfully taken on any gun case in the courts on a state or national level?

That's nice they talk on the radio, public opinion is great. But gun laws are the problem. How does GOA attack that problem? Why is this question hard for GOA supporters to answer?

-------

By the way, if you ARE going to bring NRA into things you need to be sure you have your facts straight.

Where was the NRA when the 1934 ban on full autos came in ?.

The NRA kept the 1934 law from including handguns as well. And the 1934 law was not a "ban" on full autos, it was a tax. If NRA hadn't lobbied and testified before Congress, handguns would have required a tax stamp too and we would be filing Form 4's to buy Glocks.

 

[JohnBT]

"the result of compromise on the 2A is slavery"

Do you really believe we have slavery in this country? Are you nuts?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am a life member of GOA. I quit the NRA with the 1968 gun control legislation that the NRA said that they "could live with". They lost a lot of membership over this.

"On June 24, President Johnson again addressed the country, calling for mandatory national gun registration and licenses for every gun owner. Around this time, polls showed that approximately 80 percent of Americans favored gun registration laws. The public flooded members of Congress with letters demanding greater regulation of guns. Protestors picketed the Washington headquarters of the NRA. Even many members of Congress who had been staunch adversaries of strict firearms regulation crossed over to the other side and rallied in favor of a tough gun control bill.

Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control.... Riding a wave of support, the Committee sought to counteract the highly organized and resource-laden NRA...

Facing this unprecedented, widespread push for gun control, the NRA became highly energized and rallied against the president's proposed regulations. National Rifle Association executive vice-president Franklin L. Orth argued publicly that no law, existing or proposed, could have prevented the murder of Senator Kennedy. On June 15, 1968, the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for legal purposes was in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, Glassen wrote, the clear goal of gun control proponents was complete abolition of civilian ownership of guns. Senator Joseph D. Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, who had introduced the provisions requiring licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, responded to this accusation in a press conference calling the letter "calculated hysteria" and saying no bill would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns. Nevertheless, Glassen's tactic effectively energized the membership of the NRA, then 900,000 strong, just as the public outcry calling for more firearms regulations was dissipating. Whereas Congress had encountered overwhelming support for more gun control measures in the week after Senator Kennedy's death, by late June and early July they reported the majority of the letters from constituents indicated opposition to any new gun control provisions.

The battle over the president's proposals continued in the halls of Congress in typical fashion, featuring emotionally charged debates and supporters split along specific demographic and ideological lines. In the House, opponents argued against a registration provision claiming it would be costly and ineffective in preventing crime. In the Senate, Dodd attacked the NRA, decrying its tactics of "blackmail, intimidation and unscrupulous propaganda." The licensing and registration provisions, backed solidly by northern liberals, were easily defeated in both the House of Representatives and Senate by a conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats. However, the provisions banning mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition fared better, passing both the House and Senate. Eastern and Midwestern members of Congress overwhelmingly supported these measures, while those from the South and West were much less supportive. Members of Congress representing urban areas staunchly supported the bill, whereas those from rural sections of the country voted against it in significant numbers.

On October 22, President Johnson signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968—an instrument which, just months earlier, was considered a lost cause because of staunch opposition." Source

You know, reading that historical account of the NRA's opposition to the Gun Control Act of 1968, I am having a difficult time reconciling it with how you described it.

As far as what GOA does, GOA is active in pro-RKBA causes and does do good work there. I know they submitted an amicus brief in Parker/Heller for example and were active in that fight. Though I think many of their "no compromise" supporters would have had a heart attack if they had heard the positions GOA took in those briefs.

My problems with GOA:

1. I'd like to see more transparency than the NRA, not less. Particularly when it comes to how member money is spent. Saying you spent it all on the same five lobbyists (several of which are also officers of GOA) again this year doesn't explain what was actually accomplished with it very well.

2. GOA spends too much time marketing itself against other pro-RKBA groups instead of demonstrating what it can accomplish. One reason I happily donate to SAF is because SAF has shown me time and time again that they care more about getting work done than who gets the credit for it. SAF started the first lawsuit on gun seizures post-Katrina. Even before Parker/Heller, SAF had hired high-caliber counsel and was pushing a more narrow Second Amendment case. When Gura showed what could be done, SAF hired Gura and started the McDonald case that incorporated the Second Amendment. You might not recognize SAF's role in these cases because they were more than willing to work with the NRA to get them done, and even generous enough to let the NRA claim a lion's share of the credit. GOA is not only not generous about sharing the credit, they spend a lot of time criticizing what is getting done, and in some cases, they have tried to actively block legislation that I felt was better than what we currently had on the grounds that it wasn't good enough for them.

3. GOA is too willing to tie itself to conservative Republicans at the expense of good Second Amendment strategy. That approach leads to a relationship like labor and the NAACP have with the Democratic party, they get abused constantly because they've got nowhere else to turn. If the Second Amendment is going to be secure, support for it has to be bipartisan and no Democrat is ever going to trust GOA because GOA won't hesitate to hose a longtime pro-2A Democrat for a no-record Republican who says the right thing. Ultimately, I think that is a bad strategy.

So that is why my priority for donations is currently: TSRA, SAF, NRA, NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, NRA Civil Defense Fund. Having said that, I don't think it is a bad thing to support GOA and I'd much rather see people out there supporting GOA than sitting on their hands and doing nothing. We all want to move in the same direction... it is just trying to agree on how to get there fastest that seems to create worse arguments than even those we have with the people trying to stop us from moving at all.

 

[Art Eatman]

All well and good to support GOA, but the "no compromise" behavior has rendered them totally ineffective in lobbying Congress. Congress responds to ideas of compromise and it's a way of life for legislators. A "no compromise" approach is blown off as merely the natterings of children.

As far as anybody quitting the NRA in 1968, that's abysmal ignorance of what actually occurred. Were it not for the NRA's efforts in the face of near-overwhelming opposition, there would be no private ownership of handguns and full registration of all long guns. And one of Senator Dodd's ideas was that all privately-owned long guns be stored in a government-controlled armory in each municipality.

When you don't have the votes, compromise is the best you can hope for.

 

[Justin]

NRA was involved in Heller and McDonald.
GOA? SAF? (crickets)

Heller and McDonald would not have ever even been brought before a judge if not for the extremely hard work of the Second Amendment Foundation. The NRA didn't jump onto the Heller bandwagon until it started to look like a sure thing.

As for McDonald v. Chicago, that was the SAF's baby from day one.

Post-Heller, the SAF has been busily suing the everliving snot out of every city and municipality with anti-gun laws on the books where they think they can win a case. The SAF may not have the deep pockets of the NRA, but they're extremely smart with how they spend their money, and have had a significant and positive impact for second amendment rights.

As far as what GOA does, GOA is active in pro-RKBA causes and does do good work there. I know they submitted an amicus brief in Parker/Heller for example and were active in that fight. Though I think many of their "no compromise" supporters would have had a heart attack if they had heard the positions GOA took in those briefs.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's good that they submitted an amicus brief. However, my understanding is that the courts are structured such that anyone can submit an amicus brief on pretty much any case. As I recall, even the basement-dwelling lunatic who runs The Potowmack* Institute submitted an amicus brief on Heller.

*Misspelling deliberate.