CCRKBA a legitimate organzation?

[Tequila jake]

I recently received a "gun owner census document" from the "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)." Not only was I asked to fill out the census, they asked for a donation (what else is new?).

Is this a legit organization or is it a scam?

Tequila Jake

 

[Barbara]

It's legitimate. I think its the political arm of the Second Amendment Foundation.

 

[ChestyP]

Close, Barbara

CCRKBA and SAF are sister organizations. SAF is a 501(c)(3) foundation dedicated to education, legal research and legal action (lawsuits) in support of the Second Amendment. Among the more notable suits were the Hurricane Katrina lawsuit against the city of New Orleans (you know, the one another big gun rights organization takes all the credit for), the Cincinnati lawsuit that forced the concealed carry issue in Ohio (taking it all the way to the state Supreme Court which ruled open carry in Ohio was legal -- thus encouraging the legislature to finally pass a CCW law), and the suit in Los Angeles several years ago that forced the city to begin issuing concealed carry licenses after a 20+ year hiatus.

SAF also publishes "Gun Week," "Women & Guns," and the "Gottlieb/Tartaro Report."

CCRKBA is a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization. It is the second largest gun rights lobbying oprganization in the U.S. and was actually formed in 1972, BEFORE the NRA created ILA in 1975.

http://www.ccrkba.org

http://www.saf.org

 

[Gray Peterson]

CCRKBA is a legitimate organization for sure.

 

[armedandsafe]

CCRKBA and SAF have been legit for the 30 or so years I've belonged.

Pops

 

[Jim March]

Very, very legit.

SAF and CCRKBA are split in ways similar to the NRA and NRA/ILA, and for the same reasons.

The latter orgs (CCRKBA and NRA/ILA) are not able to take tax-deductable funds because they lobby. So as much as possible is done under the non-lobbying wings as they can take in more money, but they cannot share employee costs or office space costs with their political wings. About all they CAN do is share their mailing lists.

So, both the NRA and SAF put a lot of effort into signing up memberships there where the money is tax-deductable. If you give either one, say, $100, if you're in the right tax bracket you'll get about $35ish back from Uncle Sam (because you gave to an educational charity). And then the orgs share your info with their own political wing and they try and get the more "hardcore" membership to shift money there even though there's no kickback from taxes.

This is all quite normal and the best way to maximize resources for both orgs under current tax laws.

Disclosure: I was a paid state lobbyist in California from 2002-2005 with CCRKBA. I was paid modestly and enjoyed it immensely. I believe they operate efficiently and honestly to advance our rights.

-------

Sidenote: the NRA has yet a third fork, a PAC called the NRA/Political Victory Fund. (NRA/PVC). I believe SAF/CCRKBA also has a small PAC but to be honest, I don't think outright campaign contributions are very efficient expenditure unless very carefully targetted. In this Internet/grassroots age, I think information dissemination and grassroots coordination is more cost-effective than tossing money around straight to politicians - but there ARE exceptions.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Jim, I'm not here to debate you. Your dedication and qualifications precede you. And that is by no means fawning praise.

But I question the effectiveness of groups like GOA, CCRKBA, JFPO and others.

As by now I'm sure you're aware, WI lost the veto override fight to anti-gun Governor Jim Doyle. I saw a lot of statewide groups fighting for the cause.

I also saw our NRA/ILA lobbyist living in Madison (the Berkley of the Midwest) pretty much full-time for ove four years. He endured some pretty significant personal sacrifices to do so.

But I never saw Alan Gottlieb. I never saw Aaron Zellman. I never saw Harry Pratt.

Nor did I ever see any representative from any of these groups in the Wisconsin State Capitol. I never heard of representatives of those organizations being there, and I never saw them at strategy meetings.

And, thus, absent any evidence of their presence or participation, I have to conclude that such groups did absolutley nothing to help our cause in 2006.

Other than raise money for themselves.

Sorry to be such a pessimist, but, until I see some real efforts on the behalf of the above-mentioned groups, I can only conclude that they've found a way to make a nice income. Without doing the real work.

They all remind me of Executive Director (more fondly referred to as "ED" here on this forum).

If anybody thinks that I'm slamming the people from the above groups: well, you're right.

Based upon the tactics our opponents have used, it's pretty obvious how to make a really cushy income without doing much work. If you could work part-time as an "anti-violence" advocate, get paid $54K a year with full health-care benefits, full pension, car allowance, travel expenses, and all the other benefits...man, that's a deal!

And I suspect it's the same deal that some of the leaders of lesser-known gun groups have.

Meanwhile, the rest of us keep fighting for free. Or is it for freedom? I'm beginning to confuse the two.

Given the anti-Republican backlash that affected Wisconsin, as well as pretty much every other state, the efforts of GOA, JFPO, CCRKBA, and other groups would probably have been in vain.

But the NRA was the only group to show up with all of its resources.

A person can make a nice income by sniping from the sidelines.

 

[Jim March]

Hmmmm.

SAF is faster and more creative at legal arguments and research than most...often faster than the NRA. It's their best niche, and they do it well.

CCRKBA is underfunded. They try and operate some in DC and have done more than most playing offense in California...but...I know they don't have the resources for a 50-state strategy. I'm not at all suprised they had to sit out the WI fight.

I personally think the existence of the smaller groups tends to keep the NRA on their toes. And in the field of legal research in particular Gottlieb's bunch are very effective. Lobbying across all 50 states? Less so.

But ask yourself this: if there were no alternatives at all in the Mac and Linux worlds, wouldn't MS-Windows suck even worse than it does now? The relative scale of operations is similar, in that M$ dominates operating systems the way the NRA dominates RKBA activism. I am only comparing scale of operations here, NOT basic morals...the NRA has had it's rough spots here and there but nothing like Bill Gates and co.

But...yeah. Rough spots. This isn't an issue any more but...in 1998 the California NRA volunteer network just about mutinied (hell, they DID mutiny - successfully) over the Fairfax guys wanting to endorse Dan Lungren-R for governor. Understand: Lungren did more damage to gun owners as state AG than any other individual in any office, before or since...at least in California and possibly nationally. While his competitor Davis was a Dem, Davis was never any sort of "grabber activist". He passed some bad laws later under the Dem-controlled legislature, yeah, God only knows...but I remain convinced Lungren would have been *worse*. So why did Fairfax want to back Lungren?

Because he was pro-choice and some leftover "moral majority" types had invaded NRA HQ. There was a rather serious (if quiet) purge back in VA over it not long after.

Yes, it's fixed now. But it would have been a hell of a lot harder to fix if there hadn't been alternative brand names that the California boys could have jumped to if their flat refusal to back Lungren hadn't caused Fairfax to blink.

------

Finally...some of the "gun rights brand names" are just not going to appeal to all contributors, any more than Budweiser could possibly appeal to all beer drinkers. I'm sure that if every other brand of beer vanished, Bud's managers would be delighted - but I'm just as sure total beer consumption would drop as some people got away from beer altogether. In our case, we want as much money spend on the RKBA issue as possible, so we WANT a variety of brand names and approaches that appeal to as broad an array of interests as possible.

The NRA seems to think that every dime that goes to another org is a dime the NRA would have gotten otherwise. I think they're only partially right in that...over time, due to the occasional screwup such as the invasion of "christian" totalitarians of the late '90s, there is going to be a reserve of people who will never give a dime to the NRA.

I'm not one of them and I'm not advocating that. I'm simply stating facts as I see them.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Some of what you said are things I wasn't aware of, Jim.

Thanks for refuting me.

 

[Jim March]

Dick, if it's not clear yet, I hold you in very high regard...have for a long time, still do.

I guess part of it is, it's easy to get real wrapped up in a single state (God knows it happened to me in Cali!) and miss elements of the bigger picture.

---

I'll throw in one more detail: most around here have heard at least something of the "Revolt In Cincinnati" - the 1977 NRA meeting where the grassroots rose up and demanded NRA get involved in RKBA rights on a permanent and well-funded basis.

Alan Gottlieb and others now connected with SAF/CCRKBA were in the thick of all that, to which we owe them an unbelievable debt. They started out by reforming the NRA to where it IS a contender on the national scene, setting the stage for the FL CCW reform of '87 which really got things rolling our way.

 

[Jim March]

An update to what I was saying about beer...

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=5919.0