Good job NRA

[TexasRifleman]

Sheriff Brown is quoted in a post above:

Where was he quoted directly, not indirectly.

All I am saying is that all that stuff has to be documentable.

 

[mpmarty]

I, an endowment member of the NRA have posted the link to this discussion to them and requested that they respond.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It's really, really scary how many people get worked up over the "NRA (fill in blank here)" when they aren't even directing their ire at the proper division of the NRA. A whole lot of hearsay and arm-chair quarterbacking by a bunch of folks who think the NRA should be omniscient in everything, all the time.

Look, folks, the sheriff lied on his response card in order to get NRA ratings. Going after the NRA for what the sheriff did puts you squarely in the same class as gun-grabbing libs who go after legitimate gun owners instead of the criminals. It's a soft-target tactic born of ignorance and righteous indignation. And it's wrong.

Think before you shout. Use your brain before you use your mouth. Your words will be far more effective.

Brad

 

[Noban]

Brad - Give me a break! Why shouldn't we be "worked up" about this?? The sheriff lied to the NRA, they knew about it, and they still endorsed him and refuse to acknowledge their mistake. That is a disservice to its members. I won't be part of an organization that hides behind beurocratic dodging techniques.

So now we're like gun-grabbing libs because we question the actions of an organization that is supposed to help protect my rights?? I remind you that that is their primary purpose for existing, and it's a service I paid for with over 35 years in dues and volunteer labor. I will not sit idley by and suck it up.

 

[Brad Johnson]

The sheriff lied to the NRA, they knew about it, and they still endorsed him and refuse to acknowledge their mistake.

They know about it now. Did they know about it before the election? If so, proof? Or is it a presumption that they "shoulda knowed about it anyways"?

It's been my experience that the latter is usually the case in situations like these. People get bent out of shape because the NRA didn't read their minds. Never mind that no call was made or letter written.

So now we're like gun-grabbing libs because we question the actions of an organization that is supposed to help protect my rights??

No, we're like gun-grabbing libs if we resort to soft-target tactics when this occasionally imperfect world has a hiccup.

Brad

 

[TexasRifleman]

The sheriff lied to the NRA, they knew about it, and they still endorsed him and refuse to acknowledge their mistake.

No one has yet shown anything that shows this. Show a quote in print, on a campaign poster, in a video, a speech, anywhere where this guy said these things before the election.

So now we're like gun-grabbing libs because we question the actions of an organization that is supposed to help protect my rights

No, in this case you are like the gun-grabbing libs because you are mad about something without having any documented facts to back up whatever it is you are mad about. We get on them constantly for not being able to provide any facts.

Please show any evidence, not hearsay, that this candidate made public statements before the election that would have changed his rating with NRA ILA/PVF.

If you can do that, I'll get on this train with you. I am also an endowment NRA member and if this happened the way you claim, we'll start one hell of a stink together. But you gotta provide something concrete.

So far the only actual statistic I have seen does not help your case much....

Population 407,900, under Sheriff Jim Anderson, 180 permits, 0.044% issuance

 

[Noban]

I and others had conversations with the NRA staff before and during the elections, and afterward during the permit denials. Our concerns were based upon conversations had with the sheriff where he stated, not in print of otherwise, that this would be his intent.

Take it or leave it. The facts are clear; the NRA dropped the ball and refuses to acknowlege its mistake. They've pretty much written off CA in all other gun-related issues as well, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

Don't let your endowment goggles blind you to the truth. Sometimes it hurts to realize you've attached your wagon to a busted mare.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The NRA-PVF ranks political candidates—irrespective of party affiliation—based on voting records, public statements and their responses to an NRA-PVF questionnaire

Read that again. This is how the PVF rates politicians. Election laws are pretty nasty. There's no telling what might happen if PVF were to change a politicians rating based on something other than their own rules. Notice the careful wording of that... "public statements". There has to be a documentation trail or it ends up in court. This stuff isn't a make it up as you go game.

Would you rather be on the side that acted in good faith or the side that was dishonest?

This outcome sucks, there's no question. The sheriff is a lying scumbag, no question.

The PVF acted in good faith and followed its' own rules.
The candidate lied out his a**.

Now tell me again whose fault this is.....

 

[Noban]

There were public statements, and we informed the NRA of them. Had the NRA followed up on our investigations, they would have had the truth, not hearsay or otherwise. They chose not to.

Tell me again how I don't understand the process?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well you just said....

I and others had conversations with the NRA staff before and during the elections, and afterward during the permit denials. Our concerns were based upon conversations had with the sheriff where he stated, not in print or otherwise, that this would be his intent.

and

There were public statements, and we informed the NRA of them

Conversations are not public statements.
So either you had documented statements or not?

Like I said, I have no doubt the guy said those things to one person in a conversation, maybe even a few standing around at a cocktail party or whatever.

That is not enough, however, for anything to be done without risking a lawsuit over election interference. PVF can't launch some kind of "investigation" or whatever that would violate it's own rules about how the ratings are given out. It's just not legal.
They do that, get sued in Federal Court for election tampering and see where we all end up.

The guy is clearly a scumbag, and a smart scumbag at that. He worked the system and got away with it.



Well you just said....

I and others had conversations with the NRA staff before and during the elections, and afterward during the permit denials. Our concerns were based upon conversations had with the sheriff where he stated, not in print or otherwise, that this would be his intent.

and

There were public statements, and we informed the NRA of them

Conversations are not public statements.
So either you had documented statements or not?

Like I said, I have no doubt the guy said those things to one person in a conversation, maybe even a few standing around at a cocktail party or whatever.

That is not enough, however, for anything to be done without risking a lawsuit over election interference. PVF can't launch some kind of "investigation" or whatever that would violate it's own rules about how the ratings are given out. It's just not legal.
They do that, get sued in Federal Court for election tampering and see where we all end up.

The guy is clearly a scumbag, and a smart scumbag at that. He worked the system and got away with it.

They've pretty much written off CA in all other gun-related issues as well, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7743

The NRA filed its lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed arguing that the proposition was in violation of California preemption laws that say firearm laws are regulated by the state.”

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3225

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=9500

The NRA and ILA spend a TON of money in California every year. Voters keep re-electing these people, that's NRAs fault too?

Look, it's a nasty fight out there in California, some of the worst anti people around are in office out there, and they keep winning re-election. NRA does what it can but wow, how much can be done when the voters keep sending the same bunch back every re-election.

But you really cannot say that NRA has abandoned California at all.

CA even has it's own Members Council just for California.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

 

[TexasRifleman]

double tap

 

[Noban]

Bottom line (and read the news article again on the first page of posts for a public statement) is that Brown is no friend of gunowners and certainly not deserving of an "A" rating. If the NRA had any integrity, they would stamp a red "F" on this guys forehead and be done with it. He lied.

 

[TexasRifleman]

and read the news article again on the first page of posts for a public statement

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. That was made after his election but it's on record now. His performance is on record, his statements.

If the NRA doesn't oppose him next time then we all need to pile on them until they do.

He lied to get into office, clearly not deserving the publics trust and manipulating voters to get his job. Certainly not the first politician to do that unfortunately.

When is he up for re-election?

 

[Noban]

Unfortunately, he's not up for re-election for three years.

Regarding public statements, I was always advised that as a public servant, anything I say, whether to an asssembled group, and individual, or to a sequence of individuals, may be considered a public statement. Now, since the sheriff lied during his bid for current office, looks like you have me there

Happy Friday!

 

[TexasRifleman]

Regarding public statements, I was always advised that as a public servant, anything I say, whether to an asssembled group, and individual, or to a sequence of individuals, may be considered a public statement.

Yeah I am certainly no lawyer or professional lobbyist so I don't really know to be honest.

That said, I don't mean to argue with you on this, and I hope there are no hard feelings. I'm behind what you are after 100% and will do anything I can to help.

 

[Noban]

Certainly no hard feelings, and I apologize for my tone in some of my posts; it was misdirected. Thanks for the lively debate!

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Eighth Post on Page 1:

Brown has received some public backlash for his strict scrutiny of permit applications, even though he made it clear during his election campaign that “my policy would be to issue licenses sparingly,” he said. “I've had a few letters from people who were pro-guns and were disappointed in my position.”

"[M]ade it clear during his election campaign" sounds pretty clear to me . . .

 

[george29]

Let's face it, it's not the same NRA of old and whoever is running things has become far too PC for my liking. All I expect of the NRA is to preserve the 2A and not allow others to erode it one lick at a time. They aren't doing their job if the they aren't protecting the 2nd. This is the sole reason the NRA loses support, thank the Good Lord there are other 2A groups to join. Ex-NRA member

 

[ryan in maine]

Alright... so, the NRA, or NRA sub-division, or NRA affiliate, or whatever, bases their potentially civil rights-altering ratings on... surveys? These folks really can't come up with something better than mailing out a survey? So Clinton or Rudy or Obama could potentially get an A from this sub-division/affiliate/whatever of the NRA?

I mean... seriously now. The NRA needs to encourage the folks in charge of these ratings to do some actual work and verify their information.

Right?

 

[Brad Johnson]

These folks really can't come up with something better than mailing out a survey?

Okay, then throw some extra money at them so they can hire more people to do it in person. Sniping at them constantly and driving away potential new members just makes the problem worse.

Every lost member, or lost potential member mean less revenue. Less revenue means organizational streamlining. That means mailed surveys (that trust the subject to respond honestly) instead of an actual person to conduct interviews and do follow-up research.

In other words, restricting your donations and driving away members, both new and potential, is not only inherently counter-productive, it makes you a part of the very problem you seek to solve.

Brad

 

[TexasRifleman]

These folks really can't come up with something better than mailing out a survey? So Clinton or Rudy or Obama could potentially get an A from this sub-division/affiliate/whatever of the NRA?

Surveys, public statements, and voting records are used. Notice that the rules give NO weight to the importance of each.

Clinton, Rudy and Obama all have many many public statements and voting records. Their voting record and speeches say it all, there's no reason to even look at the survey.

 

[ryan in maine]

How much should someone be paid to verify the information on these surveys?

It just doesn't seem right. Maybe they need to find a way to divert their current funds rather than rely on new funds coming in.

Do I have the solutions? No, I don't. I do know that taking a politician for their word doesn't sit well with me when they're supposed to be the premier 2A defenders. There's nothing premier about that, to me.

It wont change whether or not I continue to support them, but I will make faces.

 

[Eat Beef]

Yeah, the NRA slacking off on the Second Ammendment is a new phenoma. It only started in the 30's with their support of NFA.:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Ever heard of controlled oppostition?:banghead:

 

[JohnBT]

Ever heard of studying history and getting your facts straight? It would be less work than banging your head on the brick wall.

John

 

[TexasRifleman]

It only started in the 30's with their support of NFA.

Oh you gotta be kidding me.....

From "history of NFA"...

NRA opposes passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (regulating sale of automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns), calls for massive letter-writing campaign to elected officials by NRA members. NFA '34 passes over NRA opposition.

Do some of you guys just make stuff up as you go?