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

[WAGCEVP]

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

Grass Roots North Carolina, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605,
919-664-8565, www.grnc.org, GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137

Please distribute this alert to all pro-gun organizations and networks

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

As noted in previous alerts, NRA lawyer Dan Zavadil recently filed a
lawsuit against pro-gun organization Grass Roots North Carolina. Since
1994, GRNC has been repeatedly forced to reveal NRA sellouts on gun issues
to Second Amendment supporters. But even we were shocked when the
organization which purports to fight abusive lawsuits by cities against
gun
makers (e.g. S. 659) has allowed its own NRA Office of the General Counsel
to conduct conveniently-timed litigation against a small all volunteer
pro-gun group with limited resources.

Gun rights supporters should be aware that GRNC has no interest in a
national battle against the NRA. Unfortunately, however, the threat to
GRNC's survival left no choice. Worse, statements released by both the NRA
and its board members have misrepresented the lawsuit, GRNC's actions, and
the legislative issues on which NRA has repeatedly sold out its own
members
for self-serving purposes. Below, we respond to specific
mischaracterizations.

NRA BOARD MISREPRESENTATION: Board members such as H. Walt Walter and
David
Coy claimed GRNC is not a defendant in the suit.

FACT: The lawsuit (case # CA 03-906-A, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division) lists both Francis Paul Valone
II and GRNC/FFE, Inc. "Jointly & Severally", seeking $75,000 in damages.

NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Board member Walt Walter has claimed, "the NRA is
not part of the suit." Official NRA communications claim: "NRA has not
filed suit against Grassroots North Carolina..."

FACT: As noted by GRNC attorney James Jeffries IV: "First, the lawsuit was
filed by Dan Zavadil, Assistant General Counsel for the NRA. Mr. Zavadil
signed the Complaint as Ms. Palmer's counsel and gave his address as 11250
Waples Mill Road, 6th floor, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. Mr. Zavadil listed
his phone number as (703) 267-1250 and his fax number as (703) 267-3985.
This address and telephone information corresponds exactly to the
information shown on Mr. Zavadil's official NRA letterhead. Further, Mr.
Zavadil sent a demand letter to Mr. Valone as a precursor to the lawsuit
that was issued on NRA letterhead. While it is true that the NRA is not
the
plaintiff (which is not legally possible) it is not true that the NRA did
not file the litigation. Their own counsel did, in fact, file the suit and
continues to pursue it against F. Paul Valone II personally and GRNC."

NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Say official NRA communications, "Mr. Valone sent
an
email to numerous people falsely claiming that [NRA lobbyist] Mrs.
[Jennifer H.] Palmer was committing adultery."

FACT: Responds attorney Jeffries: "It is not true that F. Paul Valone II
sent an email to various people falsely claiming that Ms. Palmer had
committed adultery. Instead, he reported a conclusion made by another
party
(which had been reported to him by this third party after observation of
Ms. Palmer's rapport with an Assistant North Carolina Attorney General).
That report occurred in the context of an explanation of the NRA's and Ms.
Palmer's activities undermining GRNC's legislative initiatives at the
North
Carolina General Assembly. This conclusion is confirmed by the plain
language of the allegedly defamatory statement recited in the Complaint
filed by NRA Assistant General Counsel Daniel Zavadil. Finally, Valone did
not vouch for the accuracy of the information or assert its truth, but
simply reported what he had been told."

NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Says the official NRA communication: "Despite
several opportunities to do so, Mr. Valone refused to apologize for making
the false statement and refused to retract the false statement."

FACT: Says GRNC's counsel: "It is not true that Valone was offered an
opportunity to apologize. He was instructed to print a retraction, once by
Ms. Palmer and once by Mr. Zavadil (on a demand letter written on NRA
letterhead) under direct threat of litigation. The retraction he was
instructed to print included facts about which he had no personal
knowledge
and, therefore, could not truthfully assert. The retraction demanded would
have also constituted a legal admission of libel on his part thereby
leaving him legally defenseless against claims like those ultimately filed
by Mr. Zavadil. Further, both Ms. Palmer's letter and Mr. Zavadil's letter
left him with no options because they both indicated that the retraction
must be issued in exactly the form demanded or suit would be filed."

NRA BOARD MISREPRESENTATION: Board member H. Walt Walter made the
following
representation in a letter addressed to "GRNC Members": "On the 15th of
July the lawyer for the defamed individual received a letter, (here I must
presume) from the lawyer representing either GRNC or Paul Valone
personally, stating emphatically and in a condescending manner that they
would not honer [sic] the deadline and answer the request for an apology
in
their own time."

FACT: The letter in question was faxed on July 16-the same day NRA lawyer
Zavadil filed the lawsuit TWO DAYS PRIOR TO HIS OWN DEADLINE. As to
whether
it was "condescending" or said GRNC would "answer the request for an
apology in their own time", decide for yourself: GRNC has posted the
letter
at: http://www.grnc.org/Zavadilletter.pdf

GRNC CHALLENGE: GRNC invites NRA to post Palmer and Zavadil's demand
letters, GRNC's response, Jeffries' letter and the Complaint on their web
site and let people decide for themselves who is being truthful and who is
not.

NRA MISREPRESENTATION OF SB 919: Says the official NRA statement of this
"domestic violence" bill: "As for the complaints by Grass Roots North
Carolina regarding NRA's efforts with respect to SB 919, they are without
merit... At no point was there ever any mention of 'registration' or
storage fees."

FACTS:

?? "CATALOGING" EQUALS REGISTRATION: Again, decide for yourself by viewing
Section 1, G.S. 50B-3.1(b) of the bill at
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/html2003/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S919vr.html.
Note that the judge is required to "catalog" the defendant's firearms at
ex
parte domestic violence hearings REGARDLESS of whether he determines a
protective order should be issued, meaning that even if the judge decides
the complaint has no merit, the "cataloging"--including any relevant
identification numbers--would still be required. Note also that nothing
restricts use of registration information collected. It would even be
permissible for law enforcement authorities to send it to the BATFE.
Calling the scheme "cataloging" instead of "registration" changes nothing.
Finally, by definition an "ex parte" hearing DOES NOT REQUIRE
PARTICIPATION
BY THE DEFENDANT, meaning that defendants may be unable to defend
themselves prior to having guns seized.

?? GRNC DID OBJECT TO REGISTRATION & CONFISCATION: Contrary to NRA claims
that registration and confiscation measures were not issues for GRNC
during
debate over the bill, GRNC objected to the entire bill--not just sections
of it--during the first alert sent on the issue (GRNC Alert 5-24-03). GRNC
also issued alerts and position papers opposing the bill prior to the
bill's House Finance Committee hearing. In fact, GRNC Alert 6-4-03 is
entitled "Stop Gun Registration & Seizure Act." These alerts are still
available via GRNC's web site.

?? NRA SUPPORTED THE BILL: Although the NRA's official line is that "NRA
took no official position on this legislation..." during the NC House
floor
debate over SB 919, pro-gun Rep. Carolyn Justus said: "And this bill, in
its present form, has the support of the Attorney General, North Carolina
Victims Assistant Network, the Governor's Crime Commission, Commission on
Domestic Violence, the North Carolina Sheriff's Association, The Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, the NRA and the Women's Caucus here in
Raleigh."
(Considering the anti-gun records of NC Attorney General Roy Cooper and
Governor Mike Easley, the NRA is in great company here). At the bill's
House Finance Committee meeting, NRA lobbyists Joe and Henri McClees
offered no objections to the bill. Indeed, the Raleigh "News & Observer"
noted: "In the end, Grass Roots North Carolina, a gun-rights group, was
the
only organization actively opposing the bill."

?? "ALL FOR YOUR PROTECTION"? Most absurd, however, is NRA's defense that:
"Regarding the issue of 'registration,' this is simply a red herring. It
would seem that anyone who has had his property seized would want that
documented, so as to facilitate its proper return in a timely and accurate
way." Instead, it should be obvious that in order to protect gun owners,
the GUN OWNER should be given a signed receipt for property seized, not
the
LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel who seized the firearms.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

?? CONTACT THE NRA (1-800-672-3888 & 1-800-392-8683) and let them know
that you don't want your membership dues used to sell out gun rights and
silence legitimate pro-gun activists. Regretfully, the only way to get the
message across is to convince them that their abuses will cost them money.
GRNC has always encouraged gun rights supporters to join the NRA and to
keep memberships even when the NRA has undermined the Second Amendment.
This time, however, the NRA is going to far. While GRNC does not advocate
any particular action that means annual membersnot Life membersmay
consider
resigning their memberships. Life members and others might consider
letting
the NRA know that they will not contribute a dime to the organization for
as long as it compromises gun rights.

?? CONTACT NRA BOARD MEMBERS listed below and let them know what the
organization they direct has been up to.

?? FIGHT THE LAWSUIT by donating to the Rights Watch Activist Defense
Fund, care of Rights Watch International, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC
27605. Because RWI is a chartered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, all
donations are tax deductible. Bear in mind that if GRNC and RWI don't have
enough money to fight the lawsuit, the fact that it is frivolous will be
moot. Moreover, it will encourage the NRA to use the same tactics against
other pro-gun activists who refuse to "toe the line." To donate using a
credit card, go to http://www.rightswatch.org/help_the_good_fight.htm

?? USE GRNC's AUTOMATED E-MAIL: Go to http://www.grnc.org/nra_sellout/ and
sign your name. In just a few minutes, you can send e-mails to the NRA and
many of its board members.

CONTACT THESE NRA REPRESENTATIVES

?? NRA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION at: [email protected]
?? NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS using the addresses below or GRNC's automated
e-mailer at http://www.grnc.org/nra_sellout/

NRA Contact Numbers:
NRA-ILA phone number: 1-800-NRA-3888 (prompt #1 to resign memberships;
prompt #5 for input on state and local affairs).
Membership Account Information 1-877-672-2000
NRA Member Programs 1-800-672-3888
NRA/ILA 1-800-392-8683
NRA Sales 1-800-336-7402

Mr. Sanford M. Abrams 25 Cotswold Court, Owings Mills MD 21117-1275
Dr. Thomas P. Arvas 7905 Spain Rd NE, Albuquerque NM 87109-3117
[email protected]
Mr. Scott L. Bach P.O. Box 651, Newfoundland NJ 07435
[email protected] [email protected]
Mr. William A. Bachenberg Bethlehem PA [email protected]
Mrs. M. Carol Bambery 1124 S. Geneva Drive, DeWitt MI 48820-9537
[email protected]
Hon. Bob Barr 3760 Sixes Road, Ste. 126, PMB 247, Canton GA 30114
Mr. Wilbert G. Bauer 209 Someday Road, Boerne TX 78006-7024
Dr. David E. Bennett, III 11828 Caribou Avenue, NE, Albuquerque NM
87111-7215 [email protected] Hon. David O. Boehm 2470 East Avenue,
Rochester
NY 14610
Hon. Bill K. Brewster 601 13th St. NW, Suite 410S, Washington DC
20005-3864
LTC Robert K. Brown 5735 Arapahoe Avenue #A-5, Boulder CO 80303-1340
[email protected] Mr. David A. Butz 65 Oak Grove Drive, Belleville IL
62221-2535
Dr. David I. Caplan 247 SE 3rd Avenue, Delray Beach FL 33483-4511
Mr. Ron L. Carlisle Rt. 1, Box 55, Kopperl TX 76652-9716
Mr. J. William Carter P O Box 2127, Fredericksburg TX 78624
Mr. Donald M. Causey 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd #605, Miami FL 33156-2721
[email protected]
Mrs Patricia A. Clark 25 Point O Rocks Road, Newtown CT 06470-1933
[email protected] Mr. Jeff Cooper Gunsite Ranch, Paulden AZ 86334
Mr. Allan D. Cors 7413 Georgetown Court, McLean VA 22102-2123
Mr. Charles L. Cotton 110 Eagle Lakes Drive, Friendswood TX 77546-5852
Prof. David G. Coy 1020 Brookside Drive, East Adrian MI 49221-3248
[email protected]
Hon. Larry E. Craig 313 Senate Hart Bldg., Washington DC 20510
Hon. Barabara L. Cubin 2241 Belmont Road, Casper WY 82604-4649
[email protected]
Mr. John L. Cushman 107 Truberg Avenue, Patchogue NY 11772-1748
jcushman
juno.com
Mr. William H. Dailey 1528 6th Ave., Moline IL 61265-2049
[email protected]
Mr. H. Tom Davison 2304 Oxford, Bryan TX 77802-1941
Mr. Donn C. DiBiasio 1284 North Main Street, Providence RI 02904-1830
Ms. Diana Dunigan 161 Mackay Drive, Brunswick GA 31525-2862
[email protected]
Mr. Manuel Fernandez P O Box 7832, Mission Hills CA 91346-7832
Ms. Sandra S. Froman P O Box 36228, Tucson AZ 85740-6228
[email protected]
Mr. Thomas F. Gaines 947 Ithaca Court, Chula Vista CA 91913-3011
Ms. Marion P. Hammer P O Box 7530, Tallahassee FL 32314-7530
Lt. Philip Hemphill 418 Simpson Circle, Clinton MS 39114-3418
Mr. Charlton Heston 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax VA 22030-9400
Mr. Steve Hornady P O Box 1848, Grand Island NE 68802-1848
[email protected] [email protected]
Ms. Susan Howard P O Box 1456, Boerne TX 78006-1456
Mr. Roy Innis 817 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York NY 10003-4809
[email protected] [email protected]
Mr. Joaquin Jackson 1010 N. Bird Street, Alpine TX 79830-3206
Mr. David C. Jones 155 Covert Lane, Ellisville MO 63021-4603
[email protected] Ms. D. Cynthia Julien 37A Pheasant Run,
Smithfield
RI 02917-2535
Mr. David A. Keene 5899 Parenham Way, Alexandria VA 22310-5301
[email protected]
Mrs. Sue King 515 Timber Terrace, Houston TX 77079-2463
[email protected]
Mr. Herbert A. Lanford, Jr. 6530 Davidson Road, K-6, Columbia SC
29209-1736
Mr. Michael A. Lee P O Box 540, Denmark ME 04022-0540
Mr. Karl A. Malone 301 W 100 S, Salt Lake City UT 84101-1209
Ms. Carolyn Meadows 2665 Holly Spring Road NE, Marietta GA 30062
Mr. John Milius Warner Bros., Bldg. 81, Room 215, Burbank CA 91522
Mr. William A. Miller, Jr. P O Box 1992, Beckley WV 25802-1992
Mr. James D. Nicholson 7305 Arbor Oaks Drive, Dallas TX 75248-2203
[email protected]
Mr. Grover Norquist 718 N. Carolina Avenue, SE, Washington DC 20003-1359
[email protected] [email protected]
LTC Oliver L. North 22570 Markey Court, Suite 230, Dulles VA 20166-6915
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mr. Theodore Nugent 4133 W. Michigan Avenue, Jackson MI 49202-1862
[email protected]
Dr. David A. Oliver 16537 Winter Leaf Drive, Wildwood MO 63011-1824
[email protected] net
Det. Lance R. Olson 705 William Avenue, Marengo IA 52031-1047
Mr. Ernie Padgette 11719 Blue Smoke Trail, Reston VA 20191-3701
[email protected]
Mr. James W. Porter, II P O Box 128, Birmingham AL 35201-0128
[email protected]
Sheriff Jay Printz 226 Marcus St, Hamilton MT 59840-3144
[email protected]
Mr. Todd J. Rathner 802 E. Hedrick Drive, Tucson AZ 85719-2531
trathner@mul deer.org
Mrs. Edie P. Reynolds 3709 Marlin Court, Raleigh NC 27604-3319
Chief Kayne B. Robinson 3100 St. Johns Road, Des Moines IA 50312-4529
Col. Wayne A. Ross P O Box 101522, Anchorage AK 99510-1522
[email protected]
Mr. Carl T. Rowan, Jr. 2910 Fessenden St., NW, Washington DC 20008-1025
[email protected]
Mr. Don Saba P O Box 42486, Tucson AZ 85733-2486 info@sierrab
oresearch.com
Mr. Robert Sanders Punta Gorda FL
Mr. Ronald L. Schmeits 200 S. 2nd Street, Raton NM 87740-3908
Mr. Harold W. Schroeder 24 Irwinwood Road, Lancaster NY 14086-2415
BIGBUD9 @aol.com Mr. John C. Sigler 11 Waterwheel Circle, Dover DE
19901-6261 [email protected]
Mr. Bruce Stern 935 White Plains Road, Trumbull CT 06611-4547
Mr. Jim Supica P O Box 14040, Lenexa KS 66285-4040 Jim@Armch
irGunShow.com
Dep. Dwight D. Van Horn 27859 Quincy Street, Castaic CA 91384-3530
ddvanhor @aol.com
Mr. Robert L. Viden, Jr. 318 N. Delsea Drive, Glassboro NJ 08028-1497
Hon. Harold L. Volkmer 719 Country Club Drive, Hannibal MO 63401-3035
Mr. Howard J. Walter P O Box 39, Flat Rock NC 28731-0039
[email protected]
Mr. J. D. Williams Keystone Road, Pearsall TX 78061
Mr. Robert J. Wos 10100 Boston Road, North Royalton OH 44133-6123
[email protected]
Hon. Donald E. Young 2111 Rayburn House

 

[Rick Daniel]

We'll See

If there is nothing to this suit then Mr. Valone and GRNC have nothing to worry about. The facts will come out in court. Instead they seem to be fanning the flames. In the South we like to say a hurt dog howls. Sounds like alot of howling to me.

This suit is not NRA vs GRNC. It has nothing to do with legislative issues or past differences. The suit is brought by an NRA employee (Mrs. Palmer) who in the course of her work was defamed, lied about, and damaged. Mr. Valone, representing GRNC, made flase statements about Mrs. Palmer. He had several chances to set the record straight but arrogantly refused.

As far as Mr. Zavadil representing Mrs. Palmer, so what? I'd expect any employer to provide assistance for damages incurred in the performance of duties. That's one reason large companies (or associations) have an Office of General Counsel.

All of this stuff from GRNC is an attempt to cloud the issue. Its all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Ironbarr]

WAGCEVP...

Long read, (I did) with several links (I didn't - - - - yet).

As you posted this, I wonder what WAGC position might be. I ask since I'd suspect you have info and perspective I do not yet have.

Please, and thanks.

-Andy

 

[WAGCEVP]

i've delt with both NRA and GRNC, personally I would believe GRNC before I would believe NRA. I have had NRA lie to me before, not so with GRNC..... GRNC is a no compromise state level org, NRA is known for compromising, GRNC did NOTHING but expose NRA's compromise... THey desrve NO kind of lawsuuit from anybody, esp wnyone linked to NRA. I like NRA Safety courses ect, but they need to saty out of the legislative arena with their compromises....... MY personal NSHO

 

[Ironbarr]

Thanks.

Roger that.

I appreciate your reply - I had a one-year membership with the NRA years ago and never renewed. Now I'm into firearms (that I have some time). I've thought about it but my experiences with monster organizations haven't warmed the cockles of my heart.

The more I read (like the threads grouped here) of internal "strife" I could imagine all kinds of things - scary things of the activities of supposedly friendly folks; friendly to the cause, that is.

Kind of lets me want to put my head in the sand; yet it's scary enough that that can't be allowed to happen. Maybe that's the saving grace of it all - strangely, my sig seems to have it covered..."SAVE - Situational Awareness and Vigilance Eternal". Could this be the tactical and strategic - the "short and long" of it?

 

[WAGCEVP]

Ironbarr, the best thing you can do , IMNSHO , is to join your local gun group. What state are you in?
I personally haven't financially supported the NRA since about 1990, I got half way thru a life membership with NRA and that's where I stopped.
our local gun group here in Ga is CSG. We've been trying to get our CCW law with less restrictions every year,. Every year we have to fight the NRA, who says that our CCW law is "up to par" , I'm still waiting for the answer to the question as to "whose par it is up too??????? As I said GRNC tried to get a better law than NRA would have gotten. They exposed NRA and now they pay for it..... if the NRA NC lobbiest wins, whose next????

I support GRNC wholeheartedly! I get my info that I pass on directly from the state groups, that's where it SHOULD come from!

 

[Ironbarr]

[rant]...

I went with VCDL (http://www.vcdl.org) last year - it has a can-do, vibrant leadership and, piece by piece, gets things done. But like others around the country, each fighting its own state (usually) battle, there's a constant fight to work the local side while the well-heeled antis float all over the country stirring the pot (I still wonder where they get the money).

Organization - nation-wide - is required (as we all know), before our side will be a respected force to be reckoned with. Why, by this time, haven't there been an arrangement whereby all of these small local/regional pro groups haven't amalgamated under one umbrella? A local fee for a local group... plus a five dollar bill for the umbrella is at least a start. It might help us to stop preaching to the choir and attract, educate, and train new blood. We must off-load our passive, reactive ways and become proactive... we are like a swordsman who is ever parrying the onslaught of blows but seldom if ever, surges to the attack.

Face it - TFL was a fantastic place to seed our hopes; to learn our equipment; to meet and befriend others; to commiserate in our respective tales of woe, and to crow our successes. But this is THR; spawned to build upon the base; to "go where no man has gone before"; to grow that force to be reckoned with.

We should be planning the work, and working the plan - now... since time doth march on.

There are a lot of targets out there... AWB, for one; a mess of bills crawling around that need to be addressed before folks think we don't care. And one area that truly worries me: Future politicos/administrations using the law (today's and tomorrow's) to turn our world to their agenda(s). I suspect that there is language buried deep in some of these (monstrous) bills, both in force and in the hopper, that bears a careful read and fitfull action to neutralize.

Question: What could a (Mrs) Clinton administration do with the Patriot Act for instance?

If you allow yourself to think of it - there's a veritable feast on the table of "The Vigilant". But vigilance requires action else it is but a "see and wait" effort.

Where are OUR shakers and movers?

[/rant]


-Andy

 

[Rick Daniel]

WAGCEVP:

You say GRNC has never lied to you. Based on what you've posted here GRNC apparently has you believing the following lies:

1. This lawsuit is NRA vs GRNC.
2. GRNC did nothing but report a compromise.

The widely reported facts prove the above two items are false.

 

[Ironbarr]

Strange that I should hear from NRA today.

Just a few minutes ago I was called by an NRA person to listen to a 1:45 minute Wayne Pierre tape - a "real push" to defeat Senate Bill 22 (Clinton/Schumer) re the alleged gun show loophole.

It was, as I expected, a recruiting effort to increase membership.

Scare 'em and collect the money.

As mentioned earlier I'm not a member now and don't expect to be any time soon.

Just thought it strange that we've been talking NRA this past few days and here I have an offer to join.

Anyone happen to have the latest on how much support SB-22 has now? Any chance for its passage?

Thanks.

-Andy

 

[seeker_two]

If there is nothing to this suit then Mr. Valone and GRNC have nothing to worry about. The facts will come out in court.

Tell that to Marlboro, Firestone, and Microsoft...

In a lawsuit, the NRA doesn't have to win on the facts. All they have to do is spend the other side into bankrupcy and/or settlement through endless appeals & motions that keep the lawyers employed.

If this is what NRA is spending my membership money on, I'll not be renewing next year...

 

[Rick Daniel]

Tell that to Marlboro, Firestone, and Microsoft...

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Valone/GRNC lawsuit is brought by an individual who alleges defamation. The lawsuits you mention were brought by AG's (with considerable resources) from various states. I doubt the individual bringing this suit has unlimited resources.

If this is what NRA is spending my membership money on, I'll not be renewing next year...

Again, this is not an NRA matter. NRA is not a party and member money is not at stake. Its an individual bringing the suit. NRA is not a party to this lawsuit. If you decide not to renew, don't do so on the basis of this lawsuit. Its a non-issue.

 

[bountyhunter]

Again, this is not an NRA matter. NRA is not a party and member money is not at stake. Its an individual bringing the suit. NRA is not a party to this lawsuit. If you decide not to renew, don't do so on the basis of this lawsuit. Its a non-issue.

That's not what the text of the article says:


"NRA MISREPRESENTATION: Board member Walt Walter has claimed, "the NRA is not part of the suit." Official NRA communications claim: "NRA has not
filed suit against Grassroots North Carolina..."

FACT: As noted by GRNC attorney James Jeffries IV: "First, the lawsuit was
filed by Dan Zavadil, Assistant General Counsel for the NRA. Mr. Zavadil
signed the Complaint as Ms. Palmer's counsel and gave his address as 11250 Waples Mill Road, 6th floor, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. Mr. Zavadil listed
his phone number as (703) 267-1250 and his fax number as (703) 267-3985. This address and telephone information corresponds exactly to the
information shown on Mr. Zavadil's official NRA letterhead."


If the general counsel for the NRA is filing lawsuits "as an individual matter" which are in direct conflict with the avowed positions and purposes of that organization, then he needs to have his sorry ??? kicked to the curb.

 

[Rick Daniel]

The whole point of the GRNC Alert is to confuse the issue. Its all hype. All smoke and mirrors. A lot of words, but very little substance.

They want you to think NRA is a party to the lawsuit. They are not.

They want you to think the lawsuit is about legislative issues. It is not.

They want you to think NRA member dues are being used. They are not.

GRNC has presented no evidence that NRA money is being used. Yes, the attorney and the plaintiff both happen to be NRA employees, but the "connection" ends there.

Don't be so eager to crucify the NRA. Be discerning and read between the lines.

Could it be that the attorney is simply helping a friend and co-worker? Could he be working for free? Could it be he uses the NRA contact information because in the event of service, that's where he can be found?

The truth is, attorneys have a legal duty to be available for process service. If Mr. Zavadil has an office at NRA, he must disclose that for such purposes.

The whole point of the address thing is that GRNC wants you to conclude NRA letterhead was used by Mr. Zavadil, but read carefully and you'll see it wasn't.

Pretty sneaky..... pretty crafty......pretty sad.

 

[JohnBT]

"...he reported a conclusion made by another party (which had been reported to him by this third party after observation of Ms. Palmer's..."

Sounds like somebody ought to sue his dumb butt.

I'm siding with the lady. Us southern boys are suckers for a damsel in distress. I don't know what happened to this guy to make him act like some newspaper gossip.

John

 

[scbair]

My .02 worth.

I received the "canned" response from the NRA; while it initially looked OK, I'm still considering it.

I have no "insider info" regarding this case or GRNC, but will offer a couple of observations.

I am a member of Grassroots SC (GRSC), and appreciate GRSC's successful efforts to improve the laws affecting SC CWP holders. The local NRA affiliate, Gun Owners of SC (GOSC) was notable by its lack of support for these enhancements. At least, I saw GRSC lobbying for the improvements, but never saw any evidence of GOSC support. I am no longer a member of GOSC.

Mr. Rick Daniel is (I believe) the NRA rep for this area. Nothing wrong with that, just thought I'd point it out to everyone. Rick, if this info is incorrect or outdated, I'm sure you will let us know.

 

[David Roberson]

I initially wanted to stay out of this but have changed my mind.

I'm a Life Member of the NRA since the 1970s and am also a member of GRNC. I won't go into all the details, but there have been instances here in NC where the NRA and GRNC have been at odds in supporting or opposing various bills. There have been arguments between GRNC and NRA staff because of this. (NRA's practice of giving unrealistically high ratings to anti-gun politicians has also been a source of some unhappiness, but that's not the main issue here.) So there's a history of occasional friction between the two groups, and frustration with us here in NC about the way the NRA tries to do things in our state.

A few other points:

1. Paul Valone of GRNC made the comment in question -- quoting something that he attributed to others -- on a private, members-only discussion group to which I belong. It was not a public comment. He has since offered a formal apology to the woman in question, and his apology appeared in the same forum. (It is not clear how Valone's initial comment made it to the NRA. Forwarding messages outside that discussion group is a violation of the group's charter.)

2. An NRA board member initially claimed that the suit was against Valone personally and not against GRNC. This statement was later shown to be a falsehood -- the suit names both Valone and GRNC.

3. Does anyone here actually believe that an attorney in the pay of the NRA and filing a lawsuit using his office address and phone number wouldn't get permission from his superiors first? What would happen if a member of your company's legal staff tried something like that?

The issue here is not whether the NRA is using member dues inappropriately. The issue is that NRA staff are taking actions that, if successful, will destroy North Carolina's most effective and efficient RKBA organization, and I don't know anyone who believes that this is being done without the quiet blessing of the NRA. Readers of this thread can draw their own conclusions whether such actions are warranted or are a gross overreaction that will ultimately harm the cause that both organizations allegedly support. I'm firmly in the latter camp.

 

[Rick Daniel]

Mr. Rick Daniel is (I believe) the NRA rep for this area. Nothing wrong with that, just thought I'd point it out to everyone. Rick, if this info is incorrect or outdated, I'm sure you will let us know.

I am not an NRA employee. I was for many years president of GOSC which is the NRA state association in South Carolina. I currently serve as Public Affairs Director for GOSC and as such I do coordinate closely with NRA on legislative issues.

The local NRA affiliate, Gun Owners of SC (GOSC) was notable by its lack of support for these enhancements.

GOSC led the effort on the right to carry law which passed here in 1996. We supported most of the changes advocated by GRSC a couple of years back, but could not endorse the original bill as it sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars. NRA/GOSC suggested that CWPs be allowed only if they refrain from alcohol consumption. We could not come to an agreement on this and were forced to remain neutral.

BTW, GOSC is currently leading the way on repeal of South Carolina's awful one handgun/thirty day law. It has passed the House by an overwhelming margin and awaits action in the Senate.

Now might be the time to re-join.

 

[Wild Bill]

Now might be the time to re-join.

Perhaps not quite yet Rick.

To get my cash and support any group needs to actually be doing what they purport to be doing. Twisting the facts is (at best) self-aggrandizement that does nothing to further the cause. At worse it’s misleading and thereby truly counter-productive.

No offense meant, sir, but perhaps we should take a wee stroll through the historical record so as not to lead the good members of this fine board astray.

GOSC led the effort on the right to carry law which passed here in 1996. We supported most of the changes advocated by GRSC a couple of years back, but could not endorse the original bill as it sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars. NRA/GOSC suggested that CWPs be allowed only if they refrain from alcohol consumption. We could not come to an agreement on this and were forced to remain neutral

The leaders in getting the 1996 CWP law passed have mostly come to reside in GrassRoots, not GOSC. But, you are partially correct - they were part of GOSC at the time because GrassRoots DID NOT YET EXIST YET.

Indeed, GrassRoots was built up because real gun rights supporters needed a SC organization devoted to protecting our rights, not pushing gun control as GOSC did.

To say that the original GrassRoots CWP and gun law reform bill "sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars ." is an outright fallacy. This link might help clarify the issue: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess114_2001-2002/prever/3010_20010522.htm You’ll note this link is to the public record – an unassailable source of truthful documentation concerning legislative thrusts.

H. 3010 NEVER DID ALLOW CARRY INTO BARS. All H. 3010 did was make it legal to possess a firearm outside of an establishment that sold alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption. Prior to passage of the GrassRoots proposed bill, there was a three year prison term for having a gun in your vehicle in the parking lot of such an establishment. A CWP holder who left his gun in his vehicle to go eat at a nice restaurant was breaking the law. A hunter eating at a place that also served beer was breaking the law if his shotgun was in his vehicle in the parking lot.

Rick, you should know that since you led the GOSC fight to stop the GrassRoots reforms.

If you’re here to truly join the RKBA fight Rick then welcome to The High Road. Mr. Volk and all have created one of (if not the) best gun related sites on the net. Here we can freely interchange ideas and discuss issues in a frank and open manner. We can even agree to disagree.

But, quite frankly and with all due respect, I doubt playing fast and loose with the truth advances either the quality of discussion here or the political fight for our gun rights. It certainly does nothing to further your organization, gather widespread support, or create a bridge to other groups in the fight.

We all make mistakes in these political battles Rick. Those we all can forgive. But spin doctoring amongst the converted is divisive and unforgivable. If we can’t stick to the facts then one has to seriously consider the utility of joining a group who’s integrity is perhaps questionable.

Nuff said.

 

[Futo Inu]

This is outrageous - some heads need to roll if the NRA is lying. I'm sending a letter today demanding an explanation from the NRA.

 

[Rick Daniel]

H. 3010 NEVER DID ALLOW CARRY INTO BARS

I mispoke and I apologize. I was not triying to mislead, because the fact remains that GRSC was indeed seeking carry into bars, just not through this legislation. I stand corrected on this point.

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.

If you’re here to truly join the RKBA fight Rick then welcome to The High Road.

That's why I'm here and thanks for the welcome. This is a great site.

 

[Robert D. Butler]

Friends,

I was forced to join this discussion to help ensure the truth gets told. I thank the person who informed me that Rick Daniel posted a reply that stated the GrassRoots CWP and gun law reforms allowed carry into bars. I provided the factual basis to show that Rick failed to tell the truth.

It is interesting that Rick nows claims it was an honest mistake. It is interesting because this is the same story that the NRA told to outraged callers when the NRA was originally caught trying to kill our bill a couple of years ago. Rick knew it was untrue then and he knew it was untrue now. But, this is a different forum and maybe he thought it would fly here.

I have another complaint about Rick Daniel's post. Rick states GOSC and the NRA "could not endorse the original bill as it sought (among other things) to allow unrestricted carry into bars." As proven earlier, that is not true. But, an even bigger problem is the way the issue is framed in an anti gun rights way.

SC does not legally have any bars. We only have restaurants, some of which serve alcoholic beverages. Yet, Rick frames the issue as "guns in bars" when a real pro rights person would frame the issue as "carry in nice restaurants."

Thirty of the fifty states allow CWP carry into nice restaurants, virtually all allow consumption of alcoholic beverages while there. There is no problem with CWP holders in these states. Yet, Rick continues to fight against the rights of law abiding citizens who want to drink a beer or a glass of wine with dinner.

Going out to eat at a nice restaurant at night in SC brings all the factors that a criminal is looking for - it is dark, the victims are disarmed by law, and the victims have money. When I go to a nice restaurant with my family, I want to have the means to defend my family if need be. Rick wants us disarmed. Why?

I believe the reason Rick wants us disarmed is because changing this law has become one of the major goals of GrassRoots GunRights SC. If Rick wants to see cooperation between GrassRoots and GOSC, then it is as simple as getting GOSC to support real pro gun rights positions. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

On another note (and this will become a separate thread later), what would you think of a so called pro gun rights group that proposed legislation that would require the registration of all private transfers of all firearms, even gifts to family? If you support registering all private transfers of firearms, then join Rick and the NRA in SC. If you oppose the registration of all transfers of firearms, then you will understand why GrassRoots GunRights SC came into being to oppose GOSC and their support of gun registration.

Robert D. Butler, J.D.
VP & Legislative Director
GrassRoots GunRights SC

 

[Futo Inu]

The plot thickens.

 

[Rick Daniel]

Yet, Rick continues to fight against the rights of law abiding citizens who want to drink a beer or a glass of wine with dinner.

I'm not fighting anything. I'm personally opposed to mixing alcohol and guns. We fought too hard to get right-to-carry to let someone who can't refrain from drinking ruin it for everyone else. I have many times stated my support for allowing carry into bars provided the permit holder refrains from drinking. I'm consistent in my position, yet others are not.

For example, there is a long-standing gun safety rule in place at the local Mid-Carolina Rifle Club (MCRC) concerning mixing alcohol and guns. Simply put, it is prohibited there. Can't drink before or during shooting. If Mr. Butler (who is an officer at MCRC) is truly committed to absolute freedom then he'll move to rescind that rule at MCRC. When I see him do that, I'll take him seriously. Otherwise, his tone (and tune) suggests he is only interested in driving a wedge. I want to unite gun owners, not divide them.

Instead of fighting each other, I'd like to see us work together on things everyone can agree on. I don't think anyone would oppose carry in bars provided no alcohol is consumed. Plenty of people (both gun owners and the general public) oppose the current GRSC proposed method of allowing carry in bars.

SC does not legally have any bars.

This is truly a distinction without a difference. I've seen restaurants that serve alcohol and bars that serve food. Perhaps they are all classified as restaurants. I don't know that to be the case, but its irrelevant. Anyone who thinks South Carolina doesn't have bars need only visit any college town on the weekends..... plenty of bars to be found.

Rick wants us disarmed.

This is outrageous and insulting. No one has worked harder than me at securing our right-to-carry. I support allowing carry in bars provided the permit holder refrains from dinking. I personally can refrain from drinking. I supsect Rob can too, after all his gun club has a rule against guns and alcohol.

On another note (and this will become a separate thread later), what would you think of a so called pro gun rights group that proposed legislation that would require the registration of all private transfers of all firearms, even gifts to family?

I'm certain my friend will provide details. This happened several years ago and quite frankly I've forgotten all of the details. Its just not important. It is water under the bridge. I do know that I encouraged the bill sponsor to withdraw the bill which he did. It did not pass and we never pushed it once the problems were noticed. It is truly a moot point.

Apparently it provided some motivation for GRSC which is fine with me. As I said they have done a great job and I'm proud of them. I think its silly and couterproductive to live in the past, but if others want to, that's up to them. I prefer to keep working on pro-gun legislation rather than nurse a grudge.

If you support registering all private transfers of firearms, then join Rick and the NRA in SC. If you oppose the registration of all transfers of firearms, then you will understand why GrassRoots GunRights SC came into being to oppose GOSC and their support of gun registration.

For the record, I don't support registering firearms for any reason. As stated above, the bill that apparently had such potential was pulled at my request. As I recall the original purpose was to maintain our in-state instant check system rather than go to the NICS system. Long guns are not regulated at the state level so a change allowing such was necessary. Once the proposal was drafted it became apparent that it went further than we intended. We withdrew the bill. Again, it never even came up. We have NICS and it is a moot point.

That's all I'll have to say on the above subject. If Rob chooses to post more, please understand why I have nothing more to say about it. Its ancient history and I'd like to move forward, not look back.

Finally, the above silliness notwithstanding, I encourage folks to join both GRSC and GOSC. I spoke with a candidate for Solicitor (district attorney) yesterday. I told him how to join NRA and encouraged him to join both GRSC and GOSC. I intend to join GRSC myself. I think they are doing a good job and deserve support.

Personal note to Rob: I sincerely (and publicly) apologize for anything I've done to offend you. I let it go along time ago. I sleep very well at night. I hope you will forgive me and I hope we can work together in the future. Don't let minor differences stop us from making progress. We aren't that far apart. I've made the first move. I hope you'll consider what I've said.

 

[FPrice]

The plot thickens.

More like, the plot sickens.

Reading all of this makes me think that HCI, VPC, and the Million Misguided Mommies can all sit back and just watch. Our own little internal squabbles will sink us more certainly than all the anti-gun legislation they can come up with.

 

[Al Thompson]

Frosty, it's not that bad. If you look at the progreess we've made in the last few years, some friction is bound to occur. As Rob Butler once said, "we didn't lose our gun rights overnight and we won't get them back overnight".

Nothing like these organizations even existed prior to the '90's.