Gun Clubs & NRA Membership

[Frank Ettin]

If that's what quoting Jefferson gets me, wait 'til I get around to Henry.

Quoting Jefferson, Patrick Henry or anyone else is not a reasoned response.

 

[smoking357]

I guess that's your plan then. Let us know how it works out. Have a nice day.

WIN! I just got a gun owner to crack on the Declaration of Independence. Does anyone even recognize it, anymore?

Man, CSNKY got more polite treatment for advocating the complete ban on private firearms transfers.

Pretty much as I suspected.

Since we're all just hobbyists, I'm going back to the reloading forum.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I just got a gun owner to crack on the Declaration of Independence. Does anyone even recognize it, anymore?...

I am familiar with the Declaration of Independence. But you're not John Hancock. Do you have anything worthwhile to offer this discussion?

 

[JohnBT]

"but others are entitled to disagree."

And we have facts, not just sound bites like you are using.

John

 

[hso]

I love and enjoy guns but do not feel I should have to join a nother orginization and pay there dues on top of dues at the gun club just to do some shooting and to sight in my guns.
Do others have this problem?

This has gotten prety off track of where I think the OP intended to go. All he seems to be asking about is whether having unfunded mandates from a range/club is common.

In my area there are several firing ranges. One very undeveloped outdoor range only requires you pay your key fee every time you use the range or join and pay an annual key fee while a very well developed range with outstanding facilities provides a no-sponsorship option for NRA memebrs. A commercial indoor range has no other membership requirements and a commercial outdoor clays range has no other membership requirements. A county range has no requirements either. So, out of 5 ranges locally, none of them require you to be a member of any other organization.

 

[SwampWolf]

Since we're all just hobbyists, I'm going back to the reloading forum.

Adios... When your argument, such as it is, is devoid of logical reason, is patently specious and lacks a practical application, I really can't blame you for running for cover. You may consider yourself "just a hobbyist" but don't pretend to speak for me: I am committed defender of our Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights, including,of course, the Second Amendment-the bedrock of all that we hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For over one hundred years,The National Rifle Association, for all its foibles, real, imagined or otherwise, has been the most effective deterrent against those hell-bent on taking away our God-given right to keep and bear arms. I am, have been and always will be a proud member of this revered institution. I make no apologies for my membership and will countenance no besmirching of its stellar reputation.

 

[mcdonl]

I have not joined yet, $20 is still a lot to me but whenever I order from Midway I always donate.

lol - Why cant we chose to do that on our IRS forms like we can choose to donate to the clean election fund?

 

[deadeyedog270]

This has gotten prety off track of where I think the OP intended to go. All he seems to be asking about is whether having unfunded mandates from a range/club is common.

Thanks hso I was about to say the same thing not what I intended for this thred to become a debate on the NRA I was just looking for info on what other gun clubs do,
so please every one cool down. I have no problem if the Moderator has to close and lock the thred.
Thanks

 

[btg3]

There seemed to be 2 questions...
1. The poll asks whether NRA membership is required at your gun club.
2. The original post ask if anyone has this problem.

If there's any objection to discussion of the second question, then I'm confused as to why it was posed along with the poll.

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

 

[SwampWolf]

Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

Without the NRA, the Second Amendment's continued validity is at great risk. Seriously.

 

[wlewisiii]

The NRA loves the status quo as it lets them keep playing off gun owners fears and keeps them coughing up the money. Seriously.

William

 

[jcwit]

The NRA loves the status quo as it lets them keep playing off gun owners fears and keeps them coughing up the money. Seriously.

William

If you think you have a better idea or program, IMPLEMENT IT.

Put your ideas where your mouth is. Seriously.

 

[BHPshooter]

Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

Rights do not come from the Bill of Rights, they come from God/Nature. The BOR merely affirms a few of them, in the hope that the legislature would steer clear of them.

Of course, they haven't steered clear of them in the least, and that's where the NRA-ILA comes in.

As someone previously pointed out, the NRA (not to be confused with the NRA-ILA) is involved in its original purpose: to promote and preserve marksmanship skills in the American populace. They focus on:

• Widespread, quality training for people who are new to shooting, or new to a particular shooting discipline
• Safety training for school-age children (Eddie Eagle)
• Training range safety officers
• Helping people/communities with range design
• Developing skilled, attentive instructors
• Allowing ranges an affordable avenue to insurance (as mentioned earlier)

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. I have no reservations whatsoever about supporting their education and training measures.

The NRA-ILA is who you really seem to have a beef with. I have some gripes of my own on the matter -- but the NRA is still the 800lb Gorilla, and Congress knows that they swing a big stick. Many legislative disasters, like the '34 NFA and '68 GCA, could have been much worse. I wish they hadn't been passed at all, but it could have been even worse.

I am certainly not saying that I agree with them 100% of the time, but I probably do 80% of the time... Certainly more than the 0% that I agree with VPC and the Brady Campaign.

Also, when you join the NRA, your money goes to the educational branch, not the political branch. You don't have to give the ILA a cent if you don't want to.

Wes

 

[cskny]

I knew my ears were ringing for a reason!

Hey Smoking357, I didn't know you thought:

"... but others are entitled to disagree"

I don't remember you saying that in that "other thread"

Just kidding. You seem to have made enough people mad in here without my help, so I'll shut up now.

 

[tuckerdog1]

Not required, but strongly encouraged.

Tuckerdog1

 

[TexasRifleman]

he NRA loves the status quo as it lets them keep playing off gun owners fears and keeps them coughing up the money. Seriously.

For the longest time I agreed with that, especially after what happened with Hughes.

I decided I would join and kick and scream and yell from the inside about it rather than sit on the outside where no one would listen.

I no longer believe that, but it took exposure to the goings on inside the group to see it. The reality is that the NRA isn't nearly as powerful as most people think.

There are times I wish they were. Lots of money goes into NRA, lots of money goes out, no major legislative changes. That's true. But that doesn't mean that NRA doesn't want it to change, just that change is a hell of a lot harder than it seems. With all the anti groups out there, maybe holding the status quo and small progress here and there is all we can hope for at the moment, ever consider that possibility?

The post Katrina stuff is a good example. After the New Orleans mess NRA spent a small fortune going to several states and fighting for passage of laws stopping gun confiscation during periods of emergencies. Very small progress, tiny niche law changes. VERY expensive.

 

[cskny]

I shoot at a large county subsidized facility. No NRA membership required nor is it recommended.

However, training programs required for handgun permitting DO recommend NRA membership prior to permitting for legal protection.

 

[Sam1911]

Very small progress, tiny niche law changes. VERY expensive.

And worth every single penny.

-Sam

 

[TexasRifleman]

I shoot at a large county subsidized facility. No NRA membership required nor is it recommended.

Let me make sure I understand this, not trying to start anything.

You shoot at a government subsidized range and that government entity recommends against being an NRA member?

Even if you were not an NRA fan that should bother you a great deal.

 

[cskny]

Let me make sure I understand this, not trying to start anything.

You shoot at a government subsidized range and that government entity recommends against being an NRA member?

Even if you were not an NRA fan that should bother you a great deal.



Sorry, I miss-typed or you miss-understood or both.

I didn't mean they "don't recommend it" as in they tell you that you shouldn't be in the NRA. I meant that it never comes up, period. They take no pro or anti position and make no recommendation. It sounded as if some facilities "recommend" that you be a member, although they don't expressly insist.

Again, I apologize, once you asked I could easily see how that was miss-understood.

 

[TexasRifleman]

No that's cool, I just wanted to ask. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[cskny]

No problem. It was a good question, I phrased it pretty stupidly.

 

[Orion8472]

Did the NRA have anything to do with:

Losing the battle that created the 1994 "assault weapons ban"?

Keeping another one from being drawn up after its sunset?

Creating the evidence needed for the Supreme Court to overturn the gun laws in Washington D.C.?

What has been a major victory that the NRA has had a complete hand in. . . . one that wouldn't have been won had it not been for the NRA being there.

 

[jfh]

"Did the NRA have anything to do with Loosing (sic) the battle that created the 1994 "assault weapons ban"?​

I would unquivocably say no. It really is important to understand the cultural and political climate in the late Eighties and early Nineties. There was a succesfull anti-firearms 'craze' that began in 1988 (Josh Sugarman's promotion of confusion about military-style semiauto firearms as machine guns), swept forward by Sarah Jane's successful promotion of her husband as a gun violence victim, then pushed onto the national stage by sick Willy Clinton. The result was, of course, a plethora of antigun initiatives in Congress embraced by all the Democrats and numerous RINOs--with many other Republicans looking nervously over their shoulder. Personally, I have never seen such antigun hysteria as existed at that time, not even in the Sixties following the national political assassinations.

Even with this craze running full tilt, the House had a hard time finding its majority. During this time, the NRA actively lobbied--and until a lone New York State Representative caved in (a 'Republican' IIRC), a successful passage was not assured. Once that vote was taken, the House and Senate versions had to be reconciled.

It was during the reconciliation of the Senate and House versions of the bill that the NRA was most effective. It worked behind the scenes to make sure that 1) the Democrats' attempts to build sweeping categories of illegal semiauto firearms was weakened, 2) that certain firearms had to be called out by name, and that 3) certain generic, utility models (the Mini-14) were NOT included on such named lists. Most importantly, their lobbying efforts assured the inclusion of a sunset.

Overall, the real-water carrying in this effort was done by Bob Dole for the good guys. The AWB that resulted provided something 'all' politicians could vote on--the Democrats could crow about (remember Metzenbaum's proclamation of 'the Camel's nose is under the tent!' as he revealed a new set of bills to, among other things, effectively outlaw reloading) as a success to their constituencies, while the RHINOs and other more conservative Republicans had pieces they could vote for and brag about with their constituencies.

There is no doubt in my mind that, without the NRA efforts, the 1994 AWB would not have had a sunset. Looking back now, do you really think it could have been actively repealed anytime since 2004?

Somebody else may have the cites needed to back up my contentions--I lost many of mine in a crash, and I simply don't have the patience anymore to trot them out for every NRA-naysayer who works to spread dissention and break ranks of firearms owners.

Jim H.