NRA Gag Order Angers Membership

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I have seen watching the NRA in action over the years is that they only jump in and try to take over a case once it looks like it is a sure thing. They did this in Miller and they did this in McDonald. They've done this in many other cases that I can not remember offhand at the moment.

I've been a life member for over 12 years and an annual member for several decades before that. I am sick of the NRA compromising away my rights. I am sick of the NRA trying to appear "reasonable" to the gun grabbers as if that will make them liked or listened to by the enemy. IMHO the downward spiral of the NRA began soon after La Pierre became King for life.
 
They did this in Miller
Click to expand...

I assume you meant Heller here, not Miller. Miller was in 1939.

As for Heller, that's been talked about before with much debate, no need to rehash it. Heller was a calculated risk. NRA took the too conservative approach though, without a doubt.
 
Sorry, brain fart. Yes, Heller.

Although they were around for Miller and could have joined in. After all, the firearm in question was undeniably a military use weapon.
 
Two posts. Did you sign up just to bash the NRA "Libertarian"? We expect that from posers, but not from true freedom loving folks.

The NRA is the best thing going for gun rights, whether we agree with everything they do/say or not. There seem to be many people whos main goal is to discredit and destroy them. Some of them pretend to be gun folks who belong to the NRA, but "just can't support them anymore".

Rant off, and apologies if I am wrong. ;)
 
Disinformation

Y'know, some of y'all need to take a step back and breathe.

As has been pointed out, "gag orders" come from courts and from elected officials having that scope of power.

Further, I see that everyone has forgotten to mention that the board of Boeing will not be on hand to testify either -- which clearly shows there's some kind of conspiracy here.

In fact, I have a long list of corporations and associations whose board members will not be invited to testify. Like all of them.

Some of you are easily stampeded.

Our opposition is really good at throwing "chaff" to distract us from seeing what really requires our attention. It's actually a policy with them: isolate & demonize.

They're doing their best to isolate the NRA and drive a wedge between it and its membership, as well as other organizations that should be its allies.

I would invite you not to take the bait.

Instead of making them your target (and thus validating our opponents' countermeasures), it will be orders of magnitude more effective if you 1) make your voice heard in D.C., 2) make your voice heard in your state, 3) isolate the actual opposition and turn your energies on them.

The NRA is the wrong target.

You need to engage the right target.

 
Let's see....

Heller... win

McDonnald... win

I think the NRA knows how to play the game to win and strategizes well enough.

Face up to the facts my friends... The Dems hold the Whitehouse, senate and house of reps. and the "limp wristed" republicans don't have the sack that they did back when Nute led the charge for the "Republican revolution"....

Obamma is going to replace a liberal justice with another liberal justice and leave us hanging on a thin string of 5:4 votes for some time.

The mid terms are coming.... save your engergy and make sure you get your arse out there and pull the right levers in November.

I'd honeslty like to know how many on this fine forum were duped into voting for Obamma in '08
 
No Walkalong. I joined on December 24, 2002 and made a post then promptly forgot the link. I got a PM from the site and thought I'd come back and take a look. The top story was this one and I have my own thoughts on it, so I posted.

How many posts does one need before one can have a strong opinion that is counter to some others?
 
Let's see....

Heller... win

McDonnald... win

I think the NRA knows how to play the game to win and strategizes well enough.
Click to expand...
Yet, in neither case was the NRA on board from the beginning. IIRC they refused to join Heller until it looked like it was a sure thing. Then they had bragging rights. Had it looked like a loser, they wouldn't have joined and been able to say "See? We knew we shouldn't waste our time and money!"

I'm sorry if this offends some of you. I just think that NRA has lost its way and is no longer responsive to the less compromising membership. They pander to the sporting gun and expensive O/U owners. When was the last time you saw a director hold up an EBR at a convention and say "From my cold dead hands!" Never in my memory. Being too open about support for EBRs for civilians looks bad to the Bradys and others. (Unfortunately, unless the NRA went totally anti-gun, the anti-gunners will never see them as reasonable. "Reasonable" when it comes to gun laws is code for a total ban.)

In any case, I stopped supporting them a while back and only donate to GOA now.
 
In any case, I stopped supporting them a while back and only donate to GOA now.
Click to expand...

An organization that has never been credited with any successful lobbying or legislative change?

I'm a GOA member too, but let's be honest about all of the pro 2A groups and what they can and cannot do.

NRA
SAF
GOA

In order of effectiveness that would be hard to argue I think.
 
Effectiveness ranking?

NRA in politics
SAF in the courts
GOA nowhere

GOA exists to collect money for itself, and undermine the NRA.

If you're in a battle, the guy who spends all his time shooting at your ally is not your ally. He's your enemy.
 
While I understand that technically it's not truly a "gag order", the article cited in post #13 by dc.fireman corroborates the schism that has developed between some of the NRA Board and the Executive Director of NRA-ILA.
That article is titled:

NRA Discourages Board Members From Testifying Against Kagan

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/27/nra-discourages-board-members-from-testifying-against-kagan/
Of three NRA board members I contacted, only one confirmed "explicitly and directly" receiving any sort of directive that could be interpreted as a "gag order" regarding Kagan. But all three sources confirmed that NRA board members actively opposed to Sotomayor's confirmation have been severely chastised "to the degree that they would not speak out against Kagan" (as one board member – who requested anonymity – told me)....
Click to expand...
 
Out of curiosity, when have the NRA board of directors been called to testify in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing? This is the second red herring issue I have seen involving the NRA in two weeks. First the non issue involving the DISCLOSE act, now this.
 
Welcome to the GOA, 19&41. This is their purpose. Attack the NRA. Produce no substantive lobbying results. Whine and complain about the NRA. Lather, rinse, repeat.......
 
Out of curiosity, when have the NRA board of directors been called to testify in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing? This is the second red herring issue I have seen involving the NRA in two weeks. First the non issue involving the DISCLOSE act, now this.
Click to expand...

GOA exists to collect money for itself, and undermine the NRA.

If you're in a battle, the guy who spends all his time shooting at your ally is not your ally. He's your enemy.
Click to expand...


Excellent!!!!

Strange that all of this stuff is coming from places like redstates and politicsdaily. If the NRA had actually tried to "gag" board members it would be all over the mainstream media. The fact that it is not all over the mainstream media tells me that it is disingenuous at best and a bold faced lie at worst.

The GOA is a very small gun rights wannabe organization that has no clout in congress or anywhere else. The GOA exists to bash the NRA. NRA board members are elected by rank and file NRA members. No one in the NRA can "gag" a board member.

This NRA board member says it never happened:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=156&t=1058684

RAF......

Brother, I am on the NRA BoD.......

This is nonsense and untrue.

Joe
Click to expand...
 
What's laughable to me is that the annual or life membership dues do not go to fighting 2nd amendment issues anyway, those funds come from members who donate above and beyond their membership dues to support the fight. But as soon as someone sees even a biased report claiming the NRA screwed the pooch on some issue, we see the replies that "I'm quitting" immediately. My guess is that those who do so weren't really much of a benefit to the cause anyway, and we'll not miss their continued "support" too much.

And I'd venture to say many aren't even truly NRA members anyway, but really like to bitch about anything they can find.
 
It does seem that John Boehner (R,Ohio) went out of his way to criticize the NRA leadership, and NRA members are also a part of his loyal conservative constituency. So by criticizing the NRA he's taking a risk if his criticism is considered to be wrong or unwarranted.

... The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill. The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don’t care about protecting the First Amendment. That’s very disappointing.

http://johnboehner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=192240
Click to expand...
 
If John Boehner suddenly cares so much about the First Amendment then I suggest that he join the ACLU. The NRA is a Second Amendment advocacy group.
 
Libertarian said:
Yet, in neither case was the NRA on board from the beginning. IIRC they refused to join Heller until it looked like it was a sure thing. Then they had bragging rights. Had it looked like a loser, they wouldn't have joined and been able to say "See? We knew we shouldn't waste our time and money!"
Click to expand...

It has been the same with the McDonald v. Chicago case. The case made it all the way to a grant of cert and the NRA scrambled in and petitioned the Court for some of Alan Gura's time at oral - though in retrospect, the Court having rejected cert for NRA v. Chicago did include the question of due process which the NRA wished to pursue.

It will remain a mystery as to whether the NRA's involvement pushed or "allowed" the Court to lean toward due process and away from privileges or immunities. Thank Heaven for Justice Thomas, though, and his understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, and his willingness to stand up for what's right. (This is not to say that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy went the wrong way, or were weak - due process is as much a part of the Fourteenth Amendment as is privileges or immunities. It's just that privileges or immunities carries so much more weight.)


As for the funding, it's pretty much common knowledge that the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of Otis McDonald and the three other Chicago residents in the case. That said, I'm sure the NRA paid a significant amount for their case as far as it went, and for Paul Clement's time in McDonald.

As for the Board of Directors of the NRA appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and testifying in Kagan's hearings, yes, we know that won't happen. But being told not to speak out about her IS a gag order and would prevent our Board members to exercise their influence over the Senators who will all get to vote yea or nay if she passes out of committee - which is likely - and who would think this appointee will not have a detrimental effect on each and every case concerning the RKBA and the Second Amendment? If there is one iota of truth to this ...

How many here caught Wayne LaPierre on Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk"? He fell into lawyerese when Tom had him cornered. Right when honesty would have been the right tack, off he went. Go to the archives at Tom's website, and download hour two of June 20, 2010, labeled "Guntalk 2010-06-20 Part B" and listen for yourself. I, for one, am disappointed in Wayne's lack of candor - especially to the folks he works for!

None of this would be happening if there weren't a modicum of truth to it. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify". Lately, I've had to lean heavily on the verify, and I don't like what I perceive to be.

So, again I ask the NRA Board of Directors, and the "Executive Committee?" for their voting records so I may make informed decisions at election time. For now, something smells fishy and it ain't the chicken.

I wonder why there hasn't been a refutation of this published by the NRA yet.

Woody
 
This needs to be reposted at least 3x per page.


"Quote:
RAF......

Brother, I am on the NRA BoD.......

This is nonsense and untrue.

Joe"
 
The NRA staff cannot tell the NRA BOD to do anything. The staff, including LaPierre, works for the NRA BOD.

This stuff is a malicious lie designed to stir up discontent. It is being spread by dedicated NRA haters.

From a closed thread on another website:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=414824

"NRA Members of New York,

There are a myriad of rumors regarding the NRA cluttering the internet but one in particular is causing me personal anguish. That rumor reports that the NRA staff has issued a gag order to the NRA Board of Directors regarding comments on the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court. Let me explain something about the structure of the NRA; authority to do anything within the NRA comes from you the members of the NRA. That authority is delegated to your elected Board of Directors who in turn elects officers and formulate policy that is then issued to the Executive Vice President/CEO who then turns that policy into action through the professional staff. Gag orders for the Board of Directors do not exist.

Friends; those of you close to me should know by now that telling me I can’t speak up on an issue of vital importance to the 2nd Amendment is going to get you into a war. I spoke vociferously regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; in fact I joined a number of national 2nd Amendment leaders protesting the appointment and urging through a nationally published letter she not be confirmed. I did that because of her ties to New York State and the position she took, on then recent, anti 2nd Amendment decisions. I have not taken a position on Elena Kagen’s nomination to the Supreme Court because I find it absurd that anyone with no judicial experience would be nominated to the Supreme Court and fervently hope the Republican Senators will block this nomination.

The 2nd Amendment protects all the rest. Why would the NRA, the protector of the 2nd Amendment, attempt to limit the 1st Amendment rights of its’ own Board of Directors? It does not but if you think the Board members you voted for could be gagged then you voted for the wrong guys.

Tom King

NRA Board of Directors

President
Click to expand...
 
I have to agree. The NRA has enough on its plate without taking on 1A issues. That's a matter for the ACLU...and of course, the voting public.
Click to expand...

The NRA initially backed the Supreme Court decision.

“This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre in a statement on Jan. 21. “This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.

On May 26, the NRA had announced opposition to the bill as “intimidating speech,” but dropped opposition after the carveout.

from this article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...eal-with-the-NRA-kill-campaign-finance-reform
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top