The NRA: Getting To The Bottom of Things

[geekWithA.45]

I've been thinking about the NRA, and its role as the premier defender of the Second Amendment.

Because much of the action that the NRA actually does takes place in the lobbys and halls of congress, and because as a rank and file member, I'm not privy to the inner workings and strategies of the board, I'm operating on incomplete information, but based on the information I have, I've drawn the following conclusions.


First, it IS the 800 pound gorilla, it IS the premier defender of 2A, and therefore is our best hope, and needs our support.

Second, I percieve a certain lack of confidence in it within the RKBA community, which is based in part on the following main general assertions that consistently crop up:

-That the NRA is adept at "compromising away" our RKBA

-That the NRA has effectively abandonded many states, most notably CA and NJ

-That the ILA rating system is out of alignment with the actual voting records of the politicians

-That they sabotage (intentionally or not) cases of merit in state and federal courts when "not invented here"

-Periodically, I come across disturbing information, like this.

Due to the apparent validity of these serious criticisms, and their consistency, I think that we need to get to the bottom of it.

---------------------
Now, whenever such assertions are made, a fairly stereotypical thread develops: NRA apologists talk about the nature of the political tradeoffs, and that a group that large is certain to displease a certain percentage, and that without the NRA we'd be well and truly screwed, and if you don't like it, run for a board seat yourself.

Rather than start yet another thread of such ilk, I'll concede those and all similiar points.
----------------------

What I want to to is propose something constructive, a mission if you will, for THR members, if you deem it warranted and choose to accept it.

First, I'm not going to do anything so ludicrous as propose building an alternative NRA. I truly believe that they're our best hope, but because RKBA is too important to not take with extreme seriousness of purpose, I believe it is our duty to ensure that our best defender remains true to mission, uncompromised, and represents the very best defense that we ingenious Americans can muster.

Therefore, I want to see what the concensus of this group is regarding the NRA, and determine whether an investigation into these allegations is warranted, with an eye towards determining if internal reform is necessary.

 

[rrader]

I consider NRA to be a worthless organization that has done very little if anything in my state (VA) to restore RKBA.

In a recent local election NRA endorsed an anti-RKBA politician who smeared our local and very effective RKBA lobbying group; the Virginia Citizens Defense League by describing it as a rabid, militia-esque group of extremists.

These type of stories; of NRA supporting anti-RKBA political candidates over pro-2nd amendment candidates, and acting to undermine other RKBA groups, are common nationally.

I have declined to join NRA and am a member of GOA, and VCDL instead.

Just my 2 cents (more than NRA will get from me).

http://www.vcdl.org

 

[Preacherman]

Geek, you've wandered on to very sensitive territory indeed. We at THR are a voluntary association of like-minded individuals (well, like-minded at least some of the time, anyway! ). We have no standing as an organization within the NRA, even though many of our members are also members of the NRA. We certainly have no standing, legal, moral or otherwise, to recommend, request, or begin an investigation of this organization.

If some of us find information about the NRA that is disquieting to us, and we publish it on this forum for other members to discuss, that's fine and well within reason. However, to say:

I want to see what the concensus of this group is regarding the NRA, and determine whether an investigation into these allegations is warranted, with an eye towards determining if internal reform is necessary.

is really taking it too far. We can't pursue internal reform in the NRA, because we're not internal to the NRA!

Finally, you said:

because RKBA is too important to not take with extreme seriousness of purpose, I believe it is our duty to ensure that our best defender remains true to mission, uncompromised, and represents the very best defense that we ingenious Americans can muster.

I agree with you 100% - and the best way to do this is to join the NRA and participate in its communication processes. I hope all of us on THR will do this, irrespective of our views on the NRA's effectiveness, so that we can make our voices heard.

I'm not sure yet whether or not this thread should be closed - it seems to me that it's dealing with an issue where THR has no real say at all. However, in the interests of fairness, I'll refer it to the other moderators for comment. We'll see what happens.

 

[Boats]

First of all, the choices are too hyperbolic for my tastes so I chose other.

Second, like the NRA is going to give little ole us the fly-on-the-wall perspective? I gotta a bridge for sale if you are that gullible.

Third, there are two possible takes on the NRA killing lawsuits or sabotaging them. The takes say as much about who makes them as they do about the NRA. One view is that a successful lawsuit will bankrupt the NRA by making it unnecessary. The other is that the NRA does not trust any current court to give the 2A a proper reading.

Even the Emerson decision, which is much celebrated here for upholding the 2A as an individual right, is not where the hardcore wants to go. Why? Because even the Emerson majority, from one of the most conservative circuits extant, said that the right is subject to "reasonable restrictions," just as if "shall not be infringed" was an ornamental phrase. If that is the outcome of any "winning" lawsuit in front of the SCOTUS, the NRA will still have plenty of infringement masquerading as "reasonable restrictions" to deal with from the usual suspects. After all, the boundaries of free speech are way more settled and the ACLU is still in business.

The worse court outcome is of course exemplified by Silveira, wherein a self-appointed 2A braintrust has so far managed to essentially turn firearms ownership into a privilege in California and threatens it as a right in the rest of the 9th Circuit.

If that kind of genius is where alternate groups want to take us, you might as well as ask Mike Myers to get into the Dr. Evil get-up and lead the 2A movement because at the rate the pro-lawsuit crowd is getting adverse judgements or half-baked wins, that'll be the level of credibility we'll have left.

In the end, the game is won or lost legislatively. No one else has even a tenth of the legislative clout the NRA has. Everyone else in the halls of power are quite frankly considered ankle biters. Talk of replacing the Big Gun or "investigating" its aim is tantamount to pass-the-bong "strategery."

 

[Mike Irwin]

I worked for NRA as associate editor of American Rifleman magazine for almost 4 years in the early to mid 1990s.

A few things that are true of any large group that deals with complex issues such as firearms rights:

1. It draws people from diverse backgrounds. Doctors, farmers, lawyers, construction workers, journalists, even politicans, and many others, both belong to the association, and have sat on the board of directors.

2. Every one of those members has a slightly different idea of what "supporting the Second Amendment" means.

I saw this VERY clearly in my days at NRA. When I was there, the board was divided, roughly, into two factions -- the competitive shooters and the legalists, and there wasn't a hell of lot of support from one side for the other. And, within those groups there were factions. The rifle people generally disliked the handgun people, the metallic silhouette people banded together, and the shotgunners, well, they generally disliked everyone, and everyone tended to dislike them.

There was also a pretty interesting subgroup (small, thank you Lord) that said "HEY! It's the National RIFLE Association! Who gives a crap about handguns or shotguns? Abandon that stance, and take us back to our roots, rifle practice!"

Then, of course, you've got the hunters, then the collectors, then the self-defense people....

And it just goes on and on and on.

When I was there, there was some SEVERELY nasty infighting on the board, a lot of it controlled by Neal Knox. Neal Knox is, to many people, the worst kind of extremist, while to others, he's a right thinking man with his priorities in order. Personally, I don't give a damn what he is, but how he was made, that's an interesting story in and of itself...

Well, Knox and Harlon Carter came together in the 1970s to foment the Great Cincinnatti Revolution, in which they seized control of the NRA from the then board and members by using parlimentary procedures at the Annual Meetings.

It was, quite frankly, what the organization needed, as at that time, it was led by I believe General Maxwell Rich, and quite frankly moving almost to completely abandon any sort of legalistic action, and in fact was seriously contemplating moving out of Washington altogether and to Colorado Springs, Colorado, to a new shooting center that was built (and which later became the US Olympic Shooting Center when NRA headed the shooting arm of the Olympic thingy).

Anyway, Carter and Knox fomented the revolution, and then made damned certain through a series of maneuvers on the board that it could never be repeated. They closed the loopholes by which they came to power.

Uhm... OK.

So, Carter forms the Institute for Legislative Action and puts Knox in charge. Within a short period of time, Knox and Carter were at loggerheads, and Knox was out, and thus began the saga of Neal Knox as the great campaigner against NRA's entrenched board of directors.

But, frankly, he's not the only one whose vision has clashed with the visions of others who have proven to be more powerful.

As I said, when I was there, there was a nasty schisim between the target people and the legal people.

Well, in the two elections after Wayne La Pierre became EVP, the shooting community on the BOD pretty much ceased to exist as La Pierre (no prince & saint himself) and his cronies used some very effective maneuvering to have their candidate slates elected to controlling interest on the board.

And so it continues, and so it always will continue, the continuous infighting amongst those whose visions for the organization differ.

Mr. Howard isn't the first member of the board to do something like this, and he won't be the last, either.

NRA's financial missteps are well known. I can tell you personally of about $60 million in fiscal stupidity/excesses, which ultimately cost me my job with the organization (and the day I was laid off was, quite frankly, was a HUGE burden lifted off my shoulders. NRA SUCKS as an employer, but that's another story).

Well, this is a long, long way of saying that no matter what happens, someone on NRA's 75 member board of directors is always going to be dissatisfied with the direction the organization is taking, the way it's spending its money, whatever.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Preacherman:

the best way to do this is to join the NRA and participate in its communication processes.

I've been an NRA member for a while, and no communication process has made itself apparent, and there's certainly no equivalent to a board like this.

I _agree_ with you in that THR in and of itself isn't internal to the NRA, and therefore its "business" to do an investigation is dubious, but I'd like to point out in my defense that THR is a significant conduit for communication by people who ARE NRA members, and I suppose I didn't make it sufficiently clear that this was aimed primarily at NRA members like myself.

Now, if it should turn out that the general drift of the community is that they want answers to the allegations, there are a number of investigational things we can do, as citizens and NRA members, such as comparisons of ratings to voting records, interviews with former and current board members, as well as with boards of other groups that allege the NRA obstructed them in some way. I certainly don't expect the NRA to mail me their budget and minutes.

Ultimately, the confidential report of the investigation can be presented to the NRA board.

As far as leverage with the board, that remains to be seen. At worst, we'll get a "gee thanks", followed by tossing the report into the trash.

At best, we will be illuminating for the NRA leadership areas where their credibility is flagging with their members, so that they can attend to fixes.

THR has been instrumental in effecting changes before, (recall the thread on carriage in a particular restaurant), and I think it might be important here, too.

 

[Matt G]

Thoughtful comments here...

...with lots of good hard reference points. Please continue to contribute with your worthy posts. We all know that this poll is not in the least binding to anything (Honestly, I've not even bothered "voting."). However, the reasoned discussion is extremely valuable.

For me, at least.

 

[Orthonym]

Voted for choice #3. Just sent in my dues + $5 towards resisting AWB renewal. Hard choice, significant money for me, but I'll grit teeth and stick with the probable optimum.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

NRA certainly has power; but rather than an 800lb gorilla, they behave more like a 10,000lb beached walrus - achieving their goals by accidentally crushing something rather than any deliberate intent.

I've seen so much hamfisted and really poor quality lobbying by NRA reps that I just want to cry. Their amicus brief for Emerson, which was a huge case, was unimpressive and totally overshadowed by other groups who submitted briefs - yet the NRA gets all the credit for Emerson.

Perhaps if NRA ever deigned to discuss with its members exactly what it was hoping to accomplish I would be more tolerant and understanding of it; but they don't communicate well (and that is with their own members) and what communication I do get leaves me with the impression that they regard me as a gullible idiot at best.

At the same time, our local state affiliate, TSRA is brilliant in every aspect. They are successful politically. They communicate what is going on with regards to lobbying effectively. They don't treat me as a vegetable that happens to sprout money.

I still believe that we are best off reforming this massive organization that we have rather than splintering into a thousand small and ineffective ones; but the NRA has lost my trust. I see a lot of smaller groups doing better work than the ILA and communicating more effectively about that work so as of this year, my monthly donation to the ILA has been diverted to those groups that I think are more effective in using my money.

 

[braindead0]

I vote: let the NRA wallow in it's own filth.

The real defenders of the 2nd are the people who will not give up their rights. And the NRA has nothing to do with it.

 

[Zedicus]

Reading this topic has brought me to one good question.
Is there an NRA type of Orginisation that is actualy making some progress?

 

[Owen]

the NRA (long)

Zedicus, on the national level, no. There is no group making progress. The NRA does seem to be successful getting its candidates elected, but the vetting process they use to select their candidates seems to be a lot less accurate than it should be. Probably most of the people on this board can tell you about anti gunners that the NRA supported. GOA is the next big group, but they always get billing as a branch of the NRA.

Geek, I don't know how you intend to perform an investigation. I doubt the NRA will give us lowly money machines the access required.

I think the NRA does need some reform. Maybe the NRA is truly acting in the interest of the 2A, but it sure doesn't look like it from where I sit. At the very least the NRA needs to let members know what is going on. The columns in the magazines seem like just more rah rah rah crap like the fundraising letters. Every NRA rep I've spoken too about the issues in my state has given me the run around without addressing my issue. It does seem to me that the NRA is trying to sabotage various lawsuits. I don't think the situation is acceptable, and I want (need?) it to change.

How about an NRA forum on The High Road? There are more than enough members here to form a powerful faction of the NRA. The advantage of THR is exactly what the NRA doesn't have...communication, a give and take forum to hammer out tactics, etc. There is no good way for ordinary NRA members to form a faction inside the NRA, so lets do it outside the NRA.

owen(Life Member)

 

[Boats]

I guess the sentiment that the NRA is wholly ineffective gets me exasperated because those who espouse it the most never offer anything constructive as a replacement/alternative.

I belong to GOA and the NRA. One could argue that they are somewhat ineffectual, but in different ways. I get great alerts and other tidbits from GOA, but it is very obvious that Larry Pratt et al, do not punch above their weight in Congress. They simply do not have the purse to buy politicians and make sure they stay bought. The NRA simply doesn't care what I think, only that I donate, and then they do their own thing.

As for the TSRA and others like it, bravo-zulu as far as it goes. It is easy to look great on firearms in places like Texas. It is simplicity itself to monitor one spot of trouble in Austin and be nimble in response. I'd be more impressed if the TSRA could send some activists to states like California and New Jersey and put their vaunted savvy to the test. I believe they'd find the same thing that the NRA finds in such places, infertile ground that eats seed money in exchange for nothing. Too many hostiles are present to make decent headway and the courts are corrupt. Has the NRA really "abandoned" places like California, NJ, IL, and MA? Probably, but with ample reason.

I am no NRA apologist. They need to be watched like a hawk with both eyes to guard against a distressing reflex of compromise, even when they are arguing from a position of strength. However, one must also acknowledge reality as it is rather than how we wish it to be. The NRA can hardly count on 51 solid pro-freedom votes in the Senate and can't defeat a filibuster in any event. None of the courts as constituted can dare be trusted to give a non-conditional individual rights view of the 2A, and President Bush, the best of a bunch of mediocre 2A opinions in the presidential field is all they have to work with in the executive.

There is no way, in even this nominally favorable political and legal climate, that we are going to get a postive repeal of the AWB or the '86 machine gun ban, not to mention any other repeals worth having. We will be darn lucky to see the gun lawsuit ban survive Democrat attempts to kill it.

It took 70 years to get into the current mess, yes sometimes with the NRA's willing or grudging compromises. We aren't going to get back to the 1920s in a year or two, especially with the blissninnies in charge of the schools and the media continually demonizing weapons as inherently evil.

However, there have been pluses. CCW is now the majority. Reciprocity is the current trend in those states that have it, and Vermont style carry is the next logical step. The antis have been losing politically and legally, even in places where one would least expect it like Maryland and federal courthouses in Brooklyn. The AWB, barring another groundshaking "assault weapons" incident, has no chance at all of continuing. It also looks as if the Democratic party might be a little more neutered in the next round of Senate races if the Republicans play it right and the economy picks up a little. This may not enable restoration of facets of the 2A that have been lost, but it will marginalize the Schumerites to voices in the wilderness rather than serious threats of new laws.

And love them or hate them, politics and campaigning is where the NRA generally shines and has no peer on either side of the RKBA issue.

 

[KMKeller]

Interestingly, did you know that Gunowners of America is supporting the Hatch/NRA S. 1414, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As for the TSRA and others like it, bravo-zulu as far as it goes. It is easy to look great on firearms in places like Texas. It is simplicity itself to monitor one spot of trouble in Austin and be nimble in response. I'd be more impressed if the TSRA could send some activists to states like California and New Jersey and put their vaunted savvy to the test.

Admittedly, TSRA has an easier time of it, in no small part because the culture here in Texas still supports gun-ownership. However, I encourage you to take a look at Alice Tripp's lobbying column in the online edition of TSRA Sportsman. This is an excellent example of the type of communication with its members that the NRA sorely needs and lacks. It is also something that can be done regardless of the political culture you face locally.

I think you make excellent points and I imagine that most of the complaints regarding the NRA would disappear if members simply had the slightest idea what they were trying to do in some cases - because it doesn't always appear all that swift, effective or even coherent.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the NRA could certainly benefit from an independent audit, and thurough investigation of it's operations. I also think that it's not going to happen. Well, short of a RICO suit, or something similar.

LaPierre's grip on the organization has now been consolidated, and there's no realistic way to reform it from within. The reason being that there simply isn't a means of communicating with the membership as a whole that isn't tightly censored by the people in control. There are no forums like this at the website, nothing but sacarine praise gets published in the Rifleman's letters column, the vast majority of NRA members know nothing of what's going on with the NRA except what the NRA choses to tell them. It doesn't matter if they have the vote, if they have to cast that vote based only on information provided by one source.

Things will have to get a LOT worse before the NRA can be reformed.

 

[Bruce H]

The NRA lika any organization of this nature needs the same thing the House and Senate need.Term limits.

 

[Jim March]

OK, first, most of y'all will remember that I've been consistently one of the NRA's strongest supporters.

Until earlier this year, when they turned on me.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3601

I have a theory as to what's going on. LaPierre has linked the NRA's fortunes to the GOP.

This is nothing new. Back during the California governor's race with Davis vs. Lungren, both were anti-gun...Lungren, the former state AG, was if anything worse than Davis.

But the Fairfax NRA crew ordered the California NRA guys to back Lungren.

Because of his stance against abortion.

Once seen through this "GOP filter", a lot of stuff starts to make sense. In a recent (extreme) case, the NRA supported a cover-up of information on the misconduct of sheriffs in the handling of CCW (see URL above, esp. the video). Most of those sheriffs are Republicans.

In a state like California, I think the NRA sees their sole possible remaining mission as being to gain political points with the Bush administration and the National GOP. That being the primary goal, things sometimes get done that advance the national GOP interests at the expense of the RKBA in a given state.

Is my theory right? Is most if not all of the misconduct being seen, being done in order to advance the GOP?

If so, the way to break it is to take the evidence to moderate and pro-gun Dems.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Wrapping it up...

So, this poll's been up for a while, and it looks like everyone who's inclined to vote has done so.

My thoughts:

Now, I _know_ that the validity of these things is bumpkus, but it seems to me that the results are striking: 79.24% of ya'll have sufficient doubts about the NRA's handling of things that they want answers to questions, and only 9 of 53 are willing to bet their guns on the NRA.

-----------------------------------------

Folks have voted slightly more for the more strongly worded "The NRA's off course" option as opposed to the less strongly worded "they're doing as well as can be expected". This surprised me.

-------------------------------------------

Another frequently cited objection is the relative lack of substantive communication from the NRA to the membership.

examples:

The columns in the magazines seem like just more rah rah rah crap like the fundraising letters.

and what communication I do get leaves me with the impression that they regard me as a gullible idiot at best.

I myself find myself faintly annoyed at the breathless tact their fundraising letters take.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most illuminating was Mike Irwin's post on the inner machinations of the NRA's board. It seems that they're probably a microcosm of the American gunowner in general: not exactly cohesive, and perhaps a bit too unwilling to see how defending someone else's firearms turf (duck hunters vs milspec, long guns vs handguns, target shooters vs hunters, everybody vs self defenders, etc) is actually beneficial, in that their flanks are covered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

All in all, it seems to me that there's a significant erosion of trust among their own members, and this may illuminate why only 4 million out of a postulated 100 million gunowners are members. It seems to me that at the very least, they oughta situp and take notice.

To be honest, I'm surprised.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final thought: transition to action?

While this poll was fun and illuminating, shall we use it as a springboard for constructive action to help out the NRA?

(I don't discount the possibility that it would be an entirely wasted effort)

If you're willing to do some legwork, PM me, and we'll see what we shall see.