NRA On The Hot Seat - Exposed or Attacked?

[runningmt]

I put more faith in biographies than autobiographies. Just sayin. Don’t send a link to the NRA’s website as a justification for the NRA. There’s likely to be a slight bias there. Especially given their more recent “history”.

Well said

 

[rwc101]

I remember the look my father gave me when I signed up for a youth NRA membership at a gun show he took me to. He let me make my own mistakes and realize them myself.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If someone could set me down and truly explain how a 12 inch barrel is more deadly than the 16 inch barrel I would love to hear it.

Easier to hide a 12inch barrel under a trench coat would be my assumption.
Also I could be wrong but I believe that law was enacted a couple decades before AR-s were invented and was in direct response to the gangster era violence Capone, Dillinger, etc.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

A lot of folks probably see it that way. The lawyers, accountants, tax specialists, and regulators see it a lot different.

When you form a non-profit organization you are filing under the Corporation laws of the state you are choosing to have as your domicile. To be recognized, you incorporate there, filing articles of incorporation, and in doing so, make yourself subject to the Corporation laws (both for-profit and no-profit corporation laws) of that state and any other states you choose to do business in.

Part of that comes with requirements you must follow; by-laws, governance rules, "reasonable and prudent person" standards, self-dealing rules, conflict of interest, self-inurement, and a host of other rules/laws/principles that govern how your for-profit or non-profit must operate. You then put yourself under the purview of the Secretary of State and Attorney General of that state.

Add to that, if a corporation chooses to be a qualified non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) you then subject yourself to even more constraints, rules, and guidelines.

The NRA knew all of this. In fact, for many years it was discussed often in the shooting circles whether or not the NRA should move to a less hostile state when it comes to 2A issues. It was well-known they had an exposed flank by being charted/incorporated in NY state.

Then, they get suckered into the insurance business with the blessing of the four folks indicted, which now puts them in a completely different set of regulatory oversight. Bad enough to expose your organization to all those insurance regulations if you are making big money to do it, but when you are losing your ass on this insurance venture in addition to subjecting yourself to more regulation, that is grounds for Executive and Director malpractice/malfeasance.

None of this was/is a surprise to people who regularly operate in these confines. It surely was not a surprise to the attorneys and tax advisors at the NRA. Just whether or not the advisors were listened to by management and the Board. If the NRA was a publicly traded company and this happened, they would probably start clearing out cells in Leavenworth to let these folks join Bernie Madoff and the Enron scammers.

And yes, still each persons' choice if they do/don't want to donate. But not the choice of management and Board of Directors to ignore the rules and laws of the states they incorporate in.



Yes, that surely plays into it. But, the NRA played right into that trap by their own mismanagement and questionable decisions.

Gotcha, that makes sense, guess I never realized how many rules they had to follow. And for sure seems they made numerous near sighted poor decisions.

 

[mtmuley]

I Just sayin. Don’t send a link to the NRA’s website as a justification for the NRA.

I must have missed where that link "justified" the NRA. mtmuley

 

[mdeerjunkie]

I’ll give more money to RMEF then the NRA any day of the week. It’s sad how power and money can corrupt people and organizations.

 

[runningmt]

I must have missed where that link "justified" the NRA. mtmuley

I think by “justified” he might mean the NRA used to do valuable things other than line Wayne LaPierre’s pockets.

 

[Jwill]

I dropped my membership several years ago, but the problem that I have with the negligence that has been tolerated by the NRA board and members is that it's putting all gun owning Americans' 2A rights at risk. Hopefully some leadership emerges to right the ship, but at this point it looks like they're just doubling down...

 

[RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter]

I'll got ahead and stick my neck out. Big Fin said it well when he said "This is gonna get ugly". I think that speaks to how hard it has become to have a reasonable discussion about any hot-button issue in this country. We tend to be so busy trying to build a defensible position that we don't notice we are walling ourselves in.

I am not an NRA member and I am unlikely to ever become one. I do believe in the Second, and I am thankful we have it. I am not thankful for an organization that has lobbied successfully to prevent the government from ordering a product recall for safety reasons for a firearm. As a gun owner, that is not in my interest. The way they operate has never struck me as more than self-serving (but to say so seems to make me some filthy liberal).

I also agree with those who have voiced their concern about backing politicians who are against public land (and yeah, that is a 2nd amendment issue big-time).

Beyond that, I do believe we could have a productive nuanced discussion in this country about guns. I think the NRA is one of many things that stand in the way of that conversation.

 

[BrentD]

RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter
I agree with everything you said, though I am an NRA member.

On thing all of us should remember is that the NRA gets paid to fight battles, not to win wars. In fact, if the NRA was really good and actually won the war, they would be out of business.

This inherent conflict of interest is common to many activists and their causes. They just love the camaraderie of the fight and lose sight of the original objective.

 

[longbow51]

RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter
I agree with everything you said, though I am an NRA member.

On thing all of us should remember is that the NRA gets paid to fight battles, not to win wars. In fact, if the NRA was really good and actually won the war, they would be out of business.

This inherent conflict of interest is common to many activists and their causes. They just love the camaraderie of the fight and lose sight of the original objective.

I like the post, unfortunately the battle can never be won. The left will keep coming back again and again, although I don't know what effect armed mobs stopping cars, etc. might have on some folk's take on the 2nd Amendment. As with all things, time will tell.

 

[BrentD]

I like the post, unfortunately the battle can never be won. The left will keep coming back again and again, although I don't know what effect armed mobs stopping cars, etc. might have on some folk's take on the 2nd Amendment. As with all things, time will tell.

I disagree longbow51. But it will take an entirely different battle plan to get there from here. The NRA is not intrested in that battle plan.

 

[longbow51]

I disagree longbow51. But it will take an entirely different battle plan to get there from here. The NRA is not intrested in that battle plan.

I hope you are right, but I don't see how you stop the left from going after the Second once and for all; you can't deny them access to the courts. If you can though, and form the organization to carry it out, you've got my money and millions of others. Bully for you!

 

[BrentD]

I hope you are right, but I don't see how you stop the left from going after the Second once and for all; you can't deny them access to the courts. If you can though, and form the organization to carry it out, you've got my money and millions of others. Bully for you!

I am not organizing anything, thank you.

But the process is fairly simple, not to be confused with easy. We made the Germans, British, and Japan among our strongest allies even though they killed many, many thousands of us. How did we do that? How do you make any perceived enemy a friend?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Brent I truly hope you are correct and some sort of moderation wins the day. However, based on Biden’s stated gun control platform (polls are quite favorable for him right now) and the never ending onslaught ($billions) from the far left, anti-gun activists with Bloomberg and his coalition, things do not look promising long term for gun owners. Anti-gun folks have put together a long term winning strategy, slow asphyxiation of the gun industry through increased gov regulation (it’s all common sense, right) and exposing them to widespread liability/litigation. They clearly have the money and support to execute this plan. With the NRA out of the way, the remaining grass roots gun owners orgs will not have to means to battle Bloomberg, DNC and company. On a positive note, the grinding inertia of getting things done in DC could actually benefit gun owners and delay/degrade many gun control measures. It’s easy for politicians to talk about aggressive action but it is usually quickly met with the reality of DC politics, resulting in some sort of compromise/watered down version at best.

 

[Glockster]

Easier to hide a 12inch barrel under a trench coat would be my assumption.
Also I could be wrong but I believe that law was enacted a couple decades before AR-s were invented and was in direct response to the gangster era violence Capone, Dillinger, etc.

Could be, if this is the case it is laughable.

 

[RG_Adult_Onset_Hunter]

I am not organizing anything, thank you.

But the process is fairly simple, not to be confused with easy. We made the Germans, British, and Japan among our strongest allies even though they killed many, many thousands of us. How did we do that? How do you make any perceived enemy a friend?

For starters, language matters. Again, the building walls thing is a problem. You can't have the conversation without someone bringing up "the radical [pick a direction right or left] wants to [insert crazy/stupid thing here]". I think this constant demonization of the other side is problematic for several reasons. For one, it instantly shuts down a chance for dialogue. It also encourages a sort of binary thinking (either you're are with us or against us). Peoples views are generally a bit more complex than a simple right or left, and I for one get really irritated when I get told which of those two boxes I am (neither, I make up my mind based on the best information I can find thank you). This is another big issue because it promotes a sort of winner-take-all pendulum of extremes version of politics. Our system was designed to promote a sort of balance to governance, but that balance has been largely removed and replaced with a sort of ideological extremism that most folks I talk to don't seem to hold.

At the end of the day polititions will do what they think their base want them to. If our language is that of demonizing the other side, you can bet you are starting an ideological war. It only takes one election (or one crap candidate on your side that needs to be removed) to lose that war. And you only need to lose that war once. The NRA helped create this sort of constant "if it were not for us the calamity would occur" attitude, while creating the political zeitgeist for that exact calamity to occur. Dictators do that crap, and get away with it because it is easy to scare people into action (or inaction), but I think an educated public should not put up with it. We as hunters, sportsman, and defenders of the outdoors can do WAY better.

I have some pretty far left friends, every one of them asks me about hunting. I talk to them, I feed them wild game. We talk about guns and gun legislation calmly. It can be done; drop the NRA party lines and make that effort. You may learn something (I did) and you might teach something too (I did). That's how you build allies, you shake hands and show each other you are human. It starts there and requires constant effort.

 

[rwc101]

How do you make any perceived enemy a friend?

There it is. The solution to the gun control debate is both sides buying alcohol for each other.

 

[BrentD]

I have some pretty far left friends, every one of them asks me about hunting. I talk to them, I feed them wild game. We talk about guns

Spot on. I TAKE them hunting if they will go. I TAKE them shooting to shoot whatever they want. I love to show them my old guns. It is easier to get them to pick up an 1894 Marlin than a Sig M400 for the first time. Or better yet, a Winchester 1885 in .22 of course. But the point is, you RECRUIT THEM. A little at a time. And even if they don't come completely over to my side, at the very least they had a good experience and the gun didn't jump up and kill them spontaneously, and it didn't turn themselves into homicidal maniacs. So, maybe they only go from vehemently anti-gun to just sorta anti-gun. I'll take that for now. Most of them are not that vehement, and so more often they become ambivalent or better. If you can't get one of them to go but you get a couple of their friends, you still make a favorable impression. It doesn't happen overnight. It happens as you make opportunity for it to happen.

Anyway, the only way the war can be won is to recruit the "enemy". You cannot overwhelm the "enemy" and win. You will just fight another day. And, to start, I'll quit calling them the "enemy" 'cuz they ain't.

 

[bullbugle307]

No I clearly understood you. For a brief second I hoped that your post was sarcasm but you clearly fall into that group pro second amendment with an asterisk beside it.
Just so there’s no confusion the asterisk means that you really don’t support the Second Amendment.
There in lies the problem any group that you would support which I will assume would be Bloomberg-based are not going to have a whole support from most gun owners. Reference my first post there a gun owners(you) and then there are people who believe in the Second Amendment(not you)

I disagree. There needs to be an asterisk. And IMO, the presence of rational limitations on the right to bear arms doesn't negate the right to bear arms or make anyone who supports those limitations anti 2A. It's pretty clear to me that our rights are not always absolute, they always come with some limitations. I don't have the absolute right to free speech without consequences. I don't have liberty to do whatever I damn well please in the pursuit of my happiness either.

I think a segment of gun owners, like you, have created a false dichotomy in regards to the 2A, thinking it should be limitless or your rights have been infringed upon. It's simply not true.