Renewed My NRA Membership

[AFVet]

Now that Obama is coming after our gun rights to please his leftist base, I renewed my NRA membership for 2 years. I'm still not real happy with their stand on other Constitutional rights, but it's important that we fight this renewed assault on our gun rights.

[Jeremiah/Az]

I have been an annual member since 1960. I must have received many tons of their junk mail over the years. I don't always agree with them, but it seems like our best bet.

[aray]

I know everyone's disposable income is limited, but in addition to the NRA you might also check out the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/). I think the NRA's forte is on the legislative side (and in education). The SAF has been more aggressive on the judicial side. For example now that we have Heller and McDonald from the Supreme Court (in which the SAF played a lead role) they're marching across the country filing lawsuits seeking to overturn gun restrictions. Heller & McDonald says the 2A applies to the "individual" (not states) and that we could "keep arms" (but so far only in the homes). The SAF is now going after the "and bear arms" portion, e.g. "may issue" vs. "shall issue" in the remaining 10 states and denial of 2A rights in "declared emergencies" like we recently saw in North Carolina, etc.

I'm still fussing about the NRA and the 1A stuff from last year too (but not so much that I don't still support them). But both organizations are on our side and I think each complements the other. Or, if you're just really so mad at the NRA from their goof last year (despite their other good stuff) that you don't want to give to them anymore, then give to the SAF instead.

[.45fan]

Now that Obama is coming after our gun rights to please his leftist base, I renewed my NRA membership for 2 years. I'm still not real happy with their stand on other Constitutional rights, but it's important that we fight this renewed assault on our gun rights.

Thank you for renewing, we need all the help we can get.

Might I ask what you mean on the part I made bold?

[aray]

Thank you for renewing, we need all the help we can get.

Might I ask what you mean on the part I made bold?

I'm guessing he is referring to the DISCLOSE Act. That act was introduced in the last Congress and was a terrible assault on the First Amendment. It was an attempt to get around the Supreme Court's earlier decision which struck down part of the Campaign Finance laws. Many critics called it the "Incumbents' Protection Act".

It was a terrible piece of legislation, many of us believe. The NRA leadership initially took the position that they needed to protect their rights to lobby, and so they carved out an exception which would allow them (and a few other very large organizations) to be exempt from the bill. Most organizations however, including other pro-gun organizations such as the SAF, got left out in the cold. When the NRA was criticized for their position by their members, they replied that their focus is on the 2A, not the 1A, not campaign finance, not liberal vs. conservative, not abortion, not ... and that as a single-issue organization they are effective only to the extent that they don't engage in fights that are not theirs.

This was not a popular position. As stated even within the NRA membership, many folks did not approve of their tactics, even while understanding their strategy. I, for example, was not alone in writing, calling, and emailing the NRA and saying that they had made a big mistake on this bill. Over the next few weeks it was clear that the leadership were trying to moonwalk away from their position, but were nevertheless stuck with the deal they had made in Congress.

Fortunately, the NRA exception turned out to be a poison pill. Even folks who normally would have been for the DISCLOSE Act were appalled at the NRA cut-out. The House narrowly passed the bill, but there was insufficient support in the Senate to cut off the Republican-led filibuster and so the bill died in 2010. Obama was unhappy. So far it has not be reintroduced in the current Congress.

Personal opinion: I think they goofed. But I also think they learned their lesson. Regardless, they are on our side and we're much stronger and better off with a healthy NRA out there fighting for our gun rights.

[jocko]

Now that Obama is coming after our gun rights to please his leftist base, I renewed my NRA membership for 2 years. I'm still not real happy with their stand on other Constitutional rights, but it's important that we fight this renewed assault on our gun rights.

ain't gonna do jack sh-it thesenext wo years at least. He has far far worse issues that will end his career as president if he doesn't ge tthings back on the right track, and going after gunsis not going to get him releceted either.

He never mentioned in his stateof the union speech anything about going after guns or gun rights. He just is not going totouch that area and now with the republicans in control of the house and in 2 more years they shold get control of the senate, it just ain't gonna happen. No doubt we need to be on our toes.

[jocko]

Now that Obama is coming after our gun rights to please his leftist base, I renewed my NRA membership for 2 years. I'm still not real happy with their stand on other Constitutional rights, but it's important that we fight this renewed assault on our gun rights.

ain't gonna do jack sh-it these next two years at least. He has far far worse issues that will end his career as president if he doesn't get things back on the right track, and going after guns is not going to get him relected either. He knows that and he knows he can't win this fight, now with the party change in the house.. And the polls show that the public is not on his side with this gun control crapola either. He lives by the polls..

He never mentioned in his stateof the union speech anything about going after guns or gun rights. He just is not going totouch that area and now with the republicans in control of the house and in 2 more years they shold get control of the senate, it just ain't gonna happen. No doubt we need to be on our toes.

[AFVet]

Yes, the Disclose Act, and the NRA carve out was exactly what got me rethinking my NRA membership.

Thanks for pointing out the Second Amendment Foundation, aray. I joined. It was only $15 for the year and tax deductible to boot.

[aray]

Thanks for pointing out the Second Amendment Foundation, aray. I joined. It was only $15 for the year and tax deductible to boot.

Yeah, that is one of the cool things about the SAF (http://saf.org/). Donations are tax deductible. The reason they can get away with that is because, unlike the NRA, they don't engage in lobbying. They are a Civil Rights organization made up primarily of lawyers, devoted to gun rights as outlined by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. As such they have the same legal standing as the ACLU and so contributions to them are 100% deductible.

And they've been effective too. Prior to Heller (which said the 2A applies to individuals in DC) and McDonald (which extended the Heller decision out to the states) the Supreme Court had never ruled what the "militia" meant. Indeed many folks were afraid of taking a case up to the SC, in case they ruled that the "militia" meant the state National Guard, or some such nonsense. Sorta the gun version of "don't ask don't tell" or "leave well enough alone".

The SAF bravely pushed forward. (It would have been "foolishly pushed forward" had they lost.) They were joined in both cases by the NRA, who also argued in front of the court in both Heller and McDonald (and indeed the NRA brought up supportive but complementary and unique arguments). But even though the NRA made significant contributions to these cases, the SAF was lead.

Having won those two cases, the SAF is now out there sweeping the country trying to tear down other gun control laws (e.g. what does to "bear" in the 2A mean, ref: the 10 remaining "may issue" or "no issue" states).

And, of course, all of these new cases are being filed as Fundamental Civil Rights cases, which means if the governments lose, they can now be held liable for damages, just as they are if they violate your 1st or 4th Amendment rights.

This, of course, really bugs the heck out of the liberals, who (in their own minds) thought the were the sole owners of the Civil Rights Domain.

Sorry to be so long winded, but: 1) I wanted to explain the "why" behind the tax deduction and 2) the SAF is not as well known as the NRA, and folks need to know about them.

Both organizations are friends to our community, both have different areas of specialty, and both are worthy of our support.

[MikeyKahr]

Sorry to be so long winded, but: 1) I wanted to explain the "why" behind the tax deduction and 2) the SAF is not as well known as the NRA, and folks need to know about them.

No need to apologize at all, aray. Thanks for the good explanation and helpful information.

[.45fan]

Damn it aray, now you made me spend another $15.00 after the $250.00 NRA upgrade last week, I need to quit reading your posts for a few weeks. You are costing me a lot of money my friend. :boink:



I didn't know anything about SAF, glad to know now though. Thanks.

[JPS]

I just joined the SAF, also. I'm glad I read this thread. I didn't know about the SAF either.

[Bawanna]

Never one to miss jumpin on other peoples wagons I made the sacrifice and renewed for 3 years myself. It occurred to me that I'd let my membership lapse and just wouldn't do to preach what I don't practice.

Thanks to a couple generous contributions for my grip efforts I gave up a little to be an NRA member once again.

Hate to spend money on something I can't shoot but it needs to be supported. I've been a SAF member for awhile so I should once again be in good graces with the patriots.

[krmgator]

When the NRA supported Harry Reid in November, I decided then I would not be renewing my membership.

[Bawanna]

I've not always been pleased with some of their judgement calls and felt just as you do. I've come to realize that they are the biggest and best thing we have going for us for the time being an until something better comes a long like all branches of government filled with Ronald Reagan clones I'll support what we got.

Have to question what the heck they were thinking supporting Reid though. That's definitely sad!

[AFVet]

For those done with the NRA, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/) looks intriguing. The Ron Paul quote on their site says, "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." Might be worth checking out.

[aray]

When the NRA supported Harry Reid in November, I decided then I would not be renewing my membership.
and

Have to question what the heck they were thinking supporting Reid though. That's definitely sad!
The NRA did not endorse Reid in the last election. From their press release:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=14170


Statement From NRA-PVF Chairman Chris W. Cox On The 2010 Nevada U.S. Senate Race

Friday, August 27, 2010

In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan's confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year's confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

Prior to that they did support Reid - because Reid voted correctly on Second Amendment issues. Examples:

* 1993 Crime Weapons Bill - Reid voted "no" on the amendment which added the Assault Weapons Ban to that bill.

* In 2004 Reid supported and led through the Senate S-1805, which would have prevented third party nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors.

* Sadly anti-gun forces attached a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban (which had previously expired) to S-1805. Reid voted "no" on the amendment to the bill, but it passed anyway. Since the tort reform now contained a poison pill, Reid then switched his vote on S-1805 and helped to successfully kill the messed up bill.

There are other examples.

So, prior to the 2010 campaign, the NRA supported him. In the 2010 campaign, they withdrew their support. So they've been on both sides of the Reid fence.

I can't think of any other thing on which I agree with Harry Reid. Nothing. But the problem for the NRA is: they are a single-issue organization. On gun rights, Reid votes correctly. So should they support him, or not? It's a tough call for them.

I have no such difficulty. I'm pro-gun. But I'm also pro-life. I'm for low taxes, limited government, strong defense, traditional family values, etc. As a voter, I get to weigh several issues together and make an overall judgement. I say Reid should go.

Anyway, I'm not defending the pre-2010 NRA position, but I do understand it, given their charter. He's been good for guns. He's been bad for everything else.

[Rainman48314]

Yeah, that is one of the cool things about the SAF (http://saf.org/). Donations are tax deductible. The reason they can get away with that is because, unlike the NRA, they don't engage in lobbying. They are a Civil Rights organization made up primarily of lawyers, devoted to gun rights as outlined by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. As such they have the same legal standing as the ACLU and so contributions to them are 100% deductible.

And they've been effective too. Prior to Heller (which said the 2A applies to individuals in DC) and McDonald (which extended the Heller decision out to the states) the Supreme Court had never ruled what the "militia" meant. Indeed many folks were afraid of taking a case up to the SC, in case they ruled that the "militia" meant the state National Guard, or some such nonsense. Sorta the gun version of "don't ask don't tell" or "leave well enough alone".

The SAF bravely pushed forward. (It would have been "foolishly pushed forward" had they lost.) They were joined in both cases by the NRA, who also argued in front of the court in both Heller and McDonald (and indeed the NRA brought up supportive but complementary and unique arguments). But even though the NRA made significant contributions to these cases, the SAF was lead.

Having won those two cases, the SAF is now out there sweeping the country trying to tear down other gun control laws (e.g. what does to "bear" in the 2A mean, ref: the 10 remaining "may issue" or "no issue" states).

And, of course, all of these new cases are being filed as Fundamental Civil Rights cases, which means if the governments lose, they can now be held liable for damages, just as they are if they violate your 1st or 4th Amendment rights.

This, of course, really bugs the heck out of the liberals, who (in their own minds) thought the were the sole owners of the Civil Rights Domain.

Sorry to be so long winded, but: 1) I wanted to explain the "why" behind the tax deduction and 2) the SAF is not as well known as the NRA, and folks need to know about them.

Both organizations are friends to our community, both have different areas of specialty, and both are worthy of our support. I just joined for 5 years for $50. Thanks for bringing SAF to our attention.

[CJB]

Everyone who owns arms, should be a member of the National Rifle Association. Period.

I also believe, those members who are life members, ought not neglect to occasionally make a donation to the NRA/Institute for Legislative Action.

Those members who are also instructors, or who may also have upgraded their life memberships to Patron, Endowment or Benefactor level, should not only continue to occasionally support the NRA financially - as they are able - but also to promote the same of other members, and encourage the arms owning community at large to support the NRA with annual membership, or more.

I've met and talked with Marion Hammer, a few times, and at some length, back when she supported the gun owners of Florida. No pun intended, she is a pistol! The woman never stops, she never rests, is a cannibalistic reader of all news, especially gun news, and is about as no nonsense as it comes.

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of NRA folks doing the same thing all over the country, and in Washington, DC. These folks are tireless in their efforts of trying to ensure that US (you an' me) and OUR CHILDREN have the rights our Constitution provides. You wont find a better bunch of men and women, anyone less a patriot, short of those in the US military.

[jocko]

joined as alife member backin 1962? for $150 and had 5 years to even pay it all, best investment I ever made.

[CJB]

1962? Jocko bro, either you been around since dirt was still under warranty, or they was lettin' the diaper crowd into the NRA back then.

(no offense to those who may have "graduated" back into the diaper crowd since that time...)

[NewBlackDak]

1962? Jocko bro, either you been around since dirt was still under warranty, or they was lettin' the diaper crowd into the NRA back then.

(no offense to those who may have "graduated" back into the diaper crowd since that time...)

My wife became a lifetime member the day we married, and both my boys became lifetime members the day they were born. I have been since I was 4. It's about numbers, so I like to give 1,2, & 3 yr memberships for birthdays, Christmas, etc.

[AFVet]

It's about numbers, so I like to give 1,2, & 3 yr memberships for birthdays, Christmas, etc.

Interesting. My wife's father, besides being an Obama-bot, is anti-gun. Perhaps a nice NRA membership for Christmas would brighten his day. :)

[Bawanna]

Interesting. My wife's father, besides being an Obama-bot, is anti-gun. Perhaps a nice NRA membership for Christmas would brighten his day. :)

I thought I had it bad with a full barely english speaking swede mother in law! She was a gift compared to your father in law. I'm so sorry for you man.

[AFVet]

As you can imagine Bawanna, we don't talk politics at my in-laws. It gets heated and ugly rather quickly. LOL