TexasCHLforum.com

I just want to add, there's a clear choice if you don't like the NRA:

• Don't join, like the 80 million or so people who own firearms and don't join.
• Give your money and resources to a group that you think does a better job.
• Get involved in the NRA and change it, like the thousands of people who have given a significant part of their lives and fortunes to the NRA's work.

I'm not the only one in this discussion who already has his mind made up, and I don't want to get into another dead-horse beating.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:[*]Get involved in the NRA and change it . . .

- Jim

Kind of covers the rest of it. "I'm not going to join until you change" might work in some cases, it's why I am not a member of AARP, because they won't change no matter what the membership says, but the NRA is a membership driven organizatiom, and we, the members, have successfully changed its direction in the past. The NRA is a large organization, with plenty of inertia holding it on its current path, if you think it needs to go a different direction get lots of other people to join, like we did in the 60s, and change it, like we did in the 60s. We didn't get everything we wanted, but we got more than we would have just sitting around saying "I ain't going to join until they change to suit me."

Quoting the letter linked in the OP:

NEXT: I’ll join the NRA…

2. When the NRA aggressively presses to abolish all concealed carry permit laws.

Unregistered concealed carry has been no big issue in both Alaska and Vermont for decades. Arizona just passed unregistered concealed legislation. It’s time for the NRA to start swimming strongly with this tide. Yes, it’s a victory for gun owners when a State like Minnesota finally allows registered carry, but we must see it for what it still is: an un-Constitutional infringement on our G-d* given right to self defense, see: “The Ten Commandments of Self Defense”. It is also an obvious way to add more gun owner names to a list and database. (*Out of respect, observant Jews do not write out the name of the Almighty in secular texts.)

How has an unalienable right to self defense been demoted to a revocable government granted privilege?

How can a rational person make the fundamental assumption that if a state abolishes its concealed carry laws, that unrestricted firearms carry will automatically replace it? That is dumb, and it betrays a political naivety that is astounding for anyone claiming to be an advocate for anything in these United States.

If the NRA successfully pressured Texas into abolishing CHL, we would merely be back to status ante 1995. No kind of carry would be legal, except possibly MPA. The man who wrote this letter is a fool.

chabouk wrote:I agree. But, as uncomfortable as the truth might be, the NRA had a hand in crafting every major piece of federal gun control legislation. Starting with NFA '34, through GCA '68, to the Brady Acts.

Sounds to me like you have been reading too much of Angel Shamaya's interpretation.

NRA was not involved in "crafting" NFA '34, they hardly even knew what legislation was, and their involvement in negotiating changes to GCA '68 saved us from far worse. I wasn't there in '34, but I was deeply involved in '68, and our, the membership's, dissatisfaction with the way things went led, in part, to the ascension of Harlon Carter and the formation of a lobbying arm that is often touted as second to none.

Just think where you would be without the NRA.

Where we would be without the NRA. Probably one musket per household (if everyones record was spotless) with a bright orange stock and a GPS device if you're lucky. That's the good news. The bad news is there is no ammo. Sale of gunpowder is illegal. If you do score some ammo, you can't shoot without written permission from the sheriff.

seamusTX wrote:

pbwalker wrote:But that's my point...do we just give up or tone it down? No! We draw attention to the fact that it has worked in VT and AK. We (the NRA) need to be more vocal about these things. Like it was mentioned by another forum member, the NRA seems to be preaching to the choir most of the time.

I'll make a prediction: If you bottonhole any casual acquaintance who is not already interested in this issue and tell him that it is legal in Vermont and Alaska to carry just about any weapon anywhere without a license, first, he won't believe you. Then he will say that those states have different circumstance, like being more rural and having animal predators (bears, etc.).

If you continue the conversation, it will lead to Texas having more criminals and crime, and often race and ethnic prejudice enter the discussion.

That is how we got to where we are today.

I'm not saying not to try. I asking how to achieve it. The tactics used by JPFO and GOA haven't worked. I don't see people giving them more than the price of a box of ammo once a year, either.

- Jim

Agreed. I care less than nothing about what Alaska or Vermont did, or any other state for that matter.

I don't have a problem with the NRA. They may not be doing things in accordance with my own personal agenda and goals, but they are pretty much representative of how I feel about RKBA issues.
Simply put, the vast majority of talking-points brought up in the article are valid on their face. It is when you go into the little paragraphs explaining the authors take on them that it seems to go off into LaLa land.
My thoughts are that the NRA is slowly and carefully peeling away the nasty-smelling layers of the Gun Control Onion that we have seen grow over the years and generations. What the author fails to realize is that if you take a knife and cut straight into that Onion (remove all currently existing restrictions on RKBA and related issues), you create such a big stink that none of it is palatable to the general public.
I believe that a fair number of us all want to achieve the ultimate goal of minimal restrictions and almost total rollback of any laws and regulations that contravene the intent of the Second Amendment. Where we differ is how we go about doing it. Hard and Fast, or Nice and Easy.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Quoting the letter linked in the OP:

NEXT: I’ll join the NRA…

2. When the NRA aggressively presses to abolish all concealed carry permit laws.

Unregistered concealed carry has been no big issue in both Alaska and Vermont for decades. Arizona just passed unregistered concealed legislation. It’s time for the NRA to start swimming strongly with this tide. Yes, it’s a victory for gun owners when a State like Minnesota finally allows registered carry, but we must see it for what it still is: an un-Constitutional infringement on our G-d* given right to self defense, see: “The Ten Commandments of Self Defense”. It is also an obvious way to add more gun owner names to a list and database. (*Out of respect, observant Jews do not write out the name of the Almighty in secular texts.)

How has an unalienable right to self defense been demoted to a revocable government granted privilege?

How can a rational person make the fundamental assumption that if a state abolishes its concealed carry laws, that unrestricted firearms carry will automatically replace it? That is dumb, and it betrays a political naivety that is astounding for anyone claiming to be an advocate for anything in these United States.

If the NRA successfully pressured Texas into abolishing CHL, we would merely be back to status ante 1995. No kind of carry would be legal, except possibly MPA. The man who wrote this letter is a fool.

THAT is why I said what I said. Thanks TAM.

As ridiculous as my statement about the musket was, I think it's not that far from what Schumer and the others like him would consider the so called "reasonable gun legislation" we hear so much about. That's why the NRA is so important. Without the lobbying that the NRA does and spends so much on I'm not so sure that even most pro gun politicians would stick their neck out for it if it could be risky for their career.

karl wrote:I think it's foolish to promote gun ownership and not be a member of the NRA. That being said I think he makes some interesting points. Not having seen evidence on the contrary, I think some of his points have at least some bearing. I agree that if the NRA promoted the "duty of police is not to protect" issue that a lot of people would change their minds. A common defense to gun control I've heard is that you can always call the police. What do you gentlemen in disagreement think about this?

The NRA has repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have a duty to protect any individual. This was one of the major points used in the NRA support of concealed-carry around the country. I just got back from the NRA meetings in Charlotte and saw a preview of a video coming out that has several police officers stating that it is very rare for an officer to be able to respond to an assault in time to protect you and that everyone citizen needs to protect themselves. NRA has been saying this for years and the article's author should know this.

This points out the problem/danger in typical NRA-bashing crap. Based upon your post, I'm sure you were not aware that the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing. People tend to believe something simply because it is in print. It's the same tactic used by anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign when they say "studies show a firearm in your home is 47 times more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder." That is garbage, but those unfamiliar with the subject matter tend to believe it, simply because it was stated or in print. Only when the NRA provides accurate information do people realize they have been duped.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

karl wrote:I think it's foolish to promote gun ownership and not be a member of the NRA. That being said I think he makes some interesting points. Not having seen evidence on the contrary, I think some of his points have at least some bearing. I agree that if the NRA promoted the "duty of police is not to protect" issue that a lot of people would change their minds. A common defense to gun control I've heard is that you can always call the police. What do you gentlemen in disagreement think about this?

The NRA has repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have a duty to protect any individual. This was one of the major points used in the NRA support of concealed-carry around the country. I just got back from the NRA meetings in Charlotte and saw a preview of a video coming out that has several police officers stating that it is very rare for an officer to be able to respond to an assault in time to protect you and that everyone citizen needs to protect themselves. NRA has been saying this for years and the article's author should know this.

This points out the problem/danger in typical NRA-bashing crap. Based upon your post, I'm sure you were not aware that the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing. People tend to believe something simply because it is in print. It's the same tactic used by anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign when they say "studies show a firearm in your home is 47 times more likely to injure or kill a family member than an intruder." That is garbage, but those unfamiliar with the subject matter tend to believe it, simply because it was stated or in print. Only when the NRA provides accurate information do people realize they have been duped.

Chas.

With all due respect Charles, it's a bit insulting to insinuate that those who find any validity in this authors letter are somehow lemmings who will believe anything put to print. But this is your forum and you can do as you wish...

I'd love to see examples on how the NRA is pushing to remove CCW requirements from the states. How the NRA is making it a point to let everyone know that the police have no duty to protect you (outside of a few NRA-ILA articles...of which, how many anti's or fence sitters read?). How the NRA is looking to disband the BATFE...etc.

You mention that the NRA has produced a video on how citizens should protect themselves and the cops have no duty to protect. Who's going to see this video? NRA members who already know this? Is the NRA going to make a big push to get this video out to the masses? I'd love to hear how...

You state that:

the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing

I mean no harm in this post...just looking for information...

Purplehood wrote:I don't have a problem with the NRA. They may not be doing things in accordance with my own personal agenda and goals, but they are pretty much representative of how I feel about RKBA issues.

I have a problem with how the NRA handles certain issues, but they still are the best organization that we have to safeguard and promote the RKBA. To not join the NRA "until they change" is like not voting until the "right" candidate comes along.

I have been following the concealed carry issue for many decades and I am grateful [and pleasantly surprised] where we are today. As I have stated in previous posts, if not for the efforts of the NRA we would not have "shall issue" concealed carry in most states. That is a fact.

pbwalker wrote:How the NRA is looking to disband the BATFE...etc.

This is a pipe dream, like abolishing the federal income tax or Social Security. It is never going to happen.

The majority of BATFE's activities involve smugglers, moonshiners, tax evaders, arsonists, and would-be terrorists.

I think their nitpicking on honest FFLs needs to stop. The NRA has tried and is still trying to achieve that goal. A BATFE reform bill is currently in the works with bipartisan support:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What has any other group done to "abolish BATFE" other than write screeds?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

pbwalker wrote:How the NRA is looking to disband the BATFE...etc.

This is a pipe dream, like abolishing the federal income tax or Social Security. It is never going to happen.

The majority of BATFE's activities involve smugglers, moonshiners, tax evaders, arsonists, and would-be terrorists.

I think their nitpicking on honest FFLs needs to stop. The NRA has tried and is still trying to achieve that goal. A BATFE reform bill is currently in the works with bipartisan support:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=5210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What has any other group done to "abolish BATFE" other than write screeds?

- Jim

They've done, basically, nothing. But that's not the point of the letter. It's not a 'look what we've done, what have you done?' letter. No one is going to compete with the NRA in terms of getting stuff done. Just look at operating budgets and membership numbers.

While they may not abolish the BATFE, they can certainly draw attention to their strong-arm tactics on a much greater scale. I met a guy just a few weeks ago who lost out on $4000 because of the BATFE. Where's the attention to that?

And look, we can bash on smaller groups like the JPFO and GOA, but aren't we all after the same goal?

But as Charles stated, "the NRA has been doing precisely what the article accuses it of not doing..." - I think it's reasonable for me, as a member of the NRA, to ask what is being done.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What has GOA accomplished? Nothing, not one single thing.

Chas.

It did achieve something. It made you and the NRA look like moderates.

K.