There have been some very good comments on both sides of this debate and I appreciate the thought that went into all of them. I also appreciate the fact that even with some significant differences of opinion, this discussion has remained civil.
I would like to address some points made by Stephen and others by Liberty. First, I’ll discuss the points made by Stephen.
NRA-bashing v. legitimate differences of opinion or complaints As a very general statement, I agree with much of what Stephen said. I also think it is important to note the context of my prior post; i.e. in response to the
article by Walt Thiessen to which Liberty linked. Note the inflammatory title to the article, as well as the opening paragraph. This is a blatant lie, not a legitimate difference of opinion on how to address a political issue. A later post (not by Liberty) made unfounded broad-brush statements about the NRA that are also grossly inaccurate.
There can be legitimate differences of opinion with any organization and the NRA is no exception. These differences should be discussed in an open and rational manner, to the extent possible without jeopardizing its operations and goals, as such discussions are beneficial to the Association. However, contentions such as those contained in Mr. Thiessen’s article are not legitimate discussions, they are purely slanderous attacks without any foundation in truth. This is NRA-bashing pure and simple. I have never said that a person who expresses a complaint or difference of opinion with the NRA is an NRA-basher. It is only the groundless absurd attacks that I so label.
I agree with Stephen that NRA-bashers are small in number, but vocal in their slanderous attacks. I also agree that we should answer those attacks and that is precisely what I do when I see them. Pointing out facts, or directing detractors to proof of the truth, is the only way I know to respond. I know of no other way to address these complaints.
The NRA does what it can to educate the membership on its activities and accomplishments in it magazines, on NRA News, and on the NRA’s new website. We have a Speakers Bureau that provides volunteer speakers at thousands of events throughout the country annually, all at no charge. (I am on the Speakers Bureau.) Unlike anti-gunners such as Schumer, Feinstein, and Sarah Brady, the mainstream media will not give NRA coverage, except in very rare circumstances. (CNN’s interview of Wayne LaPierre during the days before the assault weapon sunset comes to mind.) So we have to spend our money to get our message to our own members and prospective members. The New Orleans travesty is a great example. We had people on the ground literally while the events were happening. Had we not been able to get people there as quickly as we did, our lawsuit against the City and its Mayor and Police Chief would have been impossible because we would not have had the names of the victims of confiscation.
As an NRA Director and a member of the Board of Trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, I receive numerous letters, emails and telephone calls from members and some non-members. These contacts are almost always expressing a concern about pending legislation or regulatory rule-making, or asking for some specific action. To my recollection, I’ve never had a single person express a concern about a claim made by the more vocal and prominent NRA-bashers, but I have heard many comments to just ignore them.
Credibility I stand by my position that the NRA has not and is not losing credibility with its membership, or the general public who are not members. I disagree that membership numbers and donations provide a measure of credibility. The NRA’s membership numbers and donations always vary over time. While the membership numbers, thus donations, rise and fall over the relative short term, the overall graph shows increasing membership totals for several years. In other words, both the peaks and the valleys are higher over the long term. The irony is that the more successful the NRA is in Washington and in the states, the more secure members and non-member gun owners feel, thus many do not renew their memberships. Donations are also effected in the same way. The sad truth is that our success breeds complacency and this effects membership and donations.
The Zogby polls that came out about a year and a half ago, perhaps two years ago, are a far better barometer of the NRA’s credibility. Zogby himself is no friend of the NRA. In fact, he hates guns and he hates us. Nevertheless, he seems to have more intellectual honesty than many pollsters so it was significant when his annual poll was released. I can’t recall the exact numbers now, but there were a number of questions dealing with guns and with the NRA. Something over 70% of people responding throughout the United States agreed with the NRA’s position either all the time or most of the time. Zogby was so stunned by this result, he made a courtesy call to advise of the poll results before the were released. As I recall, there were also questions directly related to the NRA’s credibility and the responses were also very supportive, but I can’t recall the numbers. I believe these polls to be a far better measure of the NRA’s credibility.
Money The majority complaints we get from NRA members is that we ask for money too often. A close second are complaints about receiving requests to join the NRA when the person is already a member. A frequent comment goes something like “Don’t you guys know who your current members are?� These are two separate issues, although both obviously deal with money.
Solicitations for donations are necessary. Unlike the anti’s, we don’t get tens of millions dollars annually from George Soros and multi-million dollar gifts from others. We are funded primarily by millions of dedicated members who write small checks as they can and when they can. Yes, we are developing a program for large-donor relationships, but developing such relationships takes years. If successful, it will lift the NRA to heights of power never before seen on the American political scene. Until then, we must raise the money necessary to continue the fight. I wish it were not so, but it’s necessary.
I am very reluctant to post this, because I don’t want to be appearing to “toot my own horn� plus my wife may read it! However, since we are on the subject of money and soliciting from members, I want people to understand the Board Members are typically strong financial supporters of the NRA. Since 2001, in addition to money directly donated, the time I have donated to the NRA and NRA/TSRA joint efforts represents over $450,000 in lost billings to my law firm. When I do work for these organizations, it’s done during regular business hours, not after hours or solely on the weekends. Not all Board Members put in this much time, but many do and some contribute far more time. Also, I have never submitted a single expense report and request for reimbursement of any expenses I’ve incurred for the NRA and I know of numerous other Board Members who can say the same. While the NRA will pay for our airfare, I can only think of one or two times that I have not paid my own airfare. Again, I know of many Board Members who can say the same. I’m not saying this to pat myself on the back, but to let the members know the Directors are not asking members to do something we are unwilling to do.
As for pure
membership drives, we have always had a problem identifying people who are already members. As previously discussed, annual membership rises and falls over time. Often, people will let their membership expire, but join (rather than renew) again later using a different address and often a different name (such as initials one time and a name later). Until recently, our computer system had no way to determine that these are the same people. We are testing a new system that should improve our ability to identify former members who are rejoining, but the final test results are not in.
I would like to offer this in response to Liberty’s post in the Heller thread. Levy didn’t decide to strike when the iron was hot – it was stone cold! When Parker was filed, it was a hands-down loser. The Second Amendment would have been held to be a collective right. However, Bush is in the White House because of the NRA’s efforts (even Clinton admits this), so it was Bush that got to appoint two Supreme Court Justices, not Gore or Kerry. Because of this, Parker became a viable case.
“. . . some of the directors don’t seem very enthused about the RKBA, and have balked at support scary black ones with mags bigger than 5 rounds.� Some? Do you know of more than one?
Robert Levy’s “tough individualism� would have cost us the Second Amendment, were it not for the facts discussed above. Also, I have not seen a transcript myself, but Levy is reported to have publically stated that he didn’t care one way or the other how the Court ruled, he just wanted a definite answer. If this is true, then I don’t appreciate anyone gambling with my ability to defend myself, especially someone who merely had an intellectual curiosity.
There are many efforts underway that the NRA simply cannot publicize without energizing our opposition. CHL carry on federal property including parks is but one. Opening more federal land to hunting and curbing BATFE abuses are others. I/we would love to be able to tout everything we are doing, but to do so would spell disaster for our efforts. I’m not just speaking generally, I’m on the Legal Affairs Committee and the Legislative Policy Committee (among several others) and I see first hand what we are doing to advance the cause.
“Where was the NRA when they were actually grabbing them at NOLA?� We were wading through the streets of New Orleans in rubber boots and chest waders getting video and audio evidence to support a Temporary Restraining Order and subsequent lawsuit against the City, its Mayor and Police Chief. We were interviewing witnesses and victims to get needed evidence. Yes, we would liked to have stopped them in the middle of the confiscation effort, but courts require plaintiffs and evidence. Had the NRA not responded as quickly as it did, this travesty would have gone unaddressed, no federal or state legislation limiting police emergency powers would have passed, and a dangerous precedent would have been established.
What has the NRA accomplished since Bush was elected? A great deal has been accomplished. Sunset of the assault weapons ban was no minor undertaking and it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Senators and Representatives avoided it like the plague, because they knew the NRA was watching closely. The UN’s latest efforts to get a small arms treaty adopted failed due to the efforts of the NRA, Rep. Bob Barr (NRA Board Member) and John Bolton. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed. This is arguably the most important firearms legislation to pass since FOPA in 1986. Without it, frivolous lawsuits would have destroyed the firearms industry and this is not merely campaign rhetoric.
True, Texas had much greater success in passing pro-gun bills, but the Texas Legislature is far more gun-friendly than is the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. Washington will never be Texas, nor is it Sacramento or Albany. Plus, the NRA was also very supportive of TSRA’s efforts. Texas is blessed to have a very effective political force in the forum of the TSRA; most states are not so lucky and the NRA has to carry the load in those jurisdictions. As someone has already noted, the spread of the Castle Doctrine to more than 20 states is the direct result of the NRA’s efforts.
As I have stated in other posts, I don’t agree with everything the NRA does or does not do, but I know our actions are based upon the collective wisdom of 76 Directors, Officers and dedicated staff. We are very good at what we do; we’re not perfect, we often debate vigorously among ourselves, but we reach a consensus and we successfully present a united front to our enemies. I expect lies and half-truths from our enemies on the anti-gun side. What distresses me is to see the same from some of the very people we work so hard to protect. Sometimes it’s prompted by misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, but often is pure self-dealing.
I would like to make a purely personal statement, not as an NRA Director or Vice-Chairman of TSRA’s Legislative Committee. I understand that the Libertarian Party is trying to develop into a viable third party in the U.S. I also understand that they are frustrated that the NRA and TSRA don’t support their candidates as they would like to be supported. If I were in your position I likely would feel the same. However, as an NRA and TSRA member and long-standing supporter of each, I want those organizations to win! I don’t want them to help in the development of a third party, I want them to keep anti-gunners out of office and get pro-gun candidates elected. This goal is not served by helping to split the pro-gun vote between two candidate, one of whom is not a viable candidate, and allowing the anti-gun candidate to win. I hope some day the Libertarian Party becomes a viable force in Texas and the U.S. We need this to keep the Dems and Republicans honest. But this effort will not rise or fall based upon the recognition , or lack thereof, by the NRA or TSRA.
Chas.
