NRA "A" rated traitors

[TheTman]

Things like the issues discussed below have caused me to drop a lot of support for the NRA and transfer my membership to Gun Owners Of America/National Association of Gun Rights. The NRA has let me down several times in the past, and seem too willing to compromise these days, while the GOA/NAGR is like a pit bull on gun issues. No compromise, no bargaining, just standing for our rights.
This report shows how some NRA "A" rated politicians have let us down.
Don't get me wrong, the NRA does great things, and is the premier gun rights advocate, but sometimes they do things to make me wonder what the hell they are doing. I wonder are some of these "A" rated politicians just giving the NRA lip service, saying what they think the NRA wants to hear, and putting the answers the NRA likes on questionaires to get their "A" rating. I think the following newsletter, is a real eye-opener about some "A" rated politicians. Also if your state has a 2nd amendment organization, I think it's a great idea to support them to lobby in your state to get gun friendly legislation passed on a local basis.

From this months newsletter from Natioinal Association of Gun Rights:

"Constitutional Carry has won broad support from freedom-loving gun owners nationwide.

No citizen should have to beg the government for a permit before he or she can exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Simply put, Constitutional Carry is true Right to Carry legislation. It’s the law in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming.

In 2011, the National Association for Gun Rights played a key role in passing Constitutional Carry in Wyoming. Citizens there may now exercise their God-given right to self-defense without restriction.

Constitutional Carry also passed both the State House and Senate in Montana with NAGR’s backing during the 2011 session, only to be vetoed by Montana’s NRA “A”-rated Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Unfortunately, this pattern of opposition from the institutional gun lobby and the politicians they support was replayed in multiple states throughout the 2012 Legislative season.

The National Association for Gun Rights with allied state-level gun rights groups and pro-gun forces nationwide introduced Constitutional Carry bills in 22 states this year.

Predictably, the left-leaning media and the anti-gun crowd immediately began predicting blood in the streets.

In reality, crime rates have only gone down in Constitutional Carry states.

Vermont is virtually surrounded by higher-crime states like New York and Massachusetts, yet Vermont’s crime rate has remained among the lowest in the nation for decades. Violent crime has also gone down in Alaska and Arizona since Constitutional Carry became law.

In the face of these facts, it is strange to see anti-gun politicians oppose Constitutional Carry with conjured images of Wild West shootouts.

But stranger still is the fact that NRA “A”-rated politicians in numerous states and even an NRA Board Member have joined the anti-gun crowd in opposing the Right to Carry.

In Iowa, NAGR’s boots-on-the-ground ally Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) introduced the bill in 2011 and came within 2 votes of passing it.

This year, NAGR and IGO led a strong fight, but the bill was killed thanks largely to the outrageous efforts of NRA Board Member and Iowa State Representative Clel Baudler.

NAGR ally South Dakota Gun Owners also provided vigorous grassroots support for their Constitutional Carry bill in South Dakota. Sponsored by pro-gun champion Rep. Don Kopp, the bill was stonewalled by the Legislative Leadership in the State House.

Rather than support the Right to Carry, South Dakota Speaker of the House Val Rausch and Speaker Pro Tem Brian Gosch cooked up a substitute bill.

Hailed as “Constitutional Carry” by numerous NRA “A”-rated and endorsed politicians, this bill would have encouraged police to harass and detain law-abiding gun owners for nothing more than possessing a legal handgun!

With NAGR’s assistance, Iowa Gun Owners and South Dakota Gun Owners are now working to hold accountable the anti-gun state legislators who opposed Constitutional Carry.

In Georgia, NAGR and Georgia Gun Owners introduced Constitutional Carry and immediately found strong support from gun owners.

But once again, NRA “A”-rated State Representative Ann Purcell blocked the bill. As chairwoman of the Public Safety Committee, Rep. Purcell refused even to allow a vote.

Thanks in part to the outcry raised by Georgia Gun Owners against her anti-gun obstructionism, Rep. Purcell has chosen not to seek reelection this year.

There are similar stories from all across the country.

NAGR has also focused resources on Tennesee, South Carolina, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma, and is monitoring the battles in Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Rhode Island and Maine.

Thanks to politicians who claim to be pro-gun and to the political cover provided to them by the leaders of the institutional gun lobby, the battle for Constitutional Carry is over for this year in most of these states.

But no one expects to pass Constitutional Carry without a fight.

The National Association for Gun Rights is standing firm for true Right-to-Carry legislation.

By providing resources, support and direct assistance to dozens of pro-gun state-level allies, NAGR is working to hold accountable the politicians who opposed Constitutional Carry, regardless of the ratings they have received from the institutional gun lobby.

And Constitutional Carry will be back in the very next Legislative season.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President "

[muggsy]

The one thing that the NRA can't do is hold a gun to the politician's head when he or she votes. An "A" rated politician who fears losing his or her seat may not always vote their conscience. Do you think that we would be better off not knowing the NRA rating for a politician? If a politician votes against the 2A he or she will soon lose their A rating from the NRA.

[Wolffire99]

A gun rights organization that seeks to divide gun owners like the NAGR will do more harm than good.

[muggsy]

A gun rights organization that seeks to divide gun owners like the NAGR will do more harm than good.

+1 The NRA has been leading the fight for our 2A rights since 1934.

[TheTman]

I don't know that they are trying to divide anyone, you can belong to both. This is not a time to try and divide people into one organization or another. They are just a new lobby that seems to be a little more aggresive than the NRA has been lately.
I was in a financial bind several years ago, and I asked the NRA to quit calling me for donations until I was better off, yet they kept calling every other week with a new crisis they just HAD to have money for. I got tired of them ignoring my requests and didn't renew my membership. That was my big beef with the NRA. And if you donate once, then they call you more often. If I asked them once, I asked probably 20 times to quit calling for donations, that I was having trouble making ends meet, and calls just kept coming. If they would have listened I'd probably still be a member. And they wouldn't take no for an answer, badgering me to give $5 or $10, when that would be taking food out of my kids mouths. I hated to do it, but it got to the point when that I heard "NRA", I'd just hang up the phone. If I'd had the money I'd be happy to donate a reasonable amount, but there was a new crisis every couple weeks and I'd get a call. Sorry for the rant.
I figure the more pro-gun lobbyists we have the better. I'm not sure they are trying to find fault with the NRA, rather I think they are exposing politicians that maybe lied to the NRA about their intentions to get the "A" rating. I doubt they'll have that "A" rating much longer. I find it strange the govenor of Montana, a pretty right wing state, would veto a constitutional carry bill. Makes me wonder if Ted Turner's 113000 acre Montana ranch and his money had anything to do with it. Maybe a threat to withhold campaign contributions or something if he signed the bill? Or a promise of a big donation if he vetoed it? Along with Ted, you have Glenn Close, Meg Ryan, Dennis Quaid, Tom Brokaw, Brooke Shields, and a lot of other Hollywood celebrities, and many other rich anti-gun people owning land there. Do they have more influence on the local politicians than they should?
I also find it strange that an NRA board member in Iowa, would play a large role in killing a right to carry bill. Could that one be a case of the established lobby telling the new kid on the block to go away and let us handle this? I hate to think that would be the case, but who knows what the heck is going on.
I realize the NRA has led the fight to protect our 2nd amendment rights since 1934, and they are still the main group fighting for the cause, but do they have to be the only gun lobby? I'd think the more national groups for gun rights the better off we'd be. Lord knows there are plenty of anti-gun groups blathering their idiotic ideas.

[CrabbyAzz]

I discontinued my membership to the NRA years ago. Just my opinion... They are no longer an independent pro gun body. They exclusively hitched their wagon to the GOP for personal gain & power. They are no better than unions.

[Armybrat]

I discontinued my membership to the NRA years ago. Just my opinion... They are no longer an independent pro gun body. They exclusively hitched their wagon to the GOP for personal gain & power. They are no better than unions.


Really?

(from 2010)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/nra-endorses-candidates-on-both-sides-frustrating-gop/


Fairfax, VA (CNN) - Republicans are pressing their supporters to pull out the stops in the effort to retake the House in November's elections, but one of their frequent allies – the National Rifle Association – is still endorsing candidates in either party.

The gun-rights group has endorsed over 200 Republican candidates for Congress, but it has also endorsed 64 Democrats – including a number of incumbents who Republicans believe may be vulnerable, like Chet Edwards in Texas, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in South Dakota, and Tom Perriello in Virginia.

[TheTman]

I didn't start this thread to bash the NRA, just to point out some politicians that have betrayed their "A" rating. I think they mostly do good work, but sometimes are willing to compromise when I think they should hold their ground. I told my story about the NRA to show why I left. I may join the NRA again, but I'm not in a position to donate much money, so if they start badgering me with phone calls again, I'll cancel my membership. What I like about the GOA/NAGR is they only solicit funds by email, much easier to ignore when you can't contribute. I've never received a phone call from them.
There used to be quite a few Democrats that supported gun rights, the Dixie-crats from the south mostly. I think most of these have been driven out of the party by the ultra left wingers. Now I think most Democrats that say they support gun rights are doing it to get votes, and would vote in a heartbeat to outlaw any gun capabble of firing more than one shot without reloading (single shots rifles and shotguns). The NRA is the strongest voice we have, the one the politicians listen to the most. I think other gun groups should be a welcome addition to the gun lobby, and not seen as competitors or upstarts or whatever. The more groups speaking for our rights the better. I think the NRA "hitched their wagon" to the GOP because that's where you find most of your gun rights supporters. I don't know what personal gain and power they have recieved by doing so.

[muggsy]

Apparently, Ski, you're criticizing an organization of which you know very little. You don't have to contribute one dime to the NRA to be a member. All contributions are voluntary. I make one annual contribution to the NRA/ILA. I do so because I believe in what the organization is doing. Do you know where contributions to the NAGR are going? How many members in the NAGR? How much political power does the NAGR wield? Why do you think that so many shooting clubs and sportsmen's organizations require you to be an NRA member if you want to join their organization or club? I haven't heard of any that require you to be a member of the NAGR.

[warbird1]

The NRA has enough clout not to be ignored. I don't always agree with everything they do however numbers talk. I'm "all in".

[Jeremiah/Az]

I have been a member of the NRA continuously since 1960 & two years ago I bought my girlfriend a membership. I don't always agree with everything they do, but I will support them. I hate all the beggin' mail they send me!:mad:

[muggsy]

I discontinued my membership to the NRA years ago. Just my opinion... They are no longer an independent pro gun body. They exclusively hitched their wagon to the GOP for personal gain & power. They are no better than unions.

The main reason that the majority of NRA endorsed candidates have an R after their name is because the majority of republicans candidates are conservatives who support your 2A rights. Damn near every piece of anti-gun legislation has been introduced by a liberal democrat.

[jeepster09]

The NRA gets the job done. They may not be perfect but overall good. I will stick with NRA; supporting other group is like voting for 3rd party Legeslative canidate.....it just weekens clout and we all lose.

[TheTman]

Muggsey, I know you don't HAVE to donate to the various NRA/NRA-ILA programs they come up with, but it sure is a lot easier to ignore an email solicitation of funds, than it is those NRA calls that make you feel like a schmuck cause you can't contribute. "Not even $5 or $10?" No ma'am, I told you I in a rough spot financially right now, can you take me off your call list. I made the mistake of donating once to something I felt pretty strongly about, and that must have put me on their call frequently list, as even more calls kept coming. I'm also not trying to criticize the NRA, just telling why they let me down and I didn't renew my membership.
RE: the GOA: The movement apparently grew out of a Kalifornia movement to fight an impending ban on handguns in the state. It was started by Senator and NRA member of the Board H. L. Richardson, who continued to serve on the NRA Board, while the GOA was being formed. If an NRA Board member felt comfortable being a member of both organizations, I don't see why average folks would have a problem being a member of both organizations.
From Wikipedia: Gun Owners of America was founded in 1975, by NRA Board Member, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) State Senator H.L. Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.L._Richardson) (Retired). Richardson continues to serve as the Chairman of Gun Owners of America. Richardson also founded Gun Owners of California, which deals specifically with gun ownership rights in California. GOA's executive director (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_director) is Larry Pratt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Pratt), who also hosts GOA's audio webcast.
Gun Owners of America is a non-profit organization whose main goal is to preserve and defend the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ). They see the right to bear arms as a fundamental freedom issue. GOA's stance is to "never compromise" and to never accept the status quo. According to GOA's official website, their Board feels as though Americans have lost some of their precious gun rights, and GOA strives to get them back. For the past 30 years GOA has been building a network of lawyers around the nation to aid in taking on anti-gun legislation in the courts. GOA has been involved in legal proceedings in almost every state in the nation, in the hopes to maintain and further pro-gun legislation, and pro-gun rights

RE: NAGR (From Wikipedia): Headed by Dudley Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Brown), a long-time gun rights advocate and director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Gun_Owners), the National Association for Gun Rights was formed in 2001 as a grassroots, member-centric organization with a no-compromise approach to gun rights issues. The National Association for Gun Rights membership represents over 1 million grassroots, gun rights activists across the United States.
National Association for Gun Rights has been actively engaged in federal lobbying efforts to protect the rights of gun owners. According to their website, amongst their top issues is their opposition to United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) “Small Arms Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty).”
The group's opposition to the proposed treaty is outlined in a 2010 Washington Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times) assessment which stated “This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. ‘After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,’ former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. ‘The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise
The National Association for Gun Rights works closely with state-level gun rights groups and activists in various states. Working with Wyoming Gun Owners, the organization focused a great deal of effort on the Wyoming legislature in order to lobby for no-permit needed Constitutional Carry there. They also utilized their relationship with Iowa Gun Owners during the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_Poll) in Ames, Iowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames,_Iowa).
In a recent change of leadership in the Colorado State Legislature, NAGR was influential in supporting a pro-gun Senator to take the place of one they felt was not supportive of Second Amendment rights. The state senator whose loyalty to the Second Amendment was called into question called Dudley Brown, NAGR's Executive Director, "the most dangerous man in Republican politics." The top state-level priority of the National Association for Gun Rights is to pass no-permit needed Constitutional Carry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry). Constitutional Carry is the right to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Executive Director Dudley Brown believes strongly that “if you don’t need a permit to exercise your First Amendment rights, why should you need one for the Second Amendment?”
Well there is a little background on the two groups. It's not a pick or choose thing, where if you belong to the NRA you can't belong to the GOA/NAGR, you can belong to all 3 or any combination you like, or just stay in the NRA. I don't really care which one you belong to, but I think you should belong to at least one of the groups. I'm also a firm believer in supporting your states 2nd Amendment organization to fight for our rights on a local level. That's how we eventually got CC in Kansas, even having to override Governor Kathleen Sebelius's veto.
The more lobbyists we have on our side, the better. The gun-grabbers have several different groups that lobby for anti-gun measures, why should we have only one voice? They basically want the same things, to keep our 2nd Amendment rights intact. GOA/NAGR are little more aggresive in the issues they lobby for than the NRA is. As I've stated before the NRA is THE premier voice of gun-owners, and the one that congress listens to most, and will continue to be for the forseeable future, They do butt heads form time to time, but they basically agree on the major issues. At election time I still read who has the best rating from the NRA and that is a great influence on who gets my vote, paticularly in the primaries At the state level, or 2nd Amendment Society tries to do he same thing with local candidates running for state office.

[muggsy]

Ski, I'm retired and on a fixed income. I don't have money to burn. I make one annual contribution to the NRA/ILA. Now you are asking me me to contribute to several pro-gun organizations. Why should I do that when I'm already a member of the best pro-gun organization in the world. The NRA was founded in 1871 and the ILA was established in 1934. The NRA has more than 4 million members. The NRA has been at the forefront of every piece of pro gun legislation that has been passed and opposed every piece of anti 2A legislation proposed, more often than not successfully. The GOA has a membership of 300,000 and is a relatively new kid on the block. My LGS offers a discount to NRA members. Most gun manufacturers support the NRA. They know where their bread is buttered.

[TheTman]

No, Muggsey, I'm not asking you to join anything. All I'm saying is there should be room for more than one gun organization. I was just giving a little background on a couple of other organizations. I imagine some folks belong to all 3, fine, if not, that's fine too. Just think as a gun owner a person should be involved in one of them at least. That's all. I've said several times the NRA is the premier organiation, with the most clout, and explained why I didn't renew MY membership is all. I would never suggest leaving the NRA to join one of these others, it was a personal decision of mine due to too many phone calls.

[muggsy]

Ski, all that you have to do when the NRA calls is say, I'm not in a position to contribute at this time and hand up. Or you can do as I do and thank them for the call and tell them that you only make one annual contribution per year and hang up. No muss. No fuss. No shame. You don't have to be an NRA member to contribute to the ILA. They will still accept your check. Just don't give them your phone number.

[Wolffire99]

When I joined the NRA I declined to provide a phone #, it wasn't a problem. I still get the junk mail once week it seems like, but maybe you could call and ask that they delete your phone #.

[jg rider]

[QUOTE=muggsy;167136]The main reason that the majority of NRA endorsed candidates have an R after their name is because the majority of republicans candidates are conservatives who support your 2A rights. Damn near every piece of anti-gun legislation has been introduced by a liberal democrat.[/QUOTE

I've been a member of the NRA for 50 yrs. but only to add to the number of members. I don't agree with some of it's decisions. If they would only post politician's rating and not endorse them would be a good thing. There's more going on in this country than just the 2A.
I object when in the Nevada senatorial campaign they endorsed progun Democrap incumbent Harry Reid over progun republican challenger Sharon Angle.
In the Maine congessional campaign they endorsed progun democrap incumbent Patrick Leahy over a progun republican challenger.
There are others.
I believe the NRA should just post their ratings and then keep their mouths shut, and let people decide for themselves without coaxing or spending member's money on the endorsements.
I also object when the NRA provides L.E. training to agencies whose chiefs and commissioners are anti gun and anti NRA. It's my membership dues and contributions that pay for these.
I think someone here wrote that the NRA was no better than a union. I half heartedly agree with that. I don't have any say in how my money is spent.
Yes I'm a conservative republican/ tea partier and I object when my money is used to support someone who may be progun now, but will in all probability change their strips to tote the party line

[sharpetop]

Like em' or not, they are the "Big Dog" that the antis and politicians fear and talk about the most. That said, I'm also a member of Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners Of America. I think that GOA is the most "no compromise" organization of the bunch.

[TheTman]

I tried telling the NRA that I was unable to contribute, and asked several times to be removed from the call list, but they never did anything about it. I made the mistake of contributing once on an issue I felt very strong about, so they must have put me on their heavy rotation call list, as hardly a week went by without a call asking for more money. I did get pretty good at interuppting the little speech they always give and tell them they were wasting their time. For awhile I'd listen to them asking for just $5 or $10, then I got to where I'd hang up after telling them I couldn't help this time. I think next time I join, I'll try and not give them a phone number, as has been suggested. I couldn't believe it, but a few nights ago I got a call from the NRA asking for a donation for something, (I think this was a request for general funds to help defeat Obama) and I'm not even currently a member. But it was the first call I received from them in quite some time. I guess they kept my phone number for future reference. Will probably have to use my middle name or something to join, so they don't make the connection between me and my phone number. I wouldn't mind joining up again, I'm still on a limited budget, but as long as they don't get crazy with the emails and junk mail, I can probably deal with their constant solicitation of funds via email and snail mail. I'd like to be able to contribute to all their needs, and those of the other 3 organizations I belong too. And I also need to get back in my state's 2nd amendment organization, I let that one slip due to finacial reasons, but they have done a great job here, and finally got us our CC permits, even having to override the Democrat Govenor's Veto (Kahtleen Sebelius).
And how the NRA ended up endorsing Harry Reid (And some of the other Democrat gun grabbers) is beyond me. I saw some convoluted explantion for it, but it still didn't quite make sense. Something about Sharon Angle being an unknown and not having an NRA rating or some such BS, while I guess they must have been able to talk Harry Reid into something or another in the past. GOA and NAGR were all over that wondering what the hell the NRA was doing.
I'm not sure that I'd withhold LEO training for departments with Anti-Gun leaders, why punish the ordinary street cops for what their politically motivated superiors do.
That extra training may save their life one day. I think some of the Police Chiefs, in the big cities where the guns get up by themselves and commit crimes, are anti 2A, just to keep their jobs. While others are true believers in the anti-gun movement. I believe the rank and file cops are mostly 2A supporters, no matter where they are from. And while we have no say where our dues are spent, I think all the organizations generally do the best they can to not waste it, there are operating costs, and a lot of things that they have to pay for. As far as I'm concerned the NRA could keep their magazine, or make it available online, rather than pay to send a magazine out each month, if that meant that they'd get more use out of my dues.