View Full Version : GOA any good?

07-05-2006, 8:02 AM
What is your opinion of the Gun Owners of America organization?


They are supposed to be much more hard line than NRA. Are they gun nuts? Too nutty?

I already belong to the NRA and CRPA. I'm looking for other pro-2nd Amendment and gun organizations that deserve my membership dollars. We need more pro-2nd Amendment lobbyists and advocates to win the day. Ideas/comments?


07-05-2006, 12:43 PM
If your idea of 'hard line' is to enthusiastically endorse a rabidly anti-gun Republican for governor (Dan Lungren in 1998) just months after he banned SKS Sporters state-wide (as AG), then GOC/GOA is the group for you.


GOA also opposed NRA's relaxed-CCW efforts in Michigan, Texas and... dang, can't remember the 3rd - maybe Missouri (but not sure about that). Since all those places now enjoy CCWs (thanks to NRA), I imagine those gun-owners would have something to say about effectiveness as a pro-gun group.


07-05-2006, 12:45 PM
I already give a fair penny to the NRA. I don't want to be a life member in case they veer in a direction I don't approve of some day. My continued membership is contingent on their performance.

I also don't want to put all my eggs in one or two baskets. I think some smaller pro-2nd Amendment organizations may be worthy of support. I thought I'd explore the possibilities. Having 3 or 4 advocates at a legislative hearing may carry more PR weight than just 1 or 2. As you mentioned, how do I quantify what other groups actually do?


07-05-2006, 1:54 PM
I disagree!

It's 135 years. :-) (look on any NRA logo - incorporated 1871)

I have a good friend that calls them (those "pro-gun" groups that butt heads with NRA) the "hate NRA, send us money instead" groups. :-)


07-05-2006, 2:36 PM
...Having 3 or 4 advocates at a legislative hearing may carry more PR weight than just 1 or 2. As you mentioned, how do I quantify what other groups actually do?

The problem you run into is having more than one gun-group disagree before the committee and showing a lack of unity. Committees only entertain "support" or "opposition" to a bill. I have heard both CRPA and GOC get before committee and IN THE SAME HEARING disagree with NRA and in doing so, agree with the opposition - it's pathetic. Their position ends up being considered 2 more "thumbs up" for the anti-gunners side.

When gun-groups disagree, it makes our side look like we don't understand our own issues and that is VERY damaging.

Like this year - CRPA must have gone crazy because they have been opposing NRA in committee - they are the reason AB 2111 was watered down to OUR detriment. (It is still worth passing though.)

In reality, CRPA is the state affiliate of NRA and cannot take a different position legislatively. So I hope someone reels them in or it could spell trouble eventually.

But THAT's the problem with some of the smaller groups - smaller groups can go off on their tangent agendas, be it the Republican Party or what not. Not all are like that. The fifty caliber groups are excellent - from what I've seen, http://fiftycal.org/ and http://fcsa.org/ and NRA all know how to work together, as an example.

Probably the biggest issue for most gun-owners is not to waste their RKBA dollars. That's why I'm an NRA Benefactor member (the most one can pay for membership) and I feel the same way, even moreso, about my time and efforts.


Creeping Incrementalism
07-05-2006, 4:49 PM
I think you get more bang for your buck from the smaller groups, than the NRA. They are either too hard line, or just standing up for gun owners when the NRA caves, depending on whether or not you think the NRA caves in too easily.

I also believe nearly all of these groups were founded just a few years before the NRA started getting really political after the Cincinnati revolt of '77, and I don't think people would have felt the need to start them if the NRA had gotten political earlier.

I'm a member of GOA & GOC, because they give you another perspective other than the NRA (you get more of an insider's view of how the politicking works), and also because I think they are more efficient with my money. I also think their continued existence keeps the NRA from getting too soft.

Mssr. Eleganté
07-05-2006, 11:08 PM
After giving to the NRA, your money would probably go further toward protecting the Second Amendment if your second donation was to a plain old pro-Constitution group like the Cato Institute...


While Cato doesn't focus on the Second Amendment, their advocacy of an "originalist" view of the Constitution has more of a pro-Second Amendment impact than the GOA or the JPFO.

I am a life member of the GOA, but they are starting to flood my mailbox with weekly requests for money just like the NRA used to. When I joined the GOA they made a big point about how they didn't keep begging for money like the NRA. But now they are. I should try giving them a call and asking for the junk mail to stop. It worked with the NRA. But the only real effect I can see the GOA having is to play the part of the "unreasonable" gun lobby or "bad cop" so that the NRA can look more main stream. It could be an effective tactic for us.

But now all of my charitable giving is split three ways, between the NRA endowment, the Cato Institute, and the Salvation Army.