PDA

View Full Version : Educate me on NRA voting, ballot nominees for board of directors, and proxy voting


AJAX22
01-28-2011, 2:48 PM
I've been trying to do some research and have not been able to come up with much.

My understanding of the NRA voting procedure is that only members with a consecutive membership of 5+ years or those who hold life memberships are eligible to vote on NRA board positions. and of those eligible to vote, almost none do..

a solid voting block of 700-3000 life members would all but guarantee control of the NRA's board of directors and their subsequent agenda.

How are nominations for the board handled? who is eligible?

Are proxies able to be used for NRA voting? or better yet, is there any legal reason they could deny proxy voting?

I would like to get the NRA on the same page with the SAF and make them more accessible to the 'regular joe' gun owners.

I've made efforts to contact board members within the NRA in the past and It was damn near impossible and they were not overly excited about the prospect of anything outside of the standard 'box' they typically work within.

I think we may be able to point the 800 pound gorilla in the direction we want and give him a kick in the balls... but we'll need to figure out how to play the game.

we need a 'Hardcore' group of gun rights activists calling the shots... no compromise, no retreat... and if we can get proxies from life members then we can insure that they cast all votes for 'hardcore' gun rights candidates.

Thoughts? information?

(for the record, this was not my idea, it was a very good idea that one of the other board members of the New Promethean Initiative came up with)

Gray Peterson
01-28-2011, 3:05 PM
I've been trying to do some research and have not been able to come up with much.

My understanding of the NRA voting procedure is that only members with a consecutive membership of 5+ years or those who hold life memberships are eligible to vote on NRA board positions. and of those eligible to vote, almost none do..

a solid voting block of 700-3000 life members would all but guarantee control of the NRA's board of directors and their subsequent agenda.

How are nominations for the board handled? who is eligible?

Are proxies able to be used for NRA voting? or better yet, is there any legal reason they could deny proxy voting?

I would like to get the NRA on the same page with the SAF and make them more accessible to the 'regular joe' gun owners.

I've made efforts to contact board members within the NRA in the past and It was damn near impossible and they were not overly excited about the prospect of anything outside of the standard 'box' they typically work within.

I think we may be able to point the 800 pound gorilla in the direction we want and give him a kick in the balls... but we'll need to figure out how to play the game.

we need a 'Hardcore' group of gun rights activists calling the shots... no compromise, no retreat... and if we can get proxies from life members then we can insure that they cast all votes for 'hardcore' gun rights candidates.

Thoughts? information?

(for the record, this was not my idea, it was a very good idea that one of the other board members of the New Promethean Initiative came up with)

Not downing this, but on the Legislative front, they've been doing a lot of good work. It's the ILA Legal Division that is the problem.....

The same bloc of individuals must also make sure not to "mix other politics" into gun issues. This is why the NRA-ILA Legislative side has been so effective. Despite having Dems in the majority of the two political branches of Government, they've gotten tremendous gains for us, including National Park carry.

Narrow focus of "what to fix" makes more sense than a "Cincinatti Revolt" style takeover.

AJAX22
01-28-2011, 4:41 PM
Not downing this, but on the Legislative front, they've been doing a lot of good work. It's the ILA Legal Division that is the problem.....

The same bloc of individuals must also make sure not to "mix other politics" into gun issues. This is why the NRA-ILA Legislative side has been so effective. Despite having Dems in the majority of the two political branches of Government, they've gotten tremendous gains for us, including National Park carry.

Narrow focus of "what to fix" makes more sense than a "Cincinatti Revolt" style takeover.

Without getting someone on the inside, they are not going to listen to us tell them what to fix or how to narrow it.

Even if we were not effective in getting a man inside at first, having a block trying to do so would be a helluva slap in the face and wakeup call to them that the firearms community wanted them to grow a spine and hang a pair of nuts off of it. (and to tell the damn legal guys to stop claiming credit for the work of others... not acknowledging Gura or the SAF when claiming credit for both heller and mcdonald was unacceptable)

I'm just tired of seeing all the really hardcore gun rights guys talking **** (some deserved, some not) about the NRA instead of participating.

we need at least one guy on that board that is a line in the sand, die hard 2A activist.

Matt C
01-28-2011, 4:43 PM
There has been big drama with the NRA elections before. XL size can of worms there.

ke6guj
01-28-2011, 4:55 PM
There has been big drama with the NRA elections before. XL size can of worms there.

that would be the "Cincinatti Revolt" back in the 70's led by Neal Knox. I do seem to recall someone mentioning that the NRA bylaws have been changed since then to prevent another "Revolt".

Matt C
01-28-2011, 5:02 PM
that would be the "Cincinatti Revolt" back in the 70's led by Neal Knox. I do seem to recall someone mentioning that the NRA bylaws have been changed since then to prevent another "Revolt".

Indeed, it's worth noting that the revolt was by the "hardline" 2A advocates and against the "sportsmen" such as the NRA executive VP who supported the 68 gun control act. The hardliners won. I think there may have been some more recent drama as well.

bwiese
01-28-2011, 5:31 PM
Grey has it.

While the Cincinnatti revolt was useful in swinging to a more aggressive stance there were other internal tensions too in the recent past.

Appears some in the Knox faction more recently (last 12+ or so years) really wanted to turn NRA resources into kinda a shareholding situation for above-Life members, decommission the NRA into a fancy public shell with not much behind it, and then distribute the 'benefits' to the 'shareholders'. I probably don't have this quite right, but that's a reasonably approximate summary.

While there are some philosphy issues in treating legal actions like political actions (the latter of which NRA does quite well, the former usually pretty well until we move from pure gun law into civil rights law)- by and large, the NRA is doing WONDERFULLY politically in spite of certain board members who "don't get it" and carry weight for nongun issues (I'm talking Cleta Mitchell and Grover Norquist). These folks are using NRA board membership as a 'credential' into other non-gun communities as credibility for "rightwingedness". You saw these particular folks speak up out of turn about the DISCLOSE drama and then get beyotch slapped, quite correctly, by Chris Cox. (Several senior NRA folks were also bodily threatened by Tea Partiers who didn't get the rationale of "what to do, when" in relation to certain candidacies.)

Remember also that we are fortunate to have two great *California* board members, Joel Friedman and Tommy Gaines, representing us - and CA liaison Paul Payne reports directly to Wayne.

Gray Peterson
01-28-2011, 6:47 PM
the NRA is doing WONDERFULLY politically in spite of certain board members who "don't get it" and carry weight for nongun issues (I'm talking Cleta Mitchell and Grover Norquist). These folks are using NRA board membership as a 'credential' into other non-gun communities as credibility for "rightwingedness". You saw these particular folks speak up out of turn about the DISCLOSE drama and then get beyotch slapped, quite correctly, by Chris Cox. (Several senior NRA folks were also bodily threatened by Tea Partiers who didn't get the rationale of "what to do, when" in relation to certain candidacies.)

Remember also that we are fortunate to have two great *California* board members, Joel Friedman and Tommy Gaines, representing us - and CA liaison Paul Payne reports directly to Wayne.

Maybe I should run for NRA BoD. Though that would probably get a huge target on my back though. :hide: Gene and Brandon should do it instead! :p

hoffmang
01-28-2011, 9:39 PM
Vote for Friedman, and Gaines. Also note that undervoting is very valuable to make our California votes go further.

-Gene

AJAX22
01-28-2011, 9:52 PM
Can Proxies be collected and used?

How do we get new nominees on the ballot?

AJAX22
01-31-2011, 1:07 PM
Proxies are not allowed, and the specifics of the petition are only available to eligible members who request a copy of the current bylaws.

Life members (and annual members who have completed five years of membership before the date of record) are fully eligible to vote. Twenty-five members of the 76-member Board of Directors are elected each year via ballots cast by mail to a three-year term (ballots are automatically sent to members who qualify). The 76th member is elected to a one year term every year at the Annual Meeting by those members who attend.

The NRA Bylaws specifically prohibit proxy voting in Article XII, which reads:
"At all meetings of the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, other committees of the Association, and meetings of members, each person entitled to vote shall have a right to case one vote on each question presented, which vote shall be cast in person and not by proxy."

Life members can be placed on the ballot by petition. The details of this process are outlined in the NRA Bylaws, a copy of which can be requested by any member entitled to vote.