View Single Post
  #27  
Old 04-27-2019, 1:53 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,193
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Rather than seeking personal opinions, why not look at the bylaws? Here's the 2016 version.
And why must I squint at a scan of some booklet of the bylaws? Why aren't the bylaws published online, or a pdf at least made available on the NRA member services website? I've read that I can apparently mail a letter to the secretary to get a copy, and include a pre-postage envelope in that letter to have them mail me a printed copy of the bylaws back, but given it is TYOOL 2019, I find that if this is the only way to officially get a copy of the current bylaws, it cannot be because they are not able to distribute them more effectively.

Also same question goes to the CRPA.

But on that topic, sure... Page 34 (PDF page 20) says that to submit a petition for removal of association officials by recall, that there must be at least 450 signatures, with at least 100 from different states, after the adjournment of the most recent Annual Meeting of Members, but 150+ days before the Annual Meeting (so you're leaving uh... 7 months-ish? to collect the petition signatures?).

This is also an overview of the process: https://www.pagunblog.com/2016/02/11...-and-its-hard/

However, in 2017, this was apparently amended (after being sent out on the annual ballot) to raise the threshold to remove an official... I can't find the ballot for that year, and it doesn't show the ballot on the digital versions of The Rifleman anymore. So just taking Knox's word for it, the bar is raised to 5,000 signatures minimum, and it goes higher based off of how many NRA members voted in the previous election. That's a significant increase in the threshold; would you not agree?

And I'd ask for someone who has more knowledge to comment since there's a lot more going on here I imagine, there's probably a lot more context, and it's not like the NRA is a bastion of transparency... I mean, again, I can pull up California laws and regulations all day (and also of most states)... and we're encouraged to educate ourselves on these laws... I don't see why that wouldn't apply to the organization's own bylaws, and I don't see why they're not just posted on a webpage with a pdf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That seems more a personal perception. I think it would be difficult to derive an 'universally acceptable' distinction between 'supporting' and 'carrying water' for a party based on which is presumed to be 'more friendly' or, at least, 'less harmful' to gun rights. If you think that CRPA draws a more rigid or acceptable or legitimate distinction, then, by all means, your support should proportionately demonstrate as much. Of course, the opposite is also true.
I can find examples. Again, I referenced Dana Loesch's Relentless... Let's see... for late 2018.
9/5/2018: Brandon Morse on Skeletons in Beto's Basement
8/29/2018: David Limbaugh: President Trump Calls out Google
Bongino: Media Jumps on Desantis Comment, Not His Opponents' Socialist Agenda

What does any of the above have to do with gun rights? It has everything to do with all the other politics with more republican talking points though. It's fine that these exist, but in my opinion it's not fine that it's being pushed as part of a NRATV show. NRA should be talking about gun rights, and that can overlap with a lot of things, but if the focus isn't about gun rights, then don't make it part of the NRA's media platform. None of those examples focus on gun rights. And the same applies if the script was reversed, and they were talking more democrat talking points; I wouldn't want those either.

I mean those examples are pretty clear cut, aren't they? And there's more if you go further back, however, as I stated, it seems that newer episodes are lacking those talking points, and seem to focus on gun stuff exclusively, so it looks like someone told NRATV to knock it off, so good job whoever that was at the NRA.

Conversely, I mean I was looking around at CRPA, and I won't claim to watch the show all that much or be familiar with it, but here's the most recent Fridays at Five with Rick Travis, Executive Director at the CRPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFS3g2eqOb4

Starts out the episode pointing out that he isn't anti or pro Democrat, or anti or pro Republican, but pro 2nd Amendment, and talks about how there's 2A supporters and detractors in both parties, and gives a definition that I mean, hey, some friends of mine would disgaree with, but that's a much more nuanced position than say, the NRA.

As expected, of course, with CRPA being California based.

And to be clear here, I'm just saying that I think that the NRA is/was making a mistake by trying to push those other politics in their other media. I understand that politics is kind of a messy business, and for instance, the NRA might fund local negative political ads against candidates in an area that might say all sorts of things where they're trying to get a pro-gun candidate elected, but that's different in my opinion than pushing that on your bread and butter media shows for member consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Good point. Of course, given that CRPA is the official state association for the NRA, one would hope they do work together.

CRPA & NRA Partnership

What's interesting and seems to be directly related to your last point, the final line on that page is...
This is the report (at least from August 2017) https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...ugust-2017.pdf
It was posted on calguns as well (with dead links currently): https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1298856

CRPA has been doing a lot of reorganizing over last 2 to 3 years afaik. That also includes their website, which has been given a fresh coat of paint (with a lot of dead links for older content) and their payment processing system afaik.

Anyhow, the report organizes the different legal/litigation actions that CRPA + NRA took together in California for about a year. However, it doesn't explain how that relationship really works. It's unclear, as I stated previously, and maybe they should go about explaining that in a bit more detail sometime. I can only say that I've witnessed how it works in the committees based off the videos I've seen, and it's mostly about trying to cover as many bases as possible (because obviously there's a lot of bills to cover).



Anyhow, those are my... quibbles. Hopefully these recent financial issues get resolved in a way that's favorable to NRA's members, and we'll see what happens. It's not a good thing if our donations and dues are squandered (even if the extent is being exaggerated by enemies).
Reply With Quote