Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2019, 2:35 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default The Source For The Heated Exchanges Regarding the NRA

Recently, we've had a number of 'heated exchanges' on recent threads and posts on existing threads, questioning the NRA, including...

Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A - Article
How to increase NRA Membership
New Yorker Article: Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A.
NRA Stance on 2nd Amendment
NRA Suing Long Time Ad Firm Ackerman-McQueen

In a couple of those threads, you'll find that Kestryll responded, in part...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
...The New Yorker article is based entirely on the 'facts' posted in an article on the website 'thetrace', one of Michael Bloomberg's pet anti-2a projects.

Ask yourself a question, if there was validity to this, and I'm not saying there aren't problems like with any organization, but if there was real solid evidence of a problem of this scale would you see it plastered all over CNN and MSNBC?

Do a quick Google search for 'cnn nra' and 'msnbc nra' and see if you find it. Remembering that Google itself is solidly anti-2A and would likely present a verified story like this in the top three results.
To be fair, sometimes, things take a little while to gain traction in the media; true or not, valid or not. Likewise, being too overt isn't always the game plan. However... Often, one needs to look at who is behind the sources engendering the questions. It doesn't make everything published by a perceived "left-wing" organization FUD. But, when it's the same source, over and over and over, one does begin to wonder.

As Kestryll observed, Bloomberg appears to be in the middle of this. For those not familiar with The Trace, you might take a peek and see if you can [easily] spot some of the pieces being pointed to as the 'source' for the concerns being expressed. (If you don't want to hand them a click, that's your choice. But, as I and others have stated, numerous times, if you don't keep yourself aware of what "the other side" is doing, it makes it that much easier for them to manipulate things.)

It's not just his exemplar, but this came out a few hours ago, on Yahoo no less...

'NRA in crisis' ad campaign launched ahead of gun group's annual convention

Quote:
On the eve of the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Indianapolis, the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety has unveiled a new ad campaign that argues the organization is “becoming more fringe and more toxic to the Americans it has long claimed to represent.”
What is interesting in that piece is a paragraph which appears to 'suggest' that many of the concerns being expressed here regarding the NRA seem to stem directly from the pieces explicitly listed in that article, all of which are tied to Bloomberg...

Quote:
An accompanying report highlights what Everytown calls the “scandals and investigations rocking the NRA,” including a recent New Yorker exposé detailing how a small group of NRA executives, contractors and vendors “extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the nonprofit’s budget.” Everytown, in turn, filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service challenging the NRA’s tax-exempt status...
...and the efforts by Cuomo to hurt the NRA financially - something that we've had numerous threads on in following the unfolding events.

All of that doesn't mean there won't end up being some validity to these allegations. Such ties don't mean that it's all simply FUD and propaganda. Thus, none of that should preclude 'keeping an eye' on things for the long-term good of the organization.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, expressing genuine concerns, and vigilance. Such does not indicate traitorous behavior, anti-civil rights proclivities, foolishness, idiocy, or ill-will. Likewise, blind loyalty and vitriolic obeisance is neither a shibboleth nor a litmus test and could lead to someone or some group 'taking advantage,' in more ways than one.

With that said, ONE question that those who are now 'concerned' and asking questions should entertain is: "Am I being influenced by Bloomberg's ad campaign in precisely the way it was intended?" In other words, is the campaign 'attacking' in such a way as to 'tickle' pre-existing concerns some members have and cause one to 'react,' not so much based on actual, hard evidence, but on an emotional level? Remember, such pre-existing concerns are no secret and are quite commonly aired in public; whether in articles, interviews, or internet forums.

I'm not trying to play 'peace maker.' What I'm suggesting is that rather than fortifying yourself in opposing trenches, maybe both sides need to take heed to what Kestryll seemed to be suggesting; i.e., what is it that has caused this ruckus and might that have been the intent?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-25-2019, 3:23 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,739
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The source is politics. Since the NRA backed Trump. Knocking the NRA is another Democratic party smear campain to both discredit the NRA and the president.

Expect things to heat up as we approach the 2020 election. Interesting how the tax angle is used for both attacks against the president and the NRA. So the source is consistant.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-25-2019, 7:14 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,942
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The Marxist/Alinsky Model is to demonize and trash a person or organization into being sub-human, thus you have no problem exterminating them from society, basic human psychology used to assassinate the humanity of a person or organization.

The NRA does have problems, anyone remember the problems of the 1970's early 1980's when only the elites used the private hunting ranch, paid for by the rank and file, but with all the problems, think what would happen without any NRA?

Gura is a Libertarian and probably does agree with some of the areas the NRA is involved with.

Think of CRPA and how it was before Michel reformed it, the NRA needs reform, probably ongoing, but think of a world without it, be careful what you wish for.

Better to reform than eliminate.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-25-2019, 7:36 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 6,769
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

No human organization is above reproach. That being said, anyone who's paying attention can see that this is an obvious attempt to cause as much disruption as possible for the NRA so that anti-gun forces can continue its agenda.

Unfortunately, the NRA has done enough stupid to create its own internal list of people with axes to grind and they're more than happy to use this opportunity to go after the people they're angry at for whatever reasons.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-25-2019, 7:55 AM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 976
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As stated above , You don't burn the house down because it has termites...you treat it and correct the problem. Unlike CRPA the leadership of the NRA is not as effective as I would like ( understatement ) but we need them in this fight if we are going to gain any ground. JMO
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-25-2019, 9:55 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The major questions I have can probably be answered/conjectured from the actual tax returns:
1) Is the NRA currently financially stable?
2) Can the NRA exist in the future with its current business model? In other words, do they rely on growth of membership and/or donations/increased costs from the "5 million members"?
3) Is the NRA going to take seriously the squandering of hard-earned donated money? To be fair, a lot of charities/exempt organizations probably have the same dirty laundry.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-25-2019, 2:21 PM
MyOdessa's Avatar
MyOdessa MyOdessa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Nor. Cal.
Posts: 1,893
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
The major questions I have can probably be answered/conjectured from the actual tax returns:
1) Is the NRA currently financially stable?
2) Can the NRA exist in the future with its current business model? In other words, do they rely on growth of membership and/or donations/increased costs from the "5 million members"?
3) Is the NRA going to take seriously the squandering of hard-earned donated money? To be fair, a lot of charities/exempt organizations probably have the same dirty laundry.
So you not NRA member, you just a freeloader relying on others to finance the fight against gun control. Did you refused to buy SCM because the lawsuit was funded by the NRA and CRPA?
__________________
Socialism is a conspiracy of losers against achievers.
Democratic Party is the party of evil.
There is indeed a rat in a democrat.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-25-2019, 3:10 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyOdessa View Post
So you not NRA member, you just a freeloader relying on others to finance the fight against gun control. Did you refused to buy SCM because the lawsuit was funded by the NRA and CRPA?
I do and have donated to NRA so you can take this whataboutism somewhere else. This thread is about having a real discussion and not just hurling ad hominem attacks. If you think my bona fides somehow distract from my questions then that is your call.

Last edited by BryMan92; 04-25-2019 at 3:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-25-2019, 3:47 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
The major questions I have can probably be answered/conjectured from the actual tax returns...
Then this site might provide you some answers regarding the NRA's taxes, at least from 2004 - 2016. (This site has the same forms, but from only 2014 - 2016.)

To quote the site...

Quote:
The summary data contains information processed by the IRS during the 2012-2017 calendar years; this generally consists of filings for the 2011-2016 fiscal years, but may include older records. This data release includes only a subset of what can be found in the full Form 990s.

In addition to the raw summary data, we link to PDFs of full Form 990 documents wherever possible. This consists of a separate release by the IRS of Form 990 documents processed by the agency through June 2016; these documents may contain filings as recent as the 2015 fiscal year.
Here's a copy of the 2017 Form 990 for the NRA.

Have fun with that.

The point is that in scanning the articles questioning the NRA's taxes, these seem to be the forms being referenced.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-25-2019 at 3:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-25-2019, 4:18 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Then this site might provide you some answers regarding the NRA's taxes, at least from 2004 - 2016. (This site has the same forms, but from only 2014 - 2016.)

To quote the site...



Here's a copy of the 2017 Form 990 for the NRA.

Have fun with that.

The point is that in scanning the articles questioning the NRA's taxes, these seem to be the forms being referenced.
This is great! The Trace article only references the 2016 - 2017 returns I think so not really enough to see a trend. I'll look through this and see if I can make heads or tails of anything (probably not, as doing my own taxes was a nightmare). What was striking to me was the article claimed cost increases so what would be curious to me would be how revenue generated from members/new members is varying over time. Being in the red after a major election is probably not too much of a big deal (assuming it's not a Pyrrhic victory) considering DJT/Graham are pumping out new judges.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-25-2019, 5:57 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 12,366
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Freedom Week would not have happened if not for the NRA and it's official state association the CRPA. That alone makes the NRA worth it and ends the argument that the NRA doesn't do anything for CA.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMo View Post
Almost every poll shows Trump losing very badly, yet poeple still believe some conspiracy. The party p[icked the weakest candidate so they have to own that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom2a View Post
Anything to protect Cheeto. Even though he just signed basically a gun confiscation order.
YES, TDS IS REAL, ORANGE MAN BAD

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2019, 8:12 AM
mooner760HD's Avatar
mooner760HD mooner760HD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 373
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Freedom Week would not have happened if not for the NRA and it's official state association the CRPA. That alone makes the NRA worth it and ends the argument that the NRA doesn't do anything for CA.
Being associated with CRPA isn't enough for me. I want to know what their role was in the benitez decision because as far as I can tell all they do is attach their name to the work of others.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2019, 2:02 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,942
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It gets better,


"NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Says He Is Being Extorted, Pressured to Resign
Longtime National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre has told the group’s board he is being extorted and pressured to resign by the organization’s president, Oliver North, over allegations of financial improprieties, in an extraordinary battle roiling one of the nation’s most powerful nonprofit political groups."

I am all for a house cleaning, just wonder what the house will look life afterward.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Last edited by Californio; 04-26-2019 at 2:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2019, 2:04 PM
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 30
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The President of the CRPA runs the law firm behind the Duncan case...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-26-2019, 3:42 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
"NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Says He Is Being Extorted, Pressured to Resign...

I am all for a house cleaning, just wonder what the house will look life afterward.
I'm assuming that's the Wall Street Journal article since there's no link.

What's interesting is this paragraph from the MarketWatch derivative (I can't view the WSJ version)...

Quote:
...North previously had sent a longer letter to the board’s executive committee detailing new allegations of financial improprieties involving more than $200,000 of wardrobe purchases by LaPierre that were charged to a vendor...
Since the media headlines are based on LaPierre's letter, HERE IS LaPierre's LETTER; i.e., it's not some anonymous source speaking to a "Leftist/Commie" periodical. (I haven't found a copy of the letter North has purportedly sent - yet.) To be sure, however, there is a certain amount of 'spin' going on in terms of how it's being presented by the media.

What's interesting to me is that I don't see a 'denial' of the allegations raised. What I see is some posturing, demands associated with the lawsuit, and allusions to...

Quote:
The letter would contain a devastating account of our financial status, sexual harassment charges against a staff member, accusations of wardrobe expenses, and excessive staff travel expenses.
In essence, it looks like North was relaying a 'warning' by Ackerman-McQueen putting LaPierre on notice akin to - "Resign for the good of the organization and you can keep your rank/pension."

As I said in the OP, sometimes, things take a little while to gain traction in the media. In the midst of a lawsuit, such things can be expected and, certainly, those aligned against the NRA can be expected to take advantage. However, that doesn't mean there isn't some, potential truth in the allegations. As things become more public, it will be interesting to see what shakes out.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-26-2019 at 3:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-26-2019, 4:37 PM
thmsmgnm thmsmgnm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Good news is, if Wayne is fired he can not collect his $1.7 million a year retirement package till he dies.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-26-2019, 4:45 PM
thmsmgnm thmsmgnm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
The major questions I have can probably be answered/conjectured from the actual tax returns:
1) Is the NRA currently financially stable?
2) Can the NRA exist in the future with its current business model? In other words, do they rely on growth of membership and/or donations/increased costs from the "5 million members"?
3) Is the NRA going to take seriously the squandering of hard-earned donated money? To be fair, a lot of charities/exempt organizations probably have the same dirty laundry.
The NRA has spent money like a drunken sailor on leave or a .Mil contractor just back from extended trip overseas. Except a sailor or contractor can only spend until the $$ is gone or the credit cards max out. The NRA is about out of the $25 million line of credit, it has borrowed against NRA employee benefit plans, borrowed against the NRA Foundation ($5 million), and other debts.

For the record according to reports the NRA paid Ackerman PR Group over $40 million in 2017..that they will admit to. In 1997 the Ackerman contract was worth somewhere around $5 million or maybe $6 million if the number are accurate.

Members & NRA Directors, have raising concerns about the NRA finances & contracts with Ackerman for over 20 years. The NRA has been dinged by non-profit organization watchdogs for numerous oversight failures.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-26-2019, 4:47 PM
Featureless's Avatar
Featureless Featureless is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 651
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
The major questions I have can probably be answered/conjectured from the actual tax returns:
1) Is the NRA currently financially stable?
2) Can the NRA exist in the future with its current business model? In other words, do they rely on growth of membership and/or donations/increased costs from the "5 million members"?
3) Is the NRA going to take seriously the squandering of hard-earned donated money? To be fair, a lot of charities/exempt organizations probably have the same dirty laundry.
Wow. Lotta what if speculation there. How about you retrieve the tax returns, do an in depth analysis of them and post the results here. Or just jack your jaws. Your choice.
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-26-2019, 5:12 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
As stated above , You don't burn the house down because it has termites...you treat it and correct the problem. Unlike CRPA the leadership of the NRA is not as effective as I would like ( understatement ) but we need them in this fight if we are going to gain any ground. JMO
So... About this. If we were to take what Jeff Knox said at face value about how it's "virtually impossible" to remove Directors and Officers, and I believe in previous articles he's said that it's hard to effect any change within the organization, I guess the question is how would you "treat" the termites without just burning down the house?

I can't say that I am familiar with NRA bylaws, though perhaps Kestryll or someone else could comment on whether it is much more difficult to remove people running parts of the NRA at the top or not, or if that's just a fiction created by Knox.

I will say that if Ackerman is responsible for NRATV, and they're getting sued by the NRA, then I'm mostly happy. I'm not a fan of whatever NRATV was/is becoming... like some sort of third-rate Fox News or whatever. Though now that I look through the NRATV site as I'm writing up this post... for example... the calendar on previous episodes of Dana Loesch's Relentless, there seems to be a sharp difference between 2019 episodes that are now less than 60 minutes, and late 2018 episodes that were almost always 60 minutes. The late 2018 episodes, based off of just a casual scrolling, would diverge often into Republican talking points to... fill time maybe? Yet the current 2019 episodes are less than 60 minutes, and only seem to focus on topics that are, at the very least related to guns, if not strongly about guns and gun rights. I also remember previously that the front page was littered with various non-firearm stories as well, but that's going off when I checked out the frontpage sometime last year.

Perhaps upper management listened after that whole KKK-Hooded-Thomas-the-Tank-Engine video fiasco, and had them cut out non-firearm talking points? I remember reading an article that LaPierre was aghast when someone showed him that video.

Either way, I think that partisan-charged media when pushed by the largest organization protecting gun rights makes it difficult to reach out to people that aren't necessarily in the pro-gun camp. It's perfectly natural for the NRA to support one party for the most part because those are that candidates that are, in theory, going to be supporting (or at least not hurting, since there could be more that could have been done legislatively by many representatives) gun rights, but I think it's another thing to carry water for a party.

I think the CRPA does a better job at that, but it isn't a national organization and it has a different playing field as far as challenges than other states, being this is California. Though it does a better job (in my opinion) by not trying to do some 24/7 media thing.

My two cents. Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong, as I'm certainly not an insider (I mostly just try to read these laws and help people, and comment on regs and contact reps), but that's what I've observed thus far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooner760HD View Post
Being associated with CRPA isn't enough for me. I want to know what their role was in the benitez decision because as far as I can tell all they do is attach their name to the work of others.
I can't say I know how that works, but I know that the NRA and the CRPA do work together, including on state issues. At the very least, on the lobbying front, NRA keeps a lobbyist (Is it Dan Reed?) in Sacramento, who is separate from the lobbyist hired by CRPA (Roy Griffith?), as I've been watching the CA legislative committee meetings (like the Safety Committee), and my understanding is they work together (along with other firearm group lobbyists) to get as much coverage at committee hearings as possible, especially when you have multiple committee hearings going on at the same time with gun bills in each of them. If they aren't there, then the concerns of gun owners aren't heard, and the concerns aren't recorded in the record.

Perhaps on the litigation end, which you're interested in, the NRA provides some additional legal help in some cases and then also splits the bill with the CRPA for Michel & Associates (as well as other law firms) legal bills. The NRA likes to emphasize that they spend as much or more money than dues collected by members in California, especially back during those webinars when Gunmageddon was happening. I do think that it is not easily seen by members though how exactly that relationship between NRA and CRPA works, so it probably does leave gun owners wondering if they should support both or only one, and maybe they should explain that better.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-26-2019, 5:35 PM
thmsmgnm thmsmgnm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

At this point the NRA needs general housecleaning. Wayne, Chris Cox, most the of NRA executives and officers, Ackerman, Mercury, all the PR people, outside vendors, and advisers need to be fired or have their contracts terminated.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-26-2019, 5:55 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featureless View Post
Wow. Lotta what if speculation there. How about you retrieve the tax returns, do an in depth analysis of them and post the results here. Or just jack your jaws. Your choice.
If this discussion is not to your liking you are welcome to visit other portions of CalGuns or provide critical commentary. Also, thmsmgnm, thanks for your insightful comments.


Additionally, here is a letter from LaPierre that was leaked today about some trying to push him out:

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources...tter042519.pdf

Last edited by BryMan92; 04-26-2019 at 6:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-26-2019, 6:16 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
If this discussion is not to your liking you are welcome to visit other portions of CalGuns or provide critical commentary.

Additionally, here is a letter from LaPierre that was leaked today about some trying to push him out:

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources...tter042519.pdf
The letter is linked to above.

I think what everyone needs to do is READ this thread and not simply assume it's simply another 'bash/defend' the NRA and 'destroy those critical/denounce those blindly loyal' go 'round. Or, as you put it earlier...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
This thread is about having a real discussion and not just hurling ad hominem attacks.
The key is, rather than simply reacting to the media narrative and personal issues regarding the organization, looking to what original source documents are being used as 'evidence' in the narrative and providing actual sources for the personal issues rather than "I remember when and didn't like..." anecdotes/attacks.

That is why I've provided the Form 990's (tax information for public view) from the NRA and LaPierre's actual letter above rather than focusing on individual news narratives, with the exception of a very few snippets which point to the source documents for those narratives.

As I said earlier, there's certainly some 'spin' going on with regard to LaPierre's letter. Likewise, though I've only glanced at the actual tax returns, there is some potential 'spin' going on there as well. However, there are also some elements of 'truth' behind that spin, as can be ascertained from the source documents.

Think of this thread as a 'discussion' based on what we actually know and can demonstrate versus the other, numerous threads based on individual polemics, personal issues, blind loyalty, reactions to what the media says rather than what the documentation actually says, etc.

So... Let's keep the utter speculation, personal attacks, defend the NRA at all costs, "I don't like LaPierre/the NRA needs an house cleaning," et al. posts to a minimum. Otherwise, unless you have some form of 'source documentation,' this thread will quickly and unfortunately, turn into yet another, unproductive argument (flame war) rather than a more objective and, potentially, 'enlightening' or 'helpful' discourse.

It's up to you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-26-2019, 6:58 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
I can't say that I am familiar with NRA bylaws...
Rather than seeking personal opinions, why not look at the bylaws? Here's the 2016 version.

After that, any personal opinion can then be challenged or supported based on the actual bylaws; which, by the way, can be amended, may have been amended, and have petitions seeking amendments in the works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
I will say that if Ackerman is responsible for NRATV, and they're getting sued by the NRA, then I'm mostly happy. I'm not a fan of whatever NRATV was/is becoming...
Is NRATV content what the lawsuit is about or is it more about finances, access to records, etc.?

NRA vs. Ackerman-McQueen and Mercury Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
It's perfectly natural for the NRA to support one party... but I think it's another thing to carry water for a party.

I think the CRPA does a better job at that...
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.

The point is, as stated in the OP, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, expressing genuine concerns, and vigilance. Such does not indicate traitorous behavior, anti-civil rights proclivities, foolishness, idiocy, or ill-will. If you have concerns about the content put out by or put out in the name of the NRA, then provide them feedback. If you don't care for the response or lack of response, then you have to decide, on a personal level, whether the organization continues to represent your personal beliefs and adjust your 'support' accordingly.

Likewise, blind loyalty and vitriolic obeisance is neither a shibboleth nor a litmus test and could lead to someone or some group 'taking advantage,' in more ways than one. An individual can "fight the good fight" and do so in effective ways without joining any, given organization. If the individual is "in the fight," denigrating them for not being a member of this or that group, not donating "big money," or simply not contributing the way you do isn't necessarily helpful. While there is wisdom in concerted effort, organization, and showing BIG (enough) numbers, you never know who might have the right ear or access thereunto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
I can't say I know how that works, but I know that the NRA and the CRPA do work together, including on state issues...

I do think that it is not easily seen by members though how exactly that relationship between NRA and CRPA works, so it probably does leave gun owners wondering if they should support both or only one, and maybe they should explain that better.
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...

Quote:
For a summary of some of the many actions NRA and CRPA have taken on behalf of California gun owners, click here.
Click on the "here" and you are taken to...

Quote:
Oops! That page can’t be found.

It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-26-2019, 7:25 PM
faterikcartman's Avatar
faterikcartman faterikcartman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego area.
Posts: 1,241
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I am not going to get in the weeds about the details here as I have not followed this as some of you have.

I will make a personal observation, however.

Wayne LaPierre has run the NRA since 1991. Some 28 years. My experience with people over the years is that if a man runs anything for 28 years he begins to think he owns it. Perhaps more importantly, it is often the case that anyone who runs anything for 28 years straight owns it.

Personally, I don't believe such a dynamic is healthy for any organization when the person in charge for 28 years doesn't actually own it.

Carry on.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not giving you or anyone else who reads my posts legal advice. I am making off-the-cuff comments that may or may not be accurate and are personal, not professional, opinion. If you think you need a lawyer please retain a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction. Your local bar association may be able to help if you need a referral.

Two Weeks!: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...p/t-59936.html
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-26-2019, 7:29 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/polit...ign/index.html

Does anyone know more than this article is stating?
It blows me away that LaPierre and North are feuding this much.
I'm dying to know what's really going on behind closed doors.

BTW, I'm in favor of a massive housecleaning at the NRA. They need
to get some GOA-style "no compromise" types in there.
I'm sick and tired of giving $$ to the NRA, only for them to give away rights, bit by bit. They need to learn the left will never by pacified.
__________________

NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-26-2019, 7:34 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/polit...ign/index.html

Does anyone know more than this article is stating?
It blows me away that LaPierre and North are feuding this much...
See Post #15 above.

There's some 'spin' and, maybe, some 'misrepresentation' going on with the articles/headlines.

It's very much like a custody or divorce case. Some things are being said, put into a 'context' convenient to a given side in the dispute, and then interpolated by outsiders. The result... Some truth, much furor, a lot of confusion, growing angst... where everyone thinks they're "in the know" or would like to be, but only a very few do have an actual clue and even they are beginning to question their recollections.

That's why this thread is trying to relay and focus on the source material rather than speculating about individual news reports and/or pushing individual agendas related to the NRA.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-26-2019 at 7:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2019, 1:53 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 812
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
  #28  
Old 04-27-2019, 4:48 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
And why must I squint at a scan of some booklet of the bylaws?
Okay. You don't want to have to look. You want more clarification than you can get by reading them. You want more answers than the bylaws provide. You want things more easily accessible; but, then explain that you want more information than is provided in the bylaws.

You said you weren't familiar with them and want someone to explain things. It seems to me that you're looking to be told what's up; i.e., you're seeking opinions/perceptions rather than facts or you are willing to accept opinions/perceptions as facts. Isn't that the very problem with all these threads and the articles stirring things up, everyone has their own opinions/perceptions and not all of them are based on actual facts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
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...
Have you asked NRA/CRPA officials? If so, what was the answer? Many organizations, including banks, do not publish 'everything' online and require you to request (or physically pick up) an hard copy. Remember, we're looking for source materials in this thread, not heated posts detailing how the organization should be run differently according to what individuals perceive as 'proper.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
That's a significant increase in the threshold; would you not agree?
Here's NRA President Cors' rationale as presented in 2017...

Quote:
...In 1977, when the members at Cincinnati voted to require 250 signatures for a candidate petition, the NRA had only one million members, and only about 200,000 voting members... Today, we have five million members, with nearly half of them eligible to vote in our 2017 elections...
You can read the rest for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
I can find examples. Again, I referenced Dana Loesch's Relentless... Let's see... for late 2018.
That wasn't the question I raised based on your statement. You said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
I will say that if Ackerman is responsible for NRATV, and they're getting sued by the NRA, then I'm mostly happy. I'm not a fan of whatever NRATV was/is becoming...
I inquired whether NRATV/Advertising content was the point of the lawsuit or if it was more focused on finances, access to records, etc. I then provided you a link to the actual lawsuit. If you read the lawsuit and LaPierre's letter, you will find the answer as to what the lawsuit is about.

What you are providing is something better suited to the other threads; i.e., you personally disagree with the shift you perceive to have occurred in NRATV/advertising content and, evidently, feel that the lawsuit is a good start in terms of either punishing Ackerman McQueen or that the decades-long partnership should be ended or both. If you consult the other threads, you will find many who agree with you and probably others who have not posted to any of those threads for one reason or another who also agree.

However, again, this thread isn't about personal issues with the NRA/CRPA. It's about looking to the source of the media frenzy which has begun and whether it is being portrayed accurately. What is the cited point of the lawsuit? A disagreement over content or concern over financial issues; including concerns over which NRA Board Members might be 'conflicted' in terms of salaries being paid by Ackerman McQueen?

Ultimately, such will have an impact on the direction taken with the 'content;' but, for now, it's more about finances and control, not whether a broader focus on more rights than simply the 2nd Amendment, on NRATV, in the advertising, in legal procedures, et al. is beneficial to the fight regarding the rights recognized and protected by the 2nd Amendment. That may be part of what all the furor is about, but that's a discussion that's more far-reaching, complex, and nuanced; though it addresses what you ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
What does any of the above have to do with gun rights?
In today's politics and as clearly evidenced in court, it's no longer about simply pointing to the 2nd Amendment and getting a definitive answer. 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th Amendment issues (and more) have ALL come into play in the context of legislation and litigation. It also comes into play in terms of which candidate/party is predominantly supported. In short, it's virtually impossible to truly look at just one issue in 'isolation' anymore. (In fact, Calguns is a "2nd Amendment" forum, yet we discuss the very topics you are pointing to on NRATV as part of our 'gun rights' discourse.) That's the argument being presented and one which may or may not have been taken 'too far.'

But, again, that falls into the realm of opinion/perception and, as stated, I think it would be difficult to derive an 'universally acceptable' distinction between 'supporting' and 'carrying water' for a party/candidates based on which is presumed to be 'more friendly' or, at least, 'less harmful' to gun rights. If you wish to attempt a consensus among Calguns members on that issue, start a thread and go for it.

If it is determined that the predominant feeling is that the NRA has 'lost focus' on gun rights in the context of how those rights impact others and vice versa, then, by all means, provide the NRA with feedback through letters, membership voting, etc. But, detailing a personal issue with the overall 'balance' of content on NRATV, NRA advertising, NRA supported politicians, etc., is not the point of this thread. There has been and always will be 'dissatisfaction' among some of the membership over choices made and such can actually be 'healthy' for an organization; e.g., if we're all thinking alike, then it becomes a question as to whether anyone is actually thinking.

The issue for this thread, however, would be: Is such 'disagreement' one of the sources behind the media frenzy that's begun or is it an existing (even necessary) schism that is being targeted by the media and/or, more specifically, as asked in the OP, by Bloomberg's 'NRA in Crisis' ad campaign? If it's the latter, then what is the objective of the campaign?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
...than pushing that on your bread and butter media shows for member consumption.
Is it primarily for NRA Member consumption? Can't people simply sign up for free and gain full access; i.e., NRA membership isn't required - right?

This was something that came up last year... Who watches the NRA’s TV channel?

Note the opening paragraph...

Quote:
...It’s called NRATV, and gun control activist organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and its affiliate Moms Demand Action want streaming services to drop the controversial channel...
Didn't we establish in the OP those are the very players being cited as proffering the source 'analyses' behind the current dust-up?

You might note that one number is thrown out - potentially 8 million subscribers via YouTube alone. That would seem to be more than the membership of the NRA itself.

The point is that the article reads like the media spin we're currently seeing. A good deal of innuendo, polemics, and a bit of snark with little factual content. For example...

Quote:
But judging by the view counts on many of their videos, which most often barely reach the couple thousands let alone high hundreds, NRATV isn’t pulling in the views expected in the most gun-happy, TV-obsessed country in the world.
Okay. NRATV may (or may not) be a failure if we ignore a subscriber base larger than the NRA membership on JUST ONE OUTLET and accept the premise that in a "TV-obsessed country," YouTube is the only outlet to judge viewership of individual content by.

So... Does NRATV simply target a single demographic such as the NRA membership or are they attempting to reach a broader audience with a mix of programming? Again, if you wish to 'debate' what you think they should do, there's yet another thread for you to create.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
This is the report (at least from August 2017) https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...ugust-2017.pdf
Now, that is the kind of material this thread is looking to highlight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
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'm not sure you'd get an agreement from NRA/CRPA in terms of letting 'the public' in on exactly how the sausage is made. However, my point in the earlier post about the 'dead link' was similar to the one you're making; i.e., a better job needs to be done in terms of letting people/members/gun enthusiasts "in" on what has been done, what is being done, and why. (Even the Calguns membership isn't broadly aware; though posts from the various members working for Michel & Associates have helped.) Even a modicum of insight would short-circuit a good deal of the angst being created and used by Bloomberg's ad campaign. For instance...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN
It's not a good thing if our donations and dues are squandered (even if the extent is being exaggerated by enemies).
Maybe it would help explain how the organization(s) distinguish between 'supporting' and 'carrying water' for candidates/party, not to mention how they view the necessity of other rights in the legislative, legal, financial, and public relations battles being fought. Such might help people discern the extent of the 'exaggeration' or, at least, provide a sense that donations/dues are not being 'squandered' on the whole. While it will never fully satisfy everyone, people will also have to understand that there will never be a one-size-suits-everyone consensus in an organization of more than 5 million people.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-27-2019, 6:30 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,123
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

1. You don't need "sources" in the "breaking news" sense to identify who the NRA is, what it's really about, etc.

It's all public record.

Fact: The NRA is a marksmanship and lobbying organization, period.

Fact: The NRA is a gun control organization and has been a major lobbyist an even in some case the author of proposed legislation that ends up passed and signed into law.

Fact: The NRA argues and continues to argue in court AND lobby for the banning of the natural exercise of the right (open carry) in favor of the permitted exercise fo the right (concealed carry).

Fact: Many anti-gun and anti-2A politicians are NRA funded.


2. Now the following is not a fact, but is suggested by further public records that have come out in the past few years . . .

. . . perhaps the NRA is starting to go the way of the AARP?

a. A tight circle of "cronies" inflating each other salaries and contracts.
b. Selling "insurance" products".
c. ________________________.

I think "c" can be filled in with "burning bridges" type of stuff from a members perspective.

I've been saying for some time now here on Calguns that we really don't have a true Pro-2A organization.

All the one's that claim to be really aren't.

If I know this, then the simple rule of "you ain't a genius" tells me that a lot of those non-voting gun owners out there know this as well.

Hint:

Striking down the GCA 1968 has to be an essential platform item for a true pro-2A group.

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-27-2019, 10:56 AM
THBailey's Avatar
THBailey THBailey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nra-presi...n-rights-group
__________________
THBailey


As Will Rogers once said:
"Everyone is ignorant, only in different subjects."
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-27-2019, 12:03 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 190
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What I'm suggesting is that rather than fortifying yourself in opposing trenches, maybe both sides need to take heed to what Kestryll seemed to be suggesting; i.e., what is it that has caused this ruckus and might that have been the intent?
I can't speak for everybody, but I'm certainly not mad at anybody for disagreeing with me over NRA-related things. It's not personal. I'm just having a discussion.

I encourage everyone involved to try to be like this as well. The opposition can't orchestrate a ruckus if we all just chill out and remember that this is just an internet forum and it's no big deal. We can't allow honest discussion in the community to be a risk.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-27-2019, 7:00 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
1. You don't need "sources" in the "breaking news" sense to identify who the NRA is, what it's really about, etc.
You miss the point. We're not trying to figure out "who the NRA is." This thread is looking to the sources purportedly being cited as 'evidence' for the media narrative as to what's happening with the NRA being "in crisis;" i.e., don't go by the stories being pushed, go to the supposed source for the story and make your own analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit
2. Now the following is not a fact, but is suggested by further public records that have come out in the past few years . . .
The point of the thread is to share those "further public records." Not "news stories" or blog/forum posts (unless they're by the actual individual) and not personal evaluation of what unlinked "records" supposedly say, but the actual documents; e.g., the tax records, the LaPierre letter, the bylaws, court filings, etc. Once you provide those LINKED TO documents, then a bit of your personal evaluation is fine because readers/members have the actual documents to go to to make their own evaluation or evaluate your evaluation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit
If I know this, then the simple rule of "you ain't a genius" tells me that a lot of those non-voting gun owners out there know this as well.
It's not about being a "genius" or "common knowledge." It's the same discussion you've been involved with a number of times. Provide your evidence, don't just SAY it's "common knowledge" in that your 'understanding' may be more... limited... than you realize. Your understanding may be completely correct; but, without source documents, it's hard, sometimes nigh unto impossible, for others to "know" as well or have a context for what you claim to "know."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-27-2019, 7:04 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by divert_fuse View Post
I can't speak for everybody, but I'm certainly not mad at anybody for disagreeing with me over NRA-related things. It's not personal. I'm just having a discussion.

I encourage everyone involved to try to be like this as well. The opposition can't orchestrate a ruckus if we all just chill out and remember that this is just an internet forum and it's no big deal. We can't allow honest discussion in the community to be a risk.
Exactly.

That's the point of this thread. Cut through the 'media spin' and the personal angst and look to the actual sources being cited as 'evidence' for the narrative.

When one does this, rather than getting lost in accusation/counter-accusation and obscuring the actual facts, a more honest discussion or, at least, a more accurate discourse is usually to be had.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-27-2019, 8:02 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THBailey View Post
It's all over the news cycle now...

Oliver North is out as NRA president, following a leadership dispute with longtime CEO Wayne LaPierre

Here is a video of North's letter as it is read to the meeting.

We know about the LaPierre letter (linked above). If one reads the letter, it wasn't quite what the media headlines were suggesting; though there is some 'truth' that LaPierre was, himself, 'suggesting' that 'spin,' for whatever reason. Note that LaPierre himself stated in the letter...

Quote:
Col. North stated that the purpose of the call was to relay the contents of a letter drafted by AM. According to Col. North, he had been advised...
LaPierre then goes on to note that both Boren and North are "tied to" AM, laying the foundation for... it's a conspiracy by AM because we sued them; i.e., an 'attack on the NRA' and gun rights. As I said above, no outright 'denial' of the allegations raised against him personally, some posturing, demands associated with the lawsuit, and allusions to the contents of the letter North was relaying the contents of.

We know it's true that there is a concerted effort against the NRA at the moment. You have Bloomberg's 'ad campaign' noted in the OP. You have Cuomo's financial targeting vis a vis the 'insurance' offered; targeting that Cuomo has encouraged other States to focus on to 'shut down the NRA.' There is the 'vulnerability' that typically comes as the result of the narrative-counter narrative of a lawsuit that Bloomberg and the media are taking advantage of.

As this thread has been attempting to demonstrate, the sources providing 'targets of opportunity' for that ad campaign/media narrative are generally out there and readily available; from the tax records, to the "internal communications" (e.g., LaPierre letter to the Board), to the internet forums where contributors claim...
  • the NRA isn't "doing enough"
  • the NRA is "going the wrong direction"
  • the NRA has lost focus on gun rights
  • the NRA is endlessly demanding money
  • what is the NRA doing with all the money
  • the NRA claims credit for the legal success of others
  • etc.

Exacerbating such exchanges is a 'failure' to address some of those questions directly, but a 'public' airing of such things as...
  • the NRA's claim, for the purposes of their lawsuit against Cuomo, et al., that they are being put in dire straits financially as a result of Cuomo's actions
  • that there is a 'conspiracy' against the NRA and gun rights because of the accusations against some of its officers

It doesn't take a Masters in Psychology or a Ph.D. in Marketing to figure out who/what to target and how to present it to 'aggravate' existing, and sometimes 'healthy,' divides in the membership of an organization with more than 5 million members. Just like the ABC article noting that North will not serve a second term states...

Quote:
The dust-up came as New York State Attorney General Letititia James announced late on Saturday that her office is investigating the NRA and has issued subpoenas. A source close to the investigation confirmed to ABC News that the probe is focused on the NRA's finances and its status as a tax-exempt non-profit.
Okay. Is that a 'new' investigation into NRA finances or is it part of the 'existing' efforts by the State of New York in the 'dust-up' surrounding the NRA insurance go 'round? The piece doesn't say. The reader is left to 'infer' what they will. How might the angst being expressed in the forums, an angst being 'tickled' by Bloomberg's ad campaign, color such inferences bereft the actual documents?

The point here is not to allow 'outside agencies' to aggravate existing, legitimate differences in the membership (differences which are actually healthy for an organization of the NRA's size and mandate) to a point where it becomes a 'circular firing squad' among NRA members. Cut through the narrative. Go to the sources being cited, THEN form your opinion. When you express that opinion, LINK to the sources and what those sources actually say.

If there is some 'truth' in the allegations and 'validity' in the questions being raised, then don't proffer hyperbole in defense of the organization. If it's time for an 'house cleaning,' then acknowledge the facts supporting that assertion and make your own determination as to whether the dust is exacerbating your allergies to a point where some cleaning might be in order lest those allergies turn into something more serious.

If, instead, the dust being pointed to as 'evidence' that a thorough house cleaning is in order turns out to be more along the lines of someone overly fastidious about 'dirt,' then acknowledge the 'dirt,' but provide your own, documented evidence that there's not, currently, an health risk; but, it bears watching and, at some point, the 'dirt' will be dealt with. Don't simply accuse them of being 'negative' (ahem) and threaten to throw them out of the house or tell them they aren't welcome to come in.

Remember, the more occupants in the house, the bigger the house will grow out of necessity. Let's just make sure the house is constructed according to code and that there are no, legitimate reasons 'inspectors' will find to tear the house down.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-27-2019, 9:48 PM
Foulball's Avatar
Foulball Foulball is offline
It smells in here...
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 2,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm having a hard time remembering any other organization that is made up, by supposedly "free men", that has undergone this level of media scrutiny.
Certainly not the "Red Scare", certainly not the commies that supported the New Deal or the Johnson Deal. Can't come up with a single example.
Wake up and smell the roses people, this is the fight between what you will accept from your overlords or what you will fight as free men.
This started in the '30s and was expanded in the late 60's, this is the fight for your freedom. Fight back now or forever be on your knees.
__________________
Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice....With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State. - Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-27-2019, 10:08 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foulball View Post
I'm having a hard time remembering any other organization that is made up, by supposedly "free men", that has undergone this level of media scrutiny.
The "media" has never been more pervasive and invasive as it is today in terms of the technological means to be so. Thus, the level of 'media scrutiny,' to a point, is relative in terms of the media's ability to... scrutinize... or, more accurately, purvey a narrative to so many simultaneously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foulball
Wake up and smell the roses people, this is the fight between what you will accept from your overlords or what you will fight as free men...Fight back now or forever be on your knees.
That's true, to a point. However, that doesn't mean there's not, potentially, issues which need to be dealt with. Should they be dealt with in-house, without all the media attention? Preferably. But, 'blind allegiance' isn't always the most effective defense.

We still don't have a copy of the letter North was 'relating' to LaPierre; though we do have LaPierre's acknowledgement in his letter that...

Quote:
The letter would contain a devastating account of our financial status, sexual harassment charges against a staff member, accusations of wardrobe expenses, and excessive staff travel expenses.
Such issues will need to be addressed at some point. LaPierre has not done so, yet and, in fact, has presented them in such a way that it is hoped members will infer that they are specious and an attack on their gun rights. Alright. But, that's posturing for the sake of the lawsuit and PR, as are the allegations also posturing for the same purpose by Ackerman McQueen. In fact, the lawsuit seeks some transparency in terms of financial issues and it has, evidently, raised the interest of the New York State Attorney General; perhaps as a derivative of the insurance issue or as a derivative of that ongoing situation. (see my post above)

However, there are questions being addressed regarding the NRA's finances, which is why I provided the Form 990's links above and why Calguns has evidently been working on and now producing an entirely new section for the site...

Guns & Money

Insofar as wardrobe/travel expenses, sexual harassment allegations, content direction for NRATV and advertising, etc., again, those issues will need to be addressed; but, not necessarily in the way many would like. They cannot simply be 'dismissed' as an attack on the gun rights of individuals, cause for invocation of 'fight or die as slaves,' and they cannot be totally ignored. Neither should such 'unsubstantiated' (as of yet) allegations be seen as overwhelming cause for ouster of the current leadership or cause to invoke claims of them being completely irrelevant (fake news?) even if they are... 'explainable.'

Again, let's try to keep this thread focused on presenting the actual evidence and not turn it into a venue for personal rallying cries, personal grievances, interpersonal animus, and 'interpretative history.'

Yes. The NRA is under attack. Let's look at the 'evidence' being pointed to in its original form (when/if we can) and take the appropriate steps rather than emotionally reacting based on...???

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-27-2019 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-27-2019, 10:26 PM
Foulball's Avatar
Foulball Foulball is offline
It smells in here...
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 2,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The "media" has never been more pervasive and invasive as it is today in terms of the technological means to be so. Thus, the level of 'media scrutiny,' to a point, is relative in terms of the media's ability to... scrutinize... or, more accurately, purvey a narrative to so many simultaneously. And thusly, we as thinking adults, should be able to sort through the muck as adults who are comprehensive as to how the world actually works, and see when a hit is happening. We've seen this act before.



That's true, to a point. However, that doesn't mean there's not, potentially, issues which need to be dealt with. Should they be dealt with in-house, without all the media attention? Preferably. But, 'blind allegiance' isn't always the most effective defense.And nothing in my statement calls for "blind allegiance" to the NRA.



Such issues will need to be addressed at some point. LaPierre has not done so, yet and, in fact, has presented them in such a way that it is hoped members will infer that they are specious and an attack on their gun rights. Absolutely agree.

However, there are questions being addressed regarding the NRA's finances, which is why I provided the Form 990's links above and why Calguns has evidently been working on and now producing an entirely new section for the site...

Guns & Money

Insofar as wardrobe/travel expenses, sexual harassment allegations, content direction for NRATV and advertising, etc., again, those issues will need to be addressed; but, not necessarily in the way many would like. They cannot simply be 'dismissed' as an attack on the gun rights of individuals, cause for invocation of 'fight or die as slaves,' and they cannot be totally ignored. Neither should such 'unsubstantiated' (as of yet) allegations be seen as overwhelming cause for ouster of the current leadership or cause to invoke claims of them being completely irrelevant (fake news?) even if they are... 'explainable.'And none of those accusations have any bearing on the issue at hand, which is why every news outlet - including the 12noon news across the country and every online news outlet - is doing hit pieces on the NRA, using the same exact language in each piece and having the same sources.

Again, let's try to keep this thread focused on presenting the actual evidence and not turn it into a venue for personal rallying cries, personal grievances, interpersonal animus, and 'interpretative history.'I'm not.

Yes. The NRA is under attack. Let's look at the 'evidence' being pointed to in its original form (when/if we can) and take the appropriate steps rather than emotionally reacting based on...???
Responses in bold.
This is a discussion and, while I'm sure we absolutely agree, you do not hold the monopoly on where this will go.

FB
__________________
Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice....With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State. - Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-27-2019, 11:47 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foulball View Post
Responses in bold.
This is a discussion and, while I'm sure we absolutely agree, you do not hold the monopoly on where this will go.

FB
You miss (or ignore) my point.

Yes. It's a discussion. So, let's keep the discussion in this thread on topic for the thread...

What is it that has caused this ruckus and might that have been the intent? Rather than simply reacting to the media narrative and personal issues regarding the organization (or each other), looking to what original source documents are being used as 'evidence' in the narrative and providing actual sources for the personal issues with the organization. The point of the thread is to share what we can related to "publicly available records/information." Once you provide those LINKED TO documents, then a bit of your personal evaluation is fine because readers/members have the actual documents to go to to make their own evaluation or evaluate your evaluation.

Think of this thread as a 'discussion' based on what we actually know and can demonstrate versus the other, numerous threads based on individual polemics, personal issues, blind loyalty, reactions to what the media says rather than what the documentation actually says, etc. Otherwise, unless you have some form of 'source documentation,' this thread will quickly and unfortunately, turn into yet another, unproductive argument (flame war) rather than a more objective and, potentially, 'enlightening' or 'helpful' discourse; e.g., your accusations about my thinking of this thread as a monopoly because you are not sticking to the topic/purpose of the thread. (If you wish to segue to a different topic, start your own thread.)

What you are offering are declarations...
  • We've seen this act before.
  • nothing in my statement calls for "blind allegiance" to the NRA
  • none of those accusations have any bearing on the issue at hand
  • doing hit pieces on the NRA, using the same exact language in each piece and having the same sources.

While History often repeats itself, each generation must deal with their own 'crisis.' The NRA went through a 'revolt' in Cincinnati in 1977 that shaped the organization for a generation or more. It didn't spring out of nowhere and neither did the current debacle. However, while there are certainly similarities, there are also unique attributes. That's how the real world actually works.

Will this current 'mess' reshape the NRA? It's too early to know. Is the current 'mess' partly the responsibility of outside agencies? Most certainly. But, note the word 'partly.' As has been noted, several times, in this and other threads, there are decisions which have been made and are being made which do not have the advantage of vast/overwhelming support within the membership; some of which stems from a lack of understanding and/or lack of transparency. If there is some 'truth' in the allegations and 'validity' in the questions being raised, then don't proffer hyperbole in defense of the organization.

Which is, in part, what I was getting at with the 'blind allegiance' comment. "Fight or die as slaves" is hardly providing source documents offering insight. The back and forth present on the other threads, with the name-calling, knee-jerk defensiveness to (often legitimate) personal critiques of some of those decisions, et al. isn't helpful. Just like your declaration that the accusations cited have no bearing on the issue at hand.

Actually, those accusations are the core of the issue at hand; i.e., Bloomberg's ad campaign that the NRA is in crisis. Certainly, the media is complicit, spinning and, potentially, misrepresenting the facts. Which is the point of this thread. It's not about reacting to the media. It's about looking to the source material the media is purportedly basing their narrative on and determining whether the narrative stands up, holds kernels of 'truth' that the NRA membership will need to 'look into' at some point, on some level, or if it is largely 'fake news.'

So, when you reference the "Red Scare," talk about 'commies' supporting the New Deal/Johnson Deal, but can't come up with any organization made up of (ahem) "supposedly free men" that has been so scrutinized, overlords, and 'fight or serve on your knees,' I'm not sure how that is contributing to the discussion being had on this thread by contributing the actual evidence the media is basing their reports on versus injecting hyperbole and attempting to turn this thread into yet another venue for personal rallying cries, personal grievances, interpersonal animus, and 'interpretative history.'

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-27-2019 at 11:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-28-2019, 7:36 AM
Foulball's Avatar
Foulball Foulball is offline
It smells in here...
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 2,714
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You know what, you are absolutely right TiC. Nothing of value added. I'll show myself out so you can enjoy your thread.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-28-2019, 8:44 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,123
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You miss the point. We're not trying to figure out "who the NRA is." This thread is looking to the sources purportedly being cited as 'evidence' for the media narrative as to what's happening with the NRA being "in crisis;" i.e., don't go by the stories being pushed, go to the supposed source for the story and make your own analysis.



The point of the thread is to share those "further public records." Not "news stories" or blog/forum posts (unless they're by the actual individual) and not personal evaluation of what unlinked "records" supposedly say, but the actual documents; e.g., the tax records, the LaPierre letter, the bylaws, court filings, etc. Once you provide those LINKED TO documents, then a bit of your personal evaluation is fine because readers/members have the actual documents to go to to make their own evaluation or evaluate your evaluation.



It's not about being a "genius" or "common knowledge." It's the same discussion you've been involved with a number of times. Provide your evidence, don't just SAY it's "common knowledge" in that your 'understanding' may be more... limited... than you realize. Your understanding may be completely correct; but, without source documents, it's hard, sometimes nigh unto impossible, for others to "know" as well or have a context for what you claim to "know."
It's sad that Calgunner's pretend that no one has ever backed up or provided the sources for the NRA's current and previous behavior and positions.

It's old news, kinda like the fact that Aoki - the old violent Berkeley agitator back in the day was an FBI informant.

Here's a small snippet for those who keep pretending that everything people point out about the NRA is just made up or anti-propaganda being passed along:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor....asp?CatID=175

You guys follow the same court cases I do - so don't even pretend that you are unaware of the NRA lawyers continuous attempts to argue than open carry may be banned in favor of concealed carry.

That would be deliberately dishonest.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:52 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.