Joining the NRA

[skosh69]

Membership dues pay for Wayne LaPierre's $972,000 a year salary... Sure, the NRA is non profit, but the Executive vice president/CEO of the NRA sure isn't.

This ^^^^^

[Dannytheman]

Let me add a few thing here.

When you become a Life member, a percentage of that money goes into a certificate of deposit that makes money. The money made via interest is spent on the gifts they offer new memberships and the marketing mail they send out.

There is a fund like this at varying members status, when you increase to Endowment, Patron and Benefactor, they each have similar trusts and percentages to pay for items. Golden Eagle status has a percentage and it continues on up to higher donation levels and higher NRA levels.

NONE of the annual dollars paid by any annual member is used to send mail, or solicit you for higher membership.

I opt in for all the mail and all the solicitations. I like to see what our organization is doing with the money. Some go straight in the trash, others get thoroughly read. But I know what's going on.

I have a room full of "Stuff!" Knives, bags, challenge coins, T shirts, Polo shirts, because I do indeed donate MORE than my membership. I think I can afford a couple bucks a month here and there to help with the fight.

However, I respect everyone's right to choose.

[poriggity]

I need to start my own non-profit, non profit CEO's seem to on much better salaries than a lot of for profit CEO's. I also noticed that the non-profit offices and buildings ive been to in the past few years where much better equipped and a lot more fancy than most for-profit organizations.

Being a non profit has measure tax relief i guess.

Seriously.. my wife used to work for a non profit healthcare company, and they routinely were looking for places and ways to spend money, since they needed to spend it in order to maintain non profit status.. they had the best perks and nicest offices I've ever seen.

[poriggity]

I am not going to judge LaPierre's salary. The man is being constantly demonized. Probably has to deal with death threats. That would not be enough money for me to deal with such toxicity. Besides, the NRA is not portraying itself as some religious, self sacrificing charity. It's a gun rights organization. And it has proven successful in over 40 states. Unfortunately, California is not one of them. Which is one of the explanations I give when they call me for more money. I say something like, "I live in California. Public lands to go shooting are hours away from where I live and worse, I cannot own a certain firearms like a true AR15 or have a CCW. I joined and give a bit to prevent a domino effect to other states but any more I give is not going to help me. Until you guys show me you are doing something here that is positive I cannot give today."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You need to remember, he accepted the position, knowing the consequences. Being "demonized", does not necessarily mean he deserves such an a huge salary. Imho, 200 or 250k a year is not unreasonable, but almost a million a year is a bit ludicrous . When you work for a non profit, imho, you do so because you believe in their cause, not because they are willing to pay you big bucks. Just my opinion. The salaries of the top two officers of the nra is enough to keep me from signing up. Their are plenty of grass roots organizations that I can donate to that don't have exorbitant salaries of their ceo's.

[NOTABIKER]

Simple No NRA followed by NO GUNS.Bet on it

[oddball]

Any self-respecting firearms owner should be a member of the NRA. If one only has a single organization to join, it has to be the NRA. My wife, my teenage son, and I are all Life Members.

The NRA has 5 million members, a lot of people. But imagine if we can get it up to 10 million. The NRA would have even more carte blanche in Washington DC.

[Pardini]

Membership dues pay for Wayne LaPierre's $972,000 a year salary... Sure, the NRA is non profit, but the Executive vice president/CEO of the NRA sure isn't.

So I paid Wayne less than a quarter dollar this year? A bargain I think. The fact that the NRA is a non profit is a great benefit to us members. I'm not 100% in step with all they do, but I'm not even close to 10% in step with Obama and he's cost me a hell of a lot more than a quarter this year.

If you want to join the NRA but don't want to give Wayne his 20 some cents of your dues, PM me and I'll reimburse you.

[GW]

You need to remember, he accepted the position, knowing the consequences. Being "demonized", does not necessarily mean he deserves such an a huge salary. Imho, 200 or 250k a year is not unreasonable, but almost a million a year is a bit ludicrous . When you work for a non profit, imho, you do so because you believe in their cause, not because they are willing to pay you big bucks. Just my opinion. The salaries of the top two officers of the nra is enough to keep me from signing up. Their are plenty of grass roots organizations that I can donate to that don't have exorbitant salaries of their ceo's.

Find whatever excuse you need to justify not joining to yourself.
Just ask yourself this:
When was the last time you heard politicians or the press or the Brady's whining about the SAF or the CCRKBA? Even though they are fighting the good fight, they are small potatoes compared to the NRA.
Complaining about Wayne LaPierre's salary is a pretty lame reason for not joining.

[Irish-Dannyboy]

I am not going to judge LaPierre's salary. The man is being constantly demonized. Probably has to deal with death threats. That would not be enough money for me to deal with such toxicity. Besides, the NRA is not portraying itself as some religious, self sacrificing charity. It's a gun rights organization. And it has proven successful in over 40 states. Unfortunately, California is not one of them. Which is one of the explanations I give when they call me for more money. I say something like, "I live in California. Public lands to go shooting are hours away from where I live and worse, I cannot own a certain firearms like a true AR15 or have a CCW. I joined and give a bit to prevent a domino effect to other states but any more I give is not going to help me. Until you guys show me you are doing something here that is positive I cannot give today."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yea id like to seem them press on California a little harder. I was just reading and article on Guns & Ammo about the best and worst states for gun owners.. Starting from the worst number 51 Washington.. California was number 46.

I mean what really irks me is in Los Angeles county where all the bad guys and little thug wannabes can carry no problem, some of them even brash enough to open carry in certain parts. The good guy can kiss the sheriffs *** all day but he wont get a CCW unless he can demonstrate a real threat to his life.

[ordc]

California is TOXIC! I hate it here. It was not this way growing up. I am looking at Florida. I love it there! Very conservative. I am fairly convinced that Obamanation won the state during his presidential elections via cheating because other than that, the government at nearly every level is GOP except for the one Dem senator.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ronin2]

I am not going to judge LaPierre's salary. The man is being constantly demonized. Probably has to deal with death threats. That would not be enough money for me to deal with such toxicity. Besides, the NRA is not portraying itself as some religious, self sacrificing charity. It's a gun rights organization. And it has proven successful in over 40 states. Unfortunately, California is not one of them. Which is one of the explanations I give when they call me for more money. I say something like, "I live in California. Public lands to go shooting are hours away from where I live and worse, I cannot own a certain firearms like a true AR15 or have a CCW. I joined and give a bit to prevent a domino effect to other states but any more I give is not going to help me. Until you guys show me you are doing something here that is positive I cannot give today."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

^^^^^^ Yet another ignorant, uninformed gun owner...Shocked, I'm shocked! Here is a recap of NRA posted here in Calguns by Clint Montfort, one of the attorneys at the Law firm of Michel & Associates, the NRA's Ca law firm.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm posting this here as there still seems to be a lack of awareness as to what the NRA has been busy doing in CA. (For those of you who are already aware, and have already seen this information, I apologize for posting it yet again.)

In addition to employing a full-time lobbyist and support team to fight legislation in the Capital, in addition to everything Paul Payne does throughout the state, the NRA retains a CA specific law firm. Below is a partial list of some of the recent litigation, regulatory, and local matters our office has worked on for the NRA.

In addition to these items, our office and the NRA are heavily involved in litigation in other states that will be used as precedent in CA in future cases. The NRA currently has three cases pending before the Ninth Circuit, in additional to multiple state and federal cases that are working their way up.

Keep in mind that the standard of review for the 2A is still unsettled. Suits that may make sense in the future may not be wise now. Also note that in many cases funded by the NRA or litigated by NRA lawyers, the NRA isn't always the named plaintiff.

Here is a partial list of what the NRA, through our office, has been doing for CA gun owners:

NOTABLE ACTIVE/RECENT LITIGATION:

Peruta v. County of San Diego – Obtained a 132 page published Opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearm in public. The decision struck down San Diego's "good cause" policy, and expressly held that self-defense is the only good cause an individual needs to obtain a CCW.

Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully striking down main portions of California’s AB 962, which would have banned mail order ammunition purchases and required registration and thumb-printing for in-store purchases. Plaintiffs successfully defended against the State’s appeal resulting in a 41 page published opinion. The opinion is the first in the nation to confirm that gun laws must provide a heightened level of clarity under the Due Process clause. This lawsuit was the basis for the governor’s veto of subsequent legislation similar to AB 962 in 2011, as well as the defeat of legislation that would have expanded the law to include all ammunition during the 2013 legislative session.

Fiscal v. San Francisco – Lawsuit successfully striking down San Francisco’s citywide ban on handgun possession as preempted by California law, resulting in an appellate court opinion bolstering the preemption doctrine for use against future anti-gun ordinances and a payment of $380,000 to the NRA to reimburse it for its attorneys’ fees.

Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully prompting repeal of San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. The ban was rescinded and the NRA negotiated a formal settlement agreement to prevent similar restrictions in the future.

Jackson v. City of San Francisco – Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring handguns be locked up while in the home, banning the discharge of firearms (lawsuit already forced amendment authorizing lawful defensive discharges), and prohibiting sales of common self-defense ammunition. Plaintiffs received a favorable published opinion in opposing the City’s challenge to their standing, paving the way for other plaintiffs to bring Second Amendment challenges in the 9th Circuit. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction has been fully briefed and argued before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

McKay v. Sheriff Hutchens – Lawsuit challenging Orange County’s strict requirements for obtaining a CCW, filed after the California legislature banned the “unloaded open carry” of firearms. This case is a follow-up to the Peruta and Richards cases which relied (partially) on the plaintiffs’ ability to openly carry an unloaded firearm. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their motion for preliminary injunction has been fully briefed and argued before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and is currently awaiting a decision.

SFVPOA v. S.F. - Lawsuit seeking to confirm Second Amendment protections for magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, and challenging San Francisco's ban on the possession of these magazines.

Assenza v. City of Los Angeles – Successfully enforced an 18-year old consent decree against the LAPD and Chief Beck to ensure that all members of the public were properly receiving the requisite CCW application and CCW policy when sought at station houses, and requiring each LAPD station to conspicuously post a sign explaining where the application and policy can be found.

Gentry v. Harris - Lawsuit challenges the California Department of Justice’s misuse of DROS fees collected from gun purchasers at the time of sale. The suit seeks to stop DOJ from continuing to stick law-abiding gun owners with the bill for funding its general law enforcement projects, by challenging the appropriation of these funds as an invalid tax.

Davis v. City of Los Angeles – Lawsuit challenging Police Chief Beck's failure to adhere to an 18-year old consent decree in processing CCW applications and determining what constitutes good cause to issue CCWs to LA residents. Successfully forced LAPD to disclose documents concerning its past abuses.

Bauer v. Harris - Lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the fees DOJ requires in order to purchase firearms in California and the use of those fees’ revenues for purposes unrelated to lawful firearm purchasers exercising their right to acquire a firearm. Litigation is ongoing.

CBD v. BLM – Successfully intervened on behalf of hunters in an Arizona lawsuit in which radical environmental groups sued the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area. The lawsuit was successfully defeated and officially dismissed by the court in April.

CBD v. USFS – NRA, joined by Safari Club International, filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by radical environmental groups that allege the United States Forest Service is violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by allowing hunters to use lead-based ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest in northern Arizona. That motion is currently pending decision by the court.

CBD v. EPA - NRA and Safari Club International jointly intervened in matter opposing radical environmental group’s efforts to ban lead ammunition nationwide under TSCA. The NRA’s and SCI’s motion to have the cased dismissed is currently pending.

Pizzo v. Newsom - Obtained amicus status and defeated ill-conceived and poorly prepared claims threatening to undermine efforts in Jackson v. San Francisco. In dismissing those claims on standing (and avoiding a damaging merits ruling) the Court followed the favorable “standing analysis” secured by NRA attorneys in Jackson, and disregarded the watered-down standing argument pushed for by the City.

Mehl v. Blanas – Submitted amicus brief and participated in oral argument in 9th Circuit review of this ill-conceived and poorly prepared case challenging CCW laws and policies, to explain defects in case and that better cases existed for deciding the CCW issues, in attempt to avoid bad case law that would impact other CCW cases. Such efforts may have been the reason the Court disposed of the case in an unpublished decision that avoided reaching the substantive legal questions, leaving those questions to be decided in better cases like Peruta or McKay.

Richards v. Prieto - Filed amicus brief in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Second Amendment Foundation and other appellants who sued Yolo County, challenging CCW issuance laws and policies.

Calguns Foundation v. San Mateo County – Filed amicus brief with California Court of Appeals in a case where plaintiffs challenged a county ordinance banning the possession of firearms in parks as being preempted. The CRPA Foundation’s brief sought to bolster the plaintiffs’ argument, but to also show the court that other, better arguments, that plaintiffs either did not raise or conceded, show the ordinance is preempted. Unfortunately, the court disagreed. CRPA Foundation is now preparing a request for depublication of the opinion to the California Supreme Court.

Nordyke v. Alameda County – Filed amicus brief in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting gun show promoters who challenged an ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property, thereby ending their gun show.

Maikhio v. California - Assisted attorney, Stephen Halbrook, in drafting and submitting an amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether the same Fourth Amendment standard of reasonable suspicion of a violation of law that applies to law enforcement officers who stop vehicles on public roads applies to game wardens who stop hunters’ and anglers’ vehicles on public roads.

Millender v. County of Los Angeles – Co-authored with attorney, Stephen Halbrook, an amicus briefs in the US Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit in support of challenge to officers’ ability to write broad search warrants and to seize firearms unrelated to the alleged crime.

People v. Nguyen – Filed request for depublication with California Supreme Court of a potentially very dangerous appellate court decision for firearm owners, since it upheld criminal penalties for possession of mere firearm parts.

People v. Delacy - Co-authored petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court in a case used as vehicle to address courts' varying interpretations of Heller's "presumptively lawful" language and whether discriminatory classifications that affect the fundamental right to keep and bear arms are subject merely to rational basis scrutiny.
Litigation against the State and against cities is pending. And more amicus briefs in important cases are expected Additional lawsuits will be filed soon if many of the gun regulations currently being considered in Sacramento are passed!

REGULATORY MATTERS:

California Fish and Game Commission -

(A) Lead Ammunition: Gathered thousands of records from agencies involved in the condor recovery program, and worked with scientists to debunk pseudo-science being used to support the theory of condor lead poisoning and death from the alleged ingestion of lead ammunition. Convinced the Commission to again reconsider the validity of the pseudo-science before considering any further limitations on the use of lead ammunition and the expansion of the “Condor Zone” lead ammunition ban. Also convinced the Commission to form a lead working committee to investigate the real source of lead in the environment that is causing elevated blood-lead levels in California condors and other wildlife. Based upon the information that we provided, the Commission further admonished the environmental organizations pushing for the lead ammunition ban expansion against lobbying the California Legislature to achieve their anti-lead agenda.

[Ronin2]

NRA efforts in CA continued....

Though generally less noted among issues currently litigated in the firearm rights context, these lead ammunition efforts are crucial to preserving Second Amendment rights; specifically, the availability of ammunition. The attacks on lead ammo are constantly being monitored and responded to.

(B) Carrying Firearms: Submitted letters demanding repeal of regulations prohibiting the possession of firearms in certain places and situations, and currently continue negotiations with Commission to achieve such.

Firearm Regulations – Litigating Definition of “Assault Weapons,” “Zip Guns,” 80% Firearms, etc. - via criminal cases and legal memoranda with agencies, influencing how certain firearm laws are applied and enforced.

OAL Petition re DOJ “Assault Weapons” Regulations – Submitted regulatory comment letter in support of the successful Petition filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) by Franklin Armory. The OAL issued a ruling declaring the DOJ’s policy of limiting the issuance of “assault weapons” permits to individual employees of corporations an illegal underground regulation. The ruling paves the way for firearms-related businesses to have permits issued in the company’s name, as was intended by California law.

Microstamping – Submitted rounds of comment letters opposing Cal-DOJ ’s proposed regulations implementing law requiring new handgun models sold in California to be equipped with a “microstamping” mechanism.

ATF Study re Shotgun Importability – Submitted a comment letter to ATF correcting and clarifying some of the California firearm laws addressed in a draft ATF Study that could result in banning the importation of self-defense shotguns, so as to avoid such laws forming the basis of ATF’s decision to ban such shotguns.

DTSC re Ammunition – Submitted comment letter to OAL about proposed regulations from the Department of Toxic Substances Control to raise questions about the controversial Green Chemistry Initiative’s potential negative impact on lead ammunition usage by hunters and target shooters.

Penal Code Renumbering – Assisted with renumbering of California Penal Code sections concerning firearms and other weapons intending to avoid unintended substantive changes to the renumbered sections that would be adverse to firearm owners.

Miscellaneous – Monitor and communicate with California DOJ over various firearm related matters that sometimes cannot be disclosed.

NRA / CRPA LOCAL ORDINANCE PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS & ACTIVITIES:

Azusa – Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have placed onerous and unnecessary zoning and operation restrictions on licensed firearm dealers.

Berkeley – Served City with pre-litigation letter which resulted in the repeal of an ordinance prohibiting possession of semiautomatic-rifles.

Capitola – Successfully opposed a package of gun control ordinances that would have placed draconian restrictions on licensed firearm dealers, prohibited gun shows, and drastically limited the rights of lawful gun owners to possess firearm within the City’s limit.

Claremont – Assisted coordination of grass-roots CRPA - NRA member opposition to a proposed resolution supporting a federal “assault weapon” ban.

Desert Hot Springs - Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have banned possession of firearms on almost all public property.

El Dorado County – Assisted NRA member in successfully opposing a homeowners’ association’s proposal to amend its rules to ban the discharge of firearms and air-guns on all properties in the community.

Emeryville, Fairfield, & Long Beach – Successfully opposed ordinances seeking ammunition-transfer registration.

Fresno – Assisted with the drafting of a successful City Council resolution supporting a shall-issue policy with regard to issuance of CCWs within the city.

Glendale – Opposed proposed ordinance banning firearms and ammunition on all city property, targeting the Glendale Gun Show. Submitted pre-litigation demand letters outlining legal arguments against ordinance and attended city council meetings.

Lemoore – Provided input to city council in drafting a pro Second Amendment resolution.

Los Angeles – (1) Preparing arguments to oppose proposed ordinance requiring electronic transmission of ammunition sales-registration records to LAPD; (2) Preparing arguments to oppose proposed ordinance banning sale and possession of BB guns of certain colors; (3) Submitted letters opposing proposed ordinance banning possession of magazines of more than 10 rounds; (4) Submitted letter opposing proposed expansion of gun-purchaser warning-letter program, including increasing the fee on firearm dealers to fund the program, due to its spreading misinformation and intimidating firearm purchasers. Resulted in the program being discontinued for about a year and, although it was reinstituted, the fee increase was defeated.

Oakley – Successfully opposed ordinance that would have prohibited gunsmiths from operating in residential areas.

Pleasant Hill - Submitted opposition letter that prompted the pulling of an ill-conceived ordinance that would have created restrictive zoning regulations for firearm dealers. The letter also led to termination of the secretive ad hoc committee behind the ordinance.

Redwood City – Submitted letter on behalf of gun-owning boat owners demanding the City repeal of a provision in its lease for docking boats in a city-owned marina that prohibits possession of firearms. Currently in communication with city attorney to negotiate its repeal.

Richmond – Forced the City to repeal its ordinance banning possession of “large-capacity magazines” by sending the city a draft legal complaint challenging the ordinance on preemption grounds and threatening to file if it didn’t.

San Diego – Submitted a letter opposing fee increase for licensed firearm dealers, resulting in the elimination of the illegal fee the City was charging dealers for employee background checks.

San Francisco – (1) Submitted letters opposing ordinances considered by the city that would ban the possession of hollow-point ammunition, and prepared lawsuit which forced SF to admit in writing that it’s ordinance does not ban hollow-point ammunition, and that it applies to virtually nothing; (2) Flooded the record with materials proving hollow-point ammunition is in common use for lawful purposes in response to the City’s attempt to adopt “findings” justifying its ban on the sale of hollow-point ammunition challenged in the Jackson case; and (3) Preparing opposition to package of proposed ordinances, including a ban on possession of 10+ round magazines a requirement that all ammunition sales be registered.

San Jose – Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have required owners of so-called “assault weapons” to register and store such firearms with the police department, and to provide the department with a reasonable explanation of “need” before their firearms could be released to them.

San Mateo County - Served a pre-litigation letter that prompted the sponsor of several LCAV Model Ordinances to pull consideration of those anti-gun owner ordinances, including a dealer regulation scheme that would make it practically impossible to sell guns in that county.

Santa Clara – Successfully opposed an ordinance that would have prohibited all firearms in Santa Clara City parks, even for CCWs.

South San Francisco - Successfully defeated proposed ordinance that would have prohibited the sale of hollow-point ammunition and required registration of all ammunition sales. Worked behind the scenes with the City Attorney to inform him of ongoing NRA CA lawsuits over registration of ammunition sales and a ban on hollow-point ammunition sales, which prompted the City Attorney to recommend that the council pull consideration of the ordinance.

Sunnyvale – (1) Submitted letter opposing inclusion of an extensive gun control package as a ballot measure for the residents to vote on, and assisted contingent of residents opposed to the ballot measure in formulating arguments to be included in the ballot pamphlet as the official opposition position; (2) Submitted letter opposing package of gun control ordinances that would have placed draconian zoning and other restrictions on licensed firearm dealers. The City prepared a detailed report on the subject, apparently due to the pressure it was receiving from those opposed to the ordinance, which concluded that firearm shops are not a danger to their surroundings.

Sutter County – Significantly limited the scope of a no-discharge ordinance and proposed expansion thereof for a popular hunting area by raising written objections to the Board of Supervisors, who then amended those provisions.

Twentynine Palms - Submitted letter opposing proposed amendment to the City's code that would have restricted target shooting on private land. The City followed our suggestions and adopted San Bernardino County's less-restrictive regulations.

Miscellaneous – The Project is also working behind the scenes successfully opposing (or attempting to oppose) local firearm regulations, the details of which often cannot be exposed.

RANGE ASSISTANCE EFFORTS:

Angeles National Forest - Consulted with Burro Canyon Shooting Park concerning attempts by the forest supervisor to restrict their activities.

Ojai - Helped Ojai Valley Gun Club respond to Ventura County’s attempts to enforce county land-use laws on this concessionaire operating on Forest Service land.

Los Padres National Forest - Consulted with Winchester Canyon Gun Club about the renewal of their operating permits from the U.S. Forest Service.

San Diego - Worked with a consortium of shooting ranges in San Diego County since early 2009 to oppose certain proposed revisions to the San Diego County Code that would impose drastic new limitations on target shooting in the unincorporated portions of San Diego County.

Bremerton, WA - Drafting an amicus curiae brief for the NRA in an appeal contesting the closure of an outdoor shooting range for alleged noise and safety nuisances, and for violating local land-use ordinances.

Sequim, WA – Conferring with the owners of Sunnydell Dryke Shooting Range concerning lead-remediation law and cleanup options.

Other examples of range protection efforts are ongoing statewide and often times cannot be disclosed.


OTHER EFFORTS:

Monitoring Government Agencies & Anti-Gun Groups - Submitting hundreds of Public Records Act requests to DOJ, ATF, and other agencies regulating firearms to keep tabs on activities, and monitoring groups like LCAV and the Brady Campaign to expose their modus operandi.

DOJ’s APPS Program – Monitoring Cal-DOJ’s program dedicated to pursuing people with firearm restrictions, exposing the program’s unfairness and dangers to lawful gun owners, and providing written materials explaining how to protect oneself from becoming a victim of the program.

MAIG Opposition – Monitor activities of MAIG by submitting Public Records Act requests to local governments for their correspondence with the anti-gun group, talking with public officials, and following press releases. Send letters to California mayors who are members of MAIG explaining the group’s true motives and encouraging to leave.

Gun Owner Defense – Assist countless NRA / CRPA members with firearm-related legal issues, and produce literature explaining California’s gun laws. Most notably, handled appeal of Gary Tudesko’s expulsion from high school for leaving unloaded shotguns in his truck parked off-campus after early morning duck hunting. Gary was reinstated. The case received national news coverage.

Member Communications – Provide media-alerts, commentary, and analysis on various current events impacting the firearm-owning community on a regular basis.

Seminars / Clinics /Debates – Have attorneys attend and participate in firearm-related educational functions throughout the state to increase knowledge of members and to increase membership.

Legal Memoranda - Produce various legal memoranda for public education (most of which can be found at www.calgunlaws.com), including such topics as: legality of firearms /accessories, clarifying ambiguous definitions for firearms /accessories, LEOSA compliance, FFL compliance, CCW compliance, and countless other topics.

[Cokebottle]

Thank you Ronin.

NRA, as with CGF, has a LOT going on behind the scenes that is not commonly known because it, quite frankly, is too complex for a non-lawyer to fully grasp.

As Brandon often says... Chess, not Checkers.
Open carry was checkers.
However, now that OC has been banned, it MAY work out to be a useful chess move.

[ordc]

Ronin,

Thank you for sharing what NRA has done in Cali. . . I do appreciate those efforts. However, most of those issues are defensive. I wish the NRA would go on the offensive and get California to be on par with most of the country on issues I numerated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dano3467]

Don't worry about it, just be one of the many who care enough to fight.