NRAWOL Website... Lists of shady compromises the NRA has made?

[bwiese]

It seems to be the NRA gives the anti gun legislators a bone to get a bowl of Kibble. And then comes back later to take the bone back.

Highly uninformed and no basis in fact for this statement.
What planet are you from?

[Paladin]

Yeah, the NRA doesn't do much for legal battles, especially in CA. Not like the NRA got AB 962 struck down in the courts or anything. The NRA has numerous other court cases being litigated right now and across the nation.

In case you are interested in what the NRA is and has been doing locally in the courts, here is a non-exhaustive list of a few of the NRA's litigation efforts in CA in the past two years.

Parker v. State of CaliforniaPeruta v. County of San Diego Jackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing AuthorityMcDonald v. Chicago - Recruited 38 California and eight elected District Attorneys from Nevada, along with law enforcement officials in both California and Nevada to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Millender v. County of Los Angeles - Filed a joint amicus brief challenging the ability of law enforcement to write over-broad search warrants used to seize firearms unrelated to crimes.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - 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. This tactic has been used in CA and defending against this strategy of anti-gunners cloaked as environmentalists is crucial to protecting access to affordable ammunition. Lead is first, copper would be next, and so on. Success in these cases is crucial to protecting the RKBA nationwide.
People v. Saleem - Filed amicus letter in Supreme Court of California. Though the case did not involve firearms, the Saleem opinion would be a great tool in combating vague firearm laws in the future. The Supreme Court recently rejected the case, and CRPA Foundation is currently preparing a new Amicus requesting that the opinion now be republished so that it may be cited in future challenges to vague firearms laws!
Nordyke v. KingTurner's v. Los Angeles - Lawsuit will challenge LA's ban's on large caliber firearms, large caliber ammunition, and ultra-compact firearms.

Clint, I am sorry you had to take time away from either your personal life or work life to come here to make this kind of post (again!).

This is the sort of thing I think should be made its own, locked, stickied thread where CGF people and/or NRA's legal and/or political ("Hi Paul!"), team can post updates.

*** For the sake of fairness, perhaps another subforum (!) could be added where reps of CGF, NRA, CRPA, GOC/GOA, SAF, JFPO, CCRKBA, or any other vetted pro-gun org can have their own locked thread where they alone post new posts updating CGNers on what they're doing/have accomplished. ***

[Paladin]

Highly uninformed and no basis in fact for this statement.
What planet are you from?

I *think* Veggie may have been thinking of Iowa, where the NRA "gave" the antis the gift of not pushing for Con Carry last year (instead only pushed for and won Shall Issue), only to come back this year to take it away (the NRA's pushing for Con Carry in Iowa right now). See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...56#post5747156

That is how I read Veggie's post.

[NightOwl]

Parker v. State of CaliforniaJackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing AuthorityCBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - 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. This tactic has been used in CA and defending against this strategy of anti-gunners cloaked as environmentalists is crucial to protecting access to affordable ammunition. Lead is first, copper would be next, and so on. Success in these cases is crucial to protecting the RKBA nationwide.
Turner's v. Los Angeles - Lawsuit will challenge LA's ban's on large caliber firearms, large caliber ammunition, and ultra-compact firearms.

They also butt in where they're not wanted (McDonald) then try to claim credit not due. Getting others to file amicus briefs sounds more like political clout than them bringing a lawsuit to me, which applies to both McDonald and Nordyke as you listed. Peruta can hardly be attributed to the NRA, regardless of their involvement in it, since that case was happening with or without them, and we all know it. Ed had every intent of pursuing the case and was doing so with his own funds and attorney prior to NRA being brought in. Nice of them to help out, but again, that's not them spearheading anything.

I'm perfectly aware that they're involved in legal battles, but these days SAF is bringing the big cases (Heller, McDonald) without the NRA...or without needing/wanting the NRA at least. Yet their clout let's them invite themselves to the party, to the detriment of all. Unless you think that Mr. Gura is overflowing with joy that they saved his bacon when arguing McDonald at the Supreme Court? He certainly didn't seem pleased at all, from anything I've seen, and I'd venture to say he was competent enough to handle that extra 30 minutes of time.

Furthermore, I didn't say that the NRA does nothing in the legal arena, but the point remains, when the biggest cases are getting pushed, it's not the NRA behind them making them happen, they seem to tend more towards assisting others who are leading the charge. Their efforts in the legal arena pale in comparison to their efforts in the political one, where they can bring a significant amount of influence (and money) to bear on politicians.

Ymmv, but my opinion on it isn't going to be changing anytime soon. Also, don't take this as NRA bashing, either, because it's not. It's merely a my interpretation of who is doing what in what arenas. NRA definately brings something major to the table, but frankly I'd rather see SAF beind a case than NRA any day of the week.

(I edited out the cases that aren't significantly NRA imo or that I couldn't rapidly discern what level of involvement the NRA has)

[Captain Neon]

NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, mostly because that law restricted imported firearms. That was beneficial for the American firearms manufacturers; less competition = good for them.

Presented with a dilemma, NRA would act in the best interests of firearms makers over the best interests of the American public. Most of the time these two choices coincide but not always.

That being said, I'm an NRA member. Strength in numbers and all that. When NRA gets involved, its in it to win.

[Danz la Nuit]

NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, mostly because that law restricted imported firearms. That was beneficial for the American firearms manufacturers; less competition = good for them.

Wow, how statist of them... /disgusting

What a perfect example of not respecting the free market.

[blakdawg]

This "compromise"/"no compromise" dispute happens in many political contexts, and the arguments are always the same - the "compromise" people say that the "no compromise" people are politically naiive, and that if they don't meet others partway and make sometimes unpalatable deals, they'll be shut out of the process entirely. And the "no compromise" people say that the "compromise" people are sell-outs or wimps who give away valuable concessions, and that if everyone would adopt a hardline stance, we'd just win.

See MLK versus Malcolm X; Greenpeace/Sierra Club versus Earth First!; the pro/anti-abortion debate - and a thousand others.

We all have a role to play. Find the group(s) that match your ideas and support them. Don't spend a lot of time sniping at people who are on your side but see things a little differently. Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, Paul Helmke - they're the enemy, not a firearm rights group whose philosophy or tactics don't exactly match yours.

[Paladin]

Wow, how statist of them... /disgusting

What a perfect example of not respecting the free market.

No, a perfect example of being clueless re. the "culture war" and its political implications.

It wasn't until the 1970s and Harlon Carter (no, not the Carter that was a US President), that the NRA realized the MSM had put gun owners in their crosshairs. This was waaay back when everyone naively thought the media were objective and w/o an agenda Example: "Uncle Walter" Cronkite, who was often called "the most trusted man in America," admitted in an interview w/Barbara Walters only after retiring that he ALWAYS believed in advocacy journalism (i.e., having a hidden agenda). Since there was virtually no alternative, there was only "the media": ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTimes and Wash Post.

There was a big internal fight in the NRA and, fortunately, the pro-RKBA folk won the day (vs the "sportsmen"). We were on the ropes in the '70s and thru the mid-1980s. It was only around the mid-1980s when we were able to fight some things to a stand still. Even then and later, things like "cop-killer" bullets (KTWs which had NEVER killed a cop at the time, IIRC, CBS broadcasted their existence and characteristics), "Black Talons" and the Stockton Massacre would overwhelm our side and we had to retreat as best as we could so as to lose as little as we could while stopping the momentum against us.

That is why it is so encouraging to go to the NRA-ILA website today (www.nraila.org) and see all of the pro-RKBA legislation being introduced in so many states even though the Tucson shooting took place just a few weeks ago. If that happened back in the '80s or even early '90s, not only would all pro-RKBA legislation get pulled, but anti legislation would be on the front burner at both the state level and federal. But now, Obama was silent in his state of the union address, and, while some states are introducing anti legislation it is few and far between.

Also, until FL in 1986, the idea of John Q Citizen getting a CCW was UNHEARD of, even among gunnies (outside of VT). (Thank you Marion Hammer, former president of the NRA!) Now, IL is introducing May Issue legislation, WI will be debating whether to go Shall Issue or straight to Con Carry, and 40 out of the other 50 states are Shall Issue.

That's why some of us who've been w/the NRA for DECADES kind of smile when newbies/youngins gripe because things aren't turning around fast enough for them. For us, we're still overjoyed that: (a) we're not still getting reamed by the antis, and (b) we've pretty much routed the antis around the country and are almost equal to them politically even in CA (barring some stupid stuff by our side (UOC group meets), or criminal drama (Tucson shooting)). My guess, is that getting CA to virtual Shall Issue will open flood gates of new pro-gunnies who will then become activists to protect their RKBA, incl other issues as they get plugged in w/us.

The future is bright! Anyone who has to look back 40 years to find something to complain about re. the NRA, while they take it out of its historical and political contexts and while ignoring all the good that the NRA has accomplished since then (versus virtually NOTHING by GOA/GOC), is being disingenuous.

Go to: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php to see what things were like back in '86 and how far we've come, primarily due to the NRA!

[Bruce]

NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, mostly because that law restricted imported firearms. That was beneficial for the American firearms manufacturers; less competition = good for them.

To be fair, the imported firearms in question were mostly the surplus Mausers being imported and sporterized into hunting rifles. If you look through the gun rags of the 50's-60's, they are full "how-to sporterize a surplus rifle" articles. Remington's and Winchester's bottom lines were hurting so they pushed for restrictions on imported surplus arms. I remember one article in Shooting Times on how cost ineffective it was to convert a Mauser as opposed to buying a Remington 700.

[Bruce]

Consider the source. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a Colorado GOA wanna-be. Trash the NRA to get bucks is the name of the game. Affiliates are, not surprisingly, GOA and a host of Gun Owners of _________ organizations.
Just cuz they put it on the internet, doesn't make it true.