Category: Gun Rights Organizations

In light of this week’s ruling from the Seventh Circuit, and the scramble to get the Chicago gun ban case to the Supreme Court, I’ve decided to step up and make a donation to the NRA Civil Rights Defend Fund. I have noted before that the CRDF is consistently under funded and the legal battles we must fight post-Heller are extremely expensive.

Though the CRDF will be focusing its funding on NRA v. Chicago in coming months, it also has to maintain the usual caseload of non-SCOTUS bound cases and fund research to keep Second Amendment scholarship on track.

While NRA was derided by many for not jumping on board with the Heller case at first (hindsight is always 20/20), the CRDF was responsible for bringing in the scholars, lawyers, and others who contributed to moot court sessions, and not to mention the decades of research funded by CRDF that gave us the legal footing to make some of the arguments. Heller could not have happened if it weren’t for the investment that NRA’s CRDF made in Second Amendment scholarship for decades before the case was ever filed.

Beyond the big cases, CRDF is also available to help the little guy if the case is likely to set precedent. (Being under funded means not every case can get the full funding it may deserve.) Some of the cases you may recall include the student in Virginia who was targeted by school officials and threatened with punishment for wearing a shooting sports shirt to his public school. In New Jersey, CRDF has lent financial assistance to the case against one-gun-a-month in Jersey City which has been defeated in the lower courts and now awaits a decision by the state Supreme Court. In California, it was the CRDF who stepped up to fund the case against San Francisco’s ballot-approved handgun ban.

When they aren’t providing direct funding with cases, often those involved in the Defense Fund’s network of lawyers and academics use their connections to organize on behalf of cases. Organizing all of the amici curiae for Heller was no small feat. Nearly four dozen briefs were filed in the support of Dick Heller, many of those briefs were organized to focus on a specific argument so that every topic could be covered. There was no room to be broadsided by an unexpected argument. More than 125 female state lawmakers were rounded up to sign onto a single brief. History was made when NRA worked with Congress to get more Senators and Representatives on board with one brief than ever before in the history of our country. More than 30 states were organized to submit a brief declaring their support for an individual rights interpretation. This kind of work takes serious resources. Whether you always agree with NRA’s political work or not, there is something that CRDF has either aided with funds or organizing efforts that you can support.

The CRDF supports cases for individual gun owners, FFLs, and other Second Amendment supporters. It is impossible to overstate the support Defense Fund provides for protecting the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, their work is only limited by the funds they receive. As we barrel down a likely path toward the Supreme Court again in such a short time, it is time that we make sure they have all of the resources available to fight for incorporation.

I would also add that if you are an attorney who would like to contribute your legal services to any of the cases or get the CRDF on your firm’s pro bono radar, please contact them. Other lawyers have found that firms are surprisingly receptive to adding a bit of diversity to their pro bono programs.

In 2009, there were more eligible voting members of NRA than at any other time since I’ve started keeping detailed records of the votes. A total of 1,549,130 members were eligible either as life (or higher) members, or as consistent 5-year+ annual members. Here’s a breakdown based on a chart I posted earlier in the year that looks at whether or not NRA members really vote.

Year	Ballots Cast	Ballots Not Cast	Ballots Sent
2006	79,227	1,468,502	1,547,729
2007	99,785	1,443,256	1,543,041
2008	94,361	1,452,174	1,546,535
2009	93,472	1,455,658	1,549,130

As you can see, there was a slight decline in the number of ballots cast even though more members were eligible to vote, leaving us with only 6% of the eligible members returning a ballot at all.

This matters because the difference between the “last winner” and the “first loser” was only 725 votes this year. If you really care about a candidate, your vote and those of your shooting buddies can make a difference. (Even if a candidate loses, how well they place in the “loser” category often determines if members will support them in the election of 76th director that takes place at the Annual Meeting.)

With all of that said, our endorsed candidates did very well given the number of “celebrity” names on the ballot this year. Ronnie Barrett came in third, Robert Brown in seventh, Scott Bach in twelfth, Edie Fleeman Reynolds in thirteenth, Steve Hornady in fifteenth, and Joe DeBergalis in eighteenth. In fact, all of our endorsed candidates outperformed the new NRA president (Ron Schmeits) who came in at 19 – in the bottom third of candidates. Two of the candidates even outperformed the now past president and next president.

But many may be wondering about the status of George Kollitides, the candidate I raised questions about during the election given his lack of involvement. AR15.com leaders who endorsed him and came on to defend him appeared to be completely unaware that Kollitides wasn’t showing up for committee meetings. Well, he lost. In fact, he came in dead last – far beyond all of the other candidates.

“Losing” Candidates	Vote Tallies	Difference from Previous Candidate
Donn DiBiasio*	61,188	725
Steven Schreiner	60,688	500
Robert Sanders**	59,561	1,127
Todd Walker	57,130	2,431
George Kollitides	49,855	7,275

*Another Board member resigned after ballots went out, so Donn fills his seat.
**Robert was elected at the 76th Director.

As you can see, the members really smacked Kollitides down in the election. As I mentioned to someone at the Meeting, I don’t think the whole buying advertising in American Rifleman went over very well – it came off as trying to buy a Board seat. Considering what we know about his attendance, there’s little he could fall back on to counter that claim. Add in the Chrysler bailout, and there’s suspicion about him which I don’t think is completely misplaced since he, according to industry sources, never does interviews. If he refuses to talk to NRA members and their main media outlets, then who is he accountable to in the course of his service? It’s a fair question. Clearly, the members don’t think he answered it.

In other news, I am a little surprised by the performance of two “celebrity” Board members. Richard Childress won the final seat on the board, and John Milius came in just two spots above him. I would have expected that NASCAR (Childress) and Red Dawn/Rome (Milius) would bring them more votes.

Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs‘ Executive Director, Melody Zullinger, resigned her position effective at the end of May.  Today was her last day on the job.  She and her husband are moving to Alabama.  PFSC has done excellent work in Pennsylvania, and I wish Melody all the best in the future.  They will have a difficult time finding someone to replace her.

Dave Hardy notes some happenings.  I could only stay for an hour and a half of it, because we had to catch our flight.  John Sigler is no longer President of NRA, which is a shame, because I thought John was an outstanding President, especially for helping us deal with issues here in Pennsylvania.  His law enforcement background was invaluable in blunting some of the other side’s arguments.  NRA presidents only serve two year terms, and then it’s someone else’s turn.  This is typical.  Heston was an exception, but that’s true in a lot of ways.

For the next two years, it’ll be Ron Schmeitz, and I wish him all the luck in the world.  These are challenging times, even if we’re in good shape, and it’ll take a strong leadership I hope Mr. Schmeitz can find.

Looking through some of the forum comments, like the one here.  I don’t honestly think preemption can be negotiated.  Anyone who’s read me for any length of time knows that I understand an incremental approach to progress on the political front, and I’m glad the folks in IL aren’t taking the path some other states did, and opposed a reasonable RTC bill because it wasn’t the perfect bill.  But there’s a difference between a less than perfect bill, and a bad bill, and I think any RTC bill without preemption is a bad bill.  Let me address some of the points brought up in this forum comment:

The idea that supporting a non-preemption law would give room to the gun grabbers in other states is idiotic. That would only be true if the NRA used the language of Barak Obama – you know, what works in Texas wouldn’t work in New York City, blah blah blah

No, it’s not.  When NRA fights for preemption in other states, and argues it’s a bedrock principle, it doesn’t exactly help if they can point to their abandonment of the principle in the State of Illinois.  Considering NRA is currently fighting preemption issues here in Pennsylvania, I prefer them taking a hard line position on it.

The idea that they want to protect their members from a “patchwork” of laws is idiotic. By that logic, they should only support a national carry law and oppose all state LTC laws.

NRA does support National Carry, much to my dismay (I think it’s only possible under the 14th amendment, not the commerce clause).  But that aside, state lines are well delineated and marked, and in our federal system, people are generally aware that the law changes at state borders.  Most people don’t know or think when they cross from one town to another, they could have gone from legally carrying a gun, to committing a crime.  You’re going to be giving people piece of paper called “Illinois License to Carry Firearms.”  Presumably they will also learn that it doesn’t mean it’s valid everywhere.  But there will be gun owners who get stopped by the police, who find themselves saying “Get out of the car officer?  But wait, officer, I thought it was Peoria that banned guns, not Springfield.” or “I’m sorry?  I didn’t realize I had crossed into Urbana.”

The idea that they want to protect their members from a “patchwork” of laws is idiotic for another reason: as it stands now Illinoisans are both deprived of a civil right and prohibited from defending themselves. Is the NRA seriously suggesting that having to figure out a “patchwork” of laws is somehow worse than being defenseless and oppressed?

It’s a tradeoff.  The place in IL people most need to defend themselves is Chicago, and this bill won’t help anyone there.  It comes down to how many people will use their legally aquired guns to defend themselves, versus how many people will get in trouble if they get stopped in the wrong town, or have to use their gun in the wrong town.  Will it be possible at all to carry and remain in compliance with the law if you’re traveling?

Even if everything the NRA was saying made sense, how is it acceptable that they lobbied BEHIND OUR BACKS against an LTC bill supported by this and other organizations????? Todd is on this forum. He knew about the position taken by IllinoisCarry and the ISRA. He has engaged in discussions about the pros and cons of the various bills. So someone (quite possibly Todd) owed us the courtesy of a clear statement on the NRA’s position.

I’m not going to bash NRA for wrestling the gun away from someone who was about to shoot themselves in the foot (from NRA’s point of view).  I would prefer NRA remain neutral on the bill, but I understand why they wanted to kill it initially.  How do you think members are going to feel when people start getting in trouble for getting stopped in the wrong town?  Will an NRA member who loses his job because he has to go to jail for a few months feel good about the law?  Will his family when he has trouble finding a new job because he has a conviction for a gun charge on his criminal record?  Will people feel good about NRA when they don’t have the political power to fix the problem?

This is one thing people in the gun issue need to get: your personal voice is not the collective voice of NRA members, and just because you know other people who agree with you doesn’t make that any more so.  I would not presume to speak for NRA or NRA members.  I have my own point of view on things, and while I’d like to think I have more influence than average over NRA, I don’t expect or demand they adopt all of my opinions as theirs.

I don’t agree with NRA’s support of the parking lot laws, and I think the National Concealed Carry bills proposed by Congress, that they would back, are dangerous.  But that’s my opinion.  I’ve discussed it with people at NRA and they don’t agree with my view.  That’s fine.  In a civic organization, I’m one opinion, and one vote.  I don’t expect them to agree with me on everything, consult me before making decisions on legislative or political matters.  The only thing you can do is make your voice heard, and a lot of people are doing that.  That’s positive.  Members should feel free to air their feelings to board members and staff.   But NRA is a civic organization, meaning you wouldn’t approach it like you would a merchant selling a product.  I get tired of hearing this notion that “NRA isn’t listening to its members.” because it won’t listen to you.  One opinion out of four million.  We’re not always going to get our way, and shouldn’t expect to.  It’s frustrating, but it’s no reason to bash the organization as a whole.

This is an interesting claim here:

“The NRA doesn’t run this facility,” he said. “Our mission is education and outdoor recreation. We are not politically motivated. The NRA doesn’t underwrite us. They don’t fund our operations in any way.”

What?  What’s wrong with pointing out that it’s funded through the NRA Foundation, which is a non-political branch of the National Rifle Association that promotes shooting sport activities and educational outreach?  Are they ashamed to be associated with the NRA?

Actually, Whittington Center plays an interesting role in NRA History.  Before the famed Cincinnati Revolt, there were plans afoot by the faction of NRA’s leadership that wanted to get out of politics to move NRA’s headquarters from 1600 Rhode Island Avenue, in Washington D.C., to Colorado Springs, Colorado.  A massive shooting facility was planned, 37,000 acres, in New Mexico, called the National Shooting Center.

That was not to be long lived, because of a member revolt lead by Harlan Carter at the 1977 Annual Meeting in Cincinnati.  NRA’s old, politically fearful leadership was swept aside, and plans for moving the Headquarters from Washington were scrapped.  But NRA completed the National Shooting Center, but named it Whittington Center.

So it stands now as a monument to the plans of the old guard to turn NRA into nothing more than a shooting sports organization, which, if they had been successful, would have probably meant the end of legal gun ownership in this country.  That’s not to say I believe Whittington Center is something NRA ought to be ashamed of, because I think it’s worthwhile, but I don’t think Whittington Center should be ashamed of NRA either.

It looks like Gun Owners of America is throwing its weight behind Pat Toomey, even though we’re still an entire year out from the Republican Primary, and as far as I can tell, the primary ballot isn’t even really known yet:

First, Senator Arlen Specter provided the instrumental Republican
support to get anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed by the
Senate.

So did GOA A- rated Shelby.  So did GOA A rated Chambliss, and GOA A rated Isakson.  I could go on.  Point being, 75 Senators voted, including a lot of Senators highly rated by GOA voted to confirm Eric Holder.  I anxiously await GOA’s endorsement of their primary opponents this early on.

Then, he singlehandedly pushed through the massive economic bailout, the so-called stimulus bill, which contained several provisions of concern to gun owners.

This has nothing to do with guns.  Most of GOA’s arguments centered around the health care provisions of the bill, combined with their opposition HR2640, which has been documented extensively on here as total bunk.

Every time Attorney General Eric Holder opens his mouth and talks about reinstating the Clinton gun ban, gun owners know they have Arlen Specter to thank.

Along with several other highly rated GOA Senators.

Without Specter, there would be no $1 TRILLION bailout.

Really, by the time debt services and other frills of the “socialism
bill” are accounted for, the cost will be over $3 TRILLION!

I thought you were Gun Owners of America, not the National Taxpayers Union, or Americans for Prosperity.  What about the highly rated GOA representative Jason Altmire, who has an A-.  What about highly rated Congressman Dan Boren, also with an A-.  They voted for the Porkulus too.  Shall I go to the Senate?  You have to decide what your issue is.  If it’s conservatism, you should change your name and rate many of these representatives lower than they are rated.

Please help Gun Owners of America make this Specter’s last term in office by supporting Pat Toomey for Senate at: http://www.toomeyforsenate.com/contribute

What if A- rated Gerlach decides to run in the primary, because he’s apparently thinking about it.  Do you want to endorse an A vs. A- candidate?  What if Gerlach wins?

Rep. Toomey was “A” rated by Gun Owners of America during his time in Congress.

So were many others who voted the same way as Arlen Specter has.  Why single him out?  I have an answer.  GOA knows NRA is likely to stand by Specter as long as Specter keeps voting the right way on guns.  They know that will upset a lot of the faithful who hate Specter on issues that are not related to guns.  They are hoping to capitalize on that.  I can’t think of what else it could be.

Many GOA supporters were quick to lambast Bob Barr on his vote for the Lautenberg Amendment, probably won’t give Arlen Specter much credit for voting against it.  But who I am I to get in the way of a joke of a pro-gun organization trying to promote themselves.

The 2009 NRA Board Elections are now at an end.  Today is the ballot deadline.  Ballots received after today will not count.  I would like to thank Senator Feinstein, President Obama and his Chief of Staff for helping remind NRA members to get their ballots in.  I would also like to thank our endorsed candidates who took the time to answer some of our questions.  We will find out the results of the election at NRA’s Annual Meeting, which I will dutifully report to you.