Category: Gun Rights Organizations

NRA finally got my endowment member gift to me a few weeks ago.  We’re cleaning up today and putting everything in its place.  The problem is, where to put the endowment member gift.  You can see my dilemma below:

It’s a lovely knife.  It would be nice to put it on display.  But it’s also a weapon, and I don’t particularly relish the idea of performing a Tueller Drill half asleep at three O’Clock in the morning because a home invader has decided to arm himself with my commemorative NRA Endowment knife.  I don’t like to leave functional weapons laying around the house.

I figure I have two choices.  Epoxy the knife to the display rack, so that it can’t be easily removed, or mount it on the wall in the bedroom.  I don’t know if I honestly want a knife mounted in my bedroom.  I liked the civil war bullet set I got for the Life membership.  Unless a burglar brings along an 1861 Sprinfield, there’s not much that can be done with that.

Not that I don’t like the knife, but can you imagine the headline?  So I would suggest to NRA gifts that are a bit more, shall we say, inert.  How about an NRA commemorative deactivated 5 inch naval shell?  I could put that right by the fireplace!

This is the last in our series of interviews with Board Candidates, which means it’s now time to get your ballots in.  I will be engineering a fun series of reminders for you.  As with our interviews with Scott Bach, and Edie Reynolds, my questions are in bold, and the answers italicized.

What, if anything, do you think the NRA can do to help introduce downstate people to the shooting sports and the Second Amendment?

This is a very difficult question to answer, to categorize any citizen of New York as either a “Upstate” or “Downstate” is to invite argument and vigorous debate.

Well, putting that aside then, what do you think NRA can to get more people involved in shooting?

Let’s examine the issue at hand as one that is societal in nature and easily remedied.  The NRA, through its official state affiliate – The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association – reaches thousands of shooters across the state each year.  Anyone so inclined, may avail themselves to a wide variety of shooting experiences….as my campaign motto suggests, “From Black Powder to Black Rifle…”

No matter what your interest is or where you may reside- there is a shooting discipline for you.

Aside from NRA, is there anything you would recommend to individuals, to get more people active?

We need to invite those who may be interested to join us at the gun club, the range or even the match.  I know personally that this is the one of the best methods to get those interested involved…

Addressing specifically the Second Amendment, what is your philosophy on spreading the concepts to the uninitiated?

Regarding introducing anyone to the Second Amendment, I would certainly hope that all citizens – young and old – would be well versed on their civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That being said, as one that has instructed at the high school, collegiate and Post-Graduate Level, I – unfortunately – know that not to be the case.

Wherever I present, I go to great lengths to fully “enlighten” those that will listen that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the “National Guard” or one of my favorite pastimes of hunting. It is plain and simple, the amendment that guarantees us our freedom – the right to self-defense against tyranny.

We’d like to thank Joe for taking time to answer our questions.  Now get those ballots mailed in!

This article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer talks about a community’s dispute surrounding a “live fire exercise” that was to be put on by a militia group.

Lacey Fair, who lives next to the training site, was concerned for the safety of her daughters, ages 4 and 12.

She said Brandon Drabek, who owns the site and identifies himself as the public-relations person for the Home Guard, could not give her adequate assurances.

Her home is about 120 yards from his land. Fair said that when she asked what to do while the training was going on, he told her, “That’s a good question. Keep your dogs and children inside.”

I wouldn’t exactly feel to reassured by this statement even if it were me.  It’s one thing to shoot in the middle of nowhere, or at a properly engineered firing range, but while this area is rural, it’s not exactly desolate.  Is it good community relations to distribute leaflets informing everyone that you plan to shoot up the neighborhood in a live fire exercise?  I’ve also never honestly understood the need for militia groups to claim some kind of legitimacy.

Fair said Drabek told her the group would be using automatic weapons; he denies that. Fair also said Drabek claimed the group had been endorsed by Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland.

McClelland said that he extended no such endorsement and would not because he does not know enough about the Home Guard or the Ohio Defense Force.

I have no issues with grown men getting together and playing army, and I’ve never believed all militia groups to be hate groups, or radical outfits, even though I don’t pretend to understand the motive behind it:

Eckhart said the Ohio Defense Force is about 10 years old, and many of its founders were disenchanted with the state-run Ohio Military Reserve, in part because it no longer trains with firearms.

But is the motivation to serve the community, which you can apparently do in the Ohio Military Reserve, or to train with firearms?  If the purpose is to train with firearms, why all the grasping for legitimacy, and the origanizing into platoon sized battalions and whatnot?  Can’t a couple of fellas get together and teach each other to shoot without all the pomp and circumstance?

The only thing I can figure is that a lot of these guys are looking for ways to relate to their government, and serve communities that they feel increasingly isolated from, and have a hard time relating to.  Government has become cold, impersonal, and with an agenda all its own, even at the local levels.  I don’t think the existence of these groups says as much about the men who join them as it says about the governments they don’t feel like they could be a part of.

The time is fast approaching for NRA’s Annual Meeting.  This year it’ll be held in Phoenix.  Once again, Bitter is organizing a Second Amendment Blog Bash for bloggers and readers alike surrounding the Annual Meeting.  Take a look at our schedule of activities.  We had a blast at last year’s event, so I hope people will register and come out.

In the comments on my post earlier:

While I’m sure GOA doesn’t spend as much money as the NRA I’m equally certain they don’t spend it on such things as headquarters buildings, airfare for nearly a hundred directors to annual meetings or exorbitant salaries for their own pet poiliticians — which is all LaPierre and Cox are.

For comparison, NRA’s form 990s is here.  NRA spends 1.3% of it’s annual operating budget on executive compensation.  GOA’s executive compensation accounts for 11.5% of its total operating budget, and Larry pays himself a salary or 33.6k a year the GOA Foundation as well, which NRA does not do.  True, Wayne and his buddies make a lot more than Larry and his buddies, but NRA is a much larger organization.  How many CEO’s of 332 million dollar a year companies can you name that make less than a million a year?  Wayne does not make substantively more than the CEO of the small biotech company I work for, and we have yet to make a profit.  Chris Cox could make a hell of a lot more money working on K street.  James Baker left ILA to start his own K street lobby firm. As for fancy buildings, NRA spends 2% of its annual expenses for office space.  GOA spends 7.6% of it’s annual expenses on office space.

But let’s not stop there.  We can also examine the Form 990 of GOA Foundation, and examine the Form 990 of NRA Foundation.  Ignoring for the moment I had to up my upload limits just to fit NRA Foundation’s Form 990 on the server, which do you think looks like it’s doing more to advance the cause?  NRA Foundation’s executive compensation is a big fat zero.  All the NRA Foundation officers are uncompensated.  Just look at the list of grants paid out by NRA Foundation.  To 4H clubs, to JROTC, to shooting clubs, Boy Scout Troops, the list goes on.  They paid 15.2 million dollars in grants to do things like help raise new generations of shooters.  I could write for twenty pages about all the things NRA Foundation does.

GOA Foundation, in comparison, spends 11% of its total expenses paying Larry Pratt.  Totals paid out were 149 thousand dollars for “Research, publish and distribute numerous books, monographs, issue briefs, auto and video tapes, and other educational materials relating to firearms rights.”  In 2007, 114,000 was paid out by their legal defense program.

Like I said before, none of the things GOA are doing are worthless endeavors, but we should be serious about which organization is making the greater contribution to the cause of the Second Amendment, and keeping our shooting culture alive and well.  I would not, on my own initiative, compare GOA to NRA, because I think there is no comparison between the two that is fair.  They each have different roles to play.  But GOA makes a regular habit of claiming to be an equal or better than NRA.  When you look at the matter seriously, that’s a laughable assertion.

A reader sends me this passage from a fundraising letter from Gun Owners of America:

And, as to why you should give your support to GOA, rather than the NRA or any other group, let me say that when it comes to defending your gun rights, we have no equal.

Sure, the NRA does some great things.  They sponsor shooting events, they train kids how to shoot safely, they have great trinkets they offer to people to join, and they lobby for gun rights.

But what’s more important?  A nice trinket or your right to keep and bear arms?  We hold the line when others compromise.  We oppose a national gun registry; we oppose trigger locks; we oppose ‘bullet tracing.’  We oppose all things that seek to infringe on your right to defend yourself.

Oh man.  Where to even start.  I guess I can start first with the fact that GOA is seeking to actively undermine other groups in an attempt to feather its own nest.  We call this “eating your own.”  Hamsters do that.  I would have thought gun rights organizations like GOA would be better than hamsters, but apparently that’s too much to ask.

Secondly, NRA is also opposed to all those things that GOA mentions, except that NRA has an extensive lobbying operation that actually has a presence on Capitol Hill and in all fifty state Capitols.  From people I know who work the Hill (no, not NRA people), GOA’s presence in the halls of Congress is pretty much nil.

So what are you getting for the money if you donate to GOA?  A quick look at their form 990 should make that abundantly clear.  Conspicuously absent?  Lobbying.  In fact, postage and shipping appears to be their largest cost center.  That’s not to say what GOA does is entirely worthless, but they aren’t “hold[ing] the line.”  They aren’t lobbying in defense of gun rights anywhere close to the level NRA operates at.

Remember the sources of NRA’s political capital post we did a few months ago.  What are the sources of GOA’s political power?  Based on their form 990, they took in $430,000 in member dues in 2007, which would put their membership around 40,000 at the high end, and perhaps as low as 20,000.  NRA is 4 million.  If you look at GOA’s Political Action Committee, they spent $147,054 dollars in 2008, compared to NRA’s PAC who spent 15.5 million.  Which organization do you think politicians are going to pay attention to?

GOA is right about one thing, they do indeed “have no equal,” and gun owners should consider themselves very fortunate that is the case.  If we had to rely on GOA to defend the Second Amendment, it would be dead letter by now.

From Michael Bane:

I see that Republican weasel Michael Steele will speak at the NRA Convention…this is the same Michael Steele who spoke out in favor of a new AWB. The first words out of his mouth better be, “Members of the NRA…I am profoundly sorry for my ill-advised comments on laws banning the most popular firearms in America…accordingly, I hereby commit the Republican Party to unconditional support for the Second Amendment and gun rights in America…”

As many of you know, I parted ways with a lot of gun people over Steele as GOP Chairman, but mostly because his past positions on guns wasn’t really all that germane to his position as party chair.  That’s a distinctly different thing than Steele being invited to speak at the NRA Annual Meeting.  I agree with Michael that he better be coming to mend fences, otherwise I’m going to question the sanity of those who thought he’d be a good speaker for such an important NRA function.

As Michael pointed out Monday, we’re one of the only tools left in the GOP’s tool belt that’s still sharp and useful.  We deserve better than we’ve gotten out of Republicans in the past.

Our second interview is with Edie Reynolds (appearing as Edie Fleeman “Reynolds” on your ballot).  Edie is a candidate for re-election to the board, and was selected because I think her background and advocacy for the shooting sports is much needed.  I took questions that were geared more toward that end.  Like with Scott Bach’s interview, my questions are bold, and her answers italicized.

Knowing your success with smallbore rifle and other rifle based competitive shooting sports, if re-elected to the NRA Board will you put your support behind growing the NRA’s shooting sports programs, such as Action Pistol and the new NRA Three-Gun Competition? Recent data suggests that action-style shooting sports are the fastest growing segments of competitive shooting, and NRA has fallen behind the market’s demand in this area in recent years (although efforts to revive Bianchi Cup seem to be going quite well).

Yes, I will support Action Pistol and Three-Gun competition and will continue to support them.

Our current victory in D.C. v. Heller, and the subsequent effort to get it incorporated, has the potential to open up opportunities to participate in the shooting sports to millions of people who have previously not have the opportunity to become involved.  Given the likely more urban and suburban makeup of this constituency, what kind of shooting activities do you think NRA could encourage in order to capitalize on attracting urban and suburban people to the shooting sports?

I would encourage people who own handguns to obtain safety training and take basic marksmanship skills courses to include concealed carry training.  Some people will want to shoot more and will get into competitive shooting.  While these people are learning, the NRA/Winchester Marksmanship Qualification Program is a great tool to use to reward shooters as their skills improve.  Indoor facilities will be the likely venues and of course air gun can be done just about anywhere.

With the NRA working alongside the CMP to improve Camp Perry and other sites, why does NRA not work more closely with USAS?

There are many cooperative programs NRA has with USA Shooting.  The NRA/USAS Coach School Program trains people across the country (and Canada too!) to coach beginning shooters in rifle, pistol and shotgun.  NRA’s National Coach Trainers spend many hours at the Olympic Training Center training coaches and training NCDS (National Coach Development Staff – the people who instruct the Coach Schools).  USAS’s Head Coach of the Rifle program offers slots on the National Development Team to the top two individuals with the highest season averages in smallbore and air rifle.  These numbers come from those compiled by NRA’s Collegiate Programs department for All American selection.  The Progressive Position Air Pistol Program gives training to junior shooters and culminates in a jointly-run National Championship.  USAS and NRA agreed recently to the mutual use of one target for indoor smallbore competition.  NRA Clubs that sponsor tournaments do so for both NRA and USAS, using the rules of the respective organizations.  NRA also supplies monetary support to USAS.

The NRA is largely seen by non-shooters as mostly a political organization.  Do you feel NRA needs to do more to promote its shooting sport programs, or do you believe the political battles are essential to the future health of the shooting sports?

Yes, NRA should promote shooting sports programs more.  There has to be somewhat of a balance between the political aspect and the competitive shooting aspect but the priority has to go to the political side because without Second Amendment protection, there is no protection of gun ownership.  Competitive shooting shouldn’t be lost in the shuffle because a right that isn’t exercised isn’t a right.

There’s been some controversy in competition circles about the change in the rules that allow non-NRA members to compete in NRA-registered competitions. There is a concern that it is perhaps not the best way to help promote membership to allow competitors to “free ride” so to speak.  Can you explain the reasoning behind this rule change?

The reason was to allow the Competitive Shooting Division to use non-taxable funds in support of competition at both the regional and national levels.

Looks like TD got his ballot ready.  My interview with Edie Reynolds will be published shortly.  She’s gotten her answers back to me, and all I need to do is get the post ready.  After that, it’ll be Joe DeBergalis.

Looks like TD is voting for John Milius, who I also think is a good candidate.  I’m officially neutral on the matter of Kollitides, but we have not been sold on his candidacy.  I do hope he brings something positive to the board, and I’m certainly willing to consider him in the future if he makes a good contribution.