Category: Gun Rights Organizations

We’ve already covered the composition of the NRA Board of Directors and how members are elected to the board. One of the next frequently misunderstood topics I’ve observed on the internet is how people get on the ballot in the first place.

There are two types of nominations you will see listed in your NRA magazine if you are a voting member. One is by the Nominating Committee, and the other is by Petition. Some director candidates choose to do both to demonstrate grassroots support, even if they have the support of other board members through the Nominating Committee.

First, I’ll address those nominated by petition. Candidates for the board may submit the names and personal information of 250 voting-eligible NRA members to be placed on the ballot. No more than five petition candidates from a single state may be on the ballot in the same year. If more than five submit their petitions, the five with the most valid signatures will be included on the ballot.

Next, we have the Nominating Committee candidates. Each year, the full board votes for a smaller committee made up of nine board members to process through nominations and select candidates they feel would best represent members on the board. For obvious reasons, this process has – at times – been controversial when some did not like the slate of endorsed candidates.

Historically speaking, those candidates endorsed by the Nominating Committee are typically the top vote getters. The candidates themselves usually note their support by the Committee in their official bios to show that they have the support of their fellow board members. In addition, the Committee will publish a list of their endorsed nominees in the same issue as the ballot. Regardless, being endorsed by the Committee is by no means a promise of being winning a seat on the board. In most years, the Committee will endorse more than 25 candidates – more than the number who could possibly win. It’s not unusual to see 30 or more endorsed candidates.

The NRA Board of Directors is comprised of 76 members.  Why so many?  Largely because it tends to promote stability.  This is both good, and bad, but in my opinion mostly good.  The upside to a large board is that no single board member or faction within NRA’s membership wields a tremendous amount of influence.  In order to make macroscopic changes at NRA, it really does require a broad and sustaining consensus among the membership.  The downside to a large board is what I just mentioned.  Rapid, macroscopic changes are very difficult to affect.

Board elections happen every year.  Board members are elected to a three year term, and at no time is more than 1/3rd of the board up for election in any one year.  Board members don’t run against one another directly.  The top 25 vote getters are the ones who get a seat on the board.  If you are a life member, or have been a continuous NRA member for five years, when you get your ballot in the mail, you can vote for up to 25 people.  I typically don’t use all 25 of my votes, as I try to only vote for the candidates I have good information about.

But 25 seats over three years is only 75, and there are 76 board members.  Well, the 76th board seat is elected only to a period of one year, and the 76th board member is voted on at Annual Meeting (in Phoenix this year).  If you go to Annual Meeting, you will notice people campaigning for 76th board member.  It’s common for someone who almost made it in the mail-in ballot election to try for this seat, and then run again the following year for a three year board seat.

Bitter and I are going to continue our tradition of issuing endorsements for candidates for NRA Board of Directors.  For those of you who are voting NRA members (Life member or higher, or people who have 5 unbroken years of annual NRA membership), you will soon begin receiving your ballots in your next copy of your magazine.

Why have endorsements?  Because I’ve long been an advocate of bloggers having a voice at NRA, and one opportunity the NRA offers for having that voice is to vote for board members.  We need people who share the views of the blogging community, share our outlooks, and who are willing to listen to us, and take us seriously.  Often times that’s hard to know from the biographies in the magazine, which are always going to be favorable, because those are the people the nominating committee want to see elected.

We have endorsed six people for the board this year.  That’s not to say there aren’t other people who have been nominated who are not worthy.  These are candidates we have a good feeling about, or that we know personally.  What we look for in board members are people who are going to be engaged members.  I don’t want people who will just be a rubber stamp, will merely follow the herd, or will enjoy the title of the office without contributing much to it.  But by the same token, I’m not looking for gratuitous pot stirrers, people who will be a pain in the ass, make the organization look bad, or make life unreasonably difficult for NRA staff.

I am going to endeavor to bring you more than just “Vote for this person, because I say they are worthy.”  We are going to line up interviews with some of our endorsed candidates, so readers can judge for themselves.  We will announce the endorsed candidates later in the week.  In the mean time, I will be posting a bit on the role of the board, how NRA elections work, and more on why blogs should have a role to play in this process, particularly in bringing better information to voting NRA members about the people they are being asked to vote for.

Bitter and I were manning the NRA-ILA table in the NRA booth at the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show this weekend.  It wasn’t a bad weekend for NRA.  Bitter and I signed up or renewed about 16 NRA members ourselves, but we were only taking overflow from the membership tables when the two full time staffers and two volunteers were too busy signing up other people to take any more.  We were there for ILA, and were trying to hand out political alerts, answer questions, and sign up potential volunteers.

NRA’s whole operation over the weekend did more than 600 new, upgraded or renewed NRA members.  This is at a show that most definitely favors hunters and anglers, so never let it be said that hunters are completely apathetic about their right to bear arms.  The show runs through next weekend, and we’ll be there working the booths next Saturday and Sunday as well.

Hopefully next weekend I’ll get more of a chance to look around.

Bitter and I will be helping with the NRA table at the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show tomorrow in Harrisburg, at the State Farm Show Complex.  If you’ve never been to the show, I’m told it’s quite good.  It’ll be the first time I’ve gone, so I’ll have to take Bitter’s word for it.   If you’re there, we’ll be at the NRA table in the afternoon.  Feel free to stop by and say hi.

I’ve recently noticed that the Virginia Shooting Sports Association blog has been a great place to get fast and relevant news on Virginia political happenings.  Since the General Assembly is only in session until the end of February, the speedy coverage of important issues is important.

Much like BDS, there exists NRADS – NRA Derangement Syndrome.  Anti-gun advocates seem to believe that everything bad in the world is the fault of the NRA.  It’s nice to see a paper willing to publish a pro-NRA response in Montana.

This past week The Gazette published a letter by Carol Mick criticizing the National Rifle Association for not policing its members. One of the examples she mentioned was the “hunter” from New York who shot a feral llama and attached his/her nonresident elk tag to it. Unfortunately, ignorance is not a criminal offense, no matter how much we might hope it would be. Perhaps Mick has information unavailable to me indicating that this knothead was an NRA member.

Her other example was of a friend purportedly shot by two hunters while the friend was in an orange tent “at twilight or darker.” The NRA then “got the two hunters off.” More information on this incident would be informative. The only way I was aware someone could “get off” from a possible criminal charge would be if they were not charged because no crime was committed, or they were found not guilty at trial.

The NRA has done more in the interest of firearms and hunter safety than any other group or organization in the country. NRA training is considered the gold standard for firearms and hunter safety. I understand that they are unpopular among those who don’t like guns or hunting, but attacking them for something over which they have no control seems to be a little over the top.

Larry Elliott
Billings

We had to revise the figures for new NRA members recruited, because Dustin of Dustin’s Gun Blog managed to recruit a whopping 44 NRA members on his own that he didn’t know about until he checked his recruiting stats with NRA.  That’s great work.  Justin increased his voice in the gun rights movement 44 times!

Between thirteen bloggers who participated, we managed to mint 57 new or upgraded NRA members.  I personally have now upgraded to an Endowment member, and I signed on 3 other people as life members.  Signing up new NRA members is critical at this point.  Membership is the primary source of NRA’s political capital.  At the last Grassroots Seminar, Chris Cox told the room “They don’t fear me, they fear you,” in reference to when NRA goes into a politicians office to lobby on behalf of gun owners.  The more of us there are, the greater the fear, and the more the influence.  For those who want to see the NRA fight more, and fight harder, membership is the primary tool they will need to do it.

Looks like the other Sebastian had lunch with one of the “Lairds of Fairfax” as they are being called in some circles, and discovers he’s concerned about infighting:

He stressed that infighting between various RKBA groups was way more dangerous to the 2A than the Bradys could ever be; the Tripwire effect (pernicious infighting and putting self-aggrandizement in front of political success has the potential to be our achilles heel).

I think he’s right, but I’m not sure that problem can really be fixed.  There will be disagreements as to tactics, no matter what you do, and you can’t expect everyone to agree with you all the time.  There will be disagreement.  That much I can accept.  But the nature of the disagreements often goes beyond polite and civil differences of opinion and into a nasty disposition toward others on the same side that is appalling.

I’ve expressed in many posts my disagreement with NRA on their pushing the workplace parking lot carry bills in various states, argued it’s a contraction of freedom, and is diverting resources from other, more important matters.  What I won’t do, is repeatedly criticize NRA leadership and staffers because they have a different point of view than I do.  Since I’ve started blogging, and getting more involved, I’ve met a lot of people who work in Fairfax, and know a few board members, some of them fairly well.  I’ve had a few conversations with Chris Cox, and have talked briefly with Wayne LaPierre. I have never had any cause to question their dedication to preserving the Second Amendment.  Most of the staff are getting paid far less than they would in a for-profit operation for doing the same job, and for the board members, they don’t get paid anything for having to give up nearly a month out of the year to tend to NRA functions.

NRA is far from perfect, and there are many problems with the Association which I think hurt their effectiveness.  Like any organization, there are going to be some people who have issues, and who don’t always act in the best interests of the Association or the movement.  But you have two choices in dealing with that, you can either throw stones through the windows from the outside, or you can engage NRA like the civic organization it actually is, and try to fix the problems you see as an engaged member.  The former is easy, but the latter is difficult, and requires an understanding that you are one voice of many, and one point of view of many.  It also involves helping NRA carry out its mission, sometimes even on things you might not privately agree with.

No pro-gun organization or its leadership should be absolutely above criticism.  I’ve certainly had my share of criticism for GOA and Larry Pratt, especially when I see them publicly attacking other gun rights organizations, or people in the movement doing good work.  But I don’t doubt that Larry Pratt cares about the Second Amendment, and charts his course based on that conviction.  I agree with John Sigler that we ought not to form a circular firing squad.  You will not often see NRA criticizing other pro-gun groups publicly.  This is by design, and not by accident.  We can argue about tactics, strategy, and the merits and problems with this bill or that bill until we’re blue in the face, but we should have an awful prejudice against questioning other people’s integrity or motivations.  It’ll happen sometimes — we’re all human, and passionate about the issue — but that should be an exception, and not a rule.