The latest on NRA bankruptcy and move to Texas

[Suck My Glock]

This is a bit of a deep read, but it looks like LaPiere ain't gonna be able to avoid investigation of fraud and other misconduct. A board member (Phil Journey), who is also a serving judge, is suing to ensure things are properly looked into. He is also considered one of the "Neal Knox cabal" members from the late 70's some of you may remember, so there are accusations of old grudges. But Neal Knox and his supporters were always about returning the NRA to the membership and away from the scoundrels running it. It looks like that might finally happen.


https://www.ammoland.com/2021/02/nra-ba ... z6ouIT1nv8

[smithers599]

Note, with all these gun confiscation bills being proposed, the NRA is MIA.

[Gunslinger808]

As I’ve said before, the NRA has always had a habit of not really protecting us.
Since the 1930s they’ve done more damage by “compromising” our rights away than the liberals could by active legislation.
During this past election cycle when their voice was needed, they were silent all through it, they left the people funding them empty handed.

[Kingjoey]

Note, with all these gun confiscation bills being proposed, the NRA is MIA.

Yup, they'll have a convenient excuse to have their thumbs up their asses while the socialists run over our rights

[87jeep]

I learned a very long time ago to support the state gun rights groups. AzCDL
Never belonged to NRA or will I ever!

Carry on

[xerts1911]

Put your money in GOA, SAF and others

[Flash]

Put your money in GOA, SAF and others

None of those are players on the National level to any significant degree, don't have the resources to do it, so be aware of that.

[RufusXG]

DC vs. Heller
McDonald vs. Chicago
I would consider those significant, and national

[Flash]

The NRA was also involved in DC vs Heller, don't know about McDonald. I don't follow these too closely.

I was referring to a lobbying arm more than anything else, something to keep things from happening in the first place rather than waiting until it's a law then taking it to court.

"I'm going to destroy The GOA and SAF" said no politician ever as they haven't even heard of these organizations due to the lack of a lobbying arm.

[Remow2112]

You can hate on the NRA all you want, but when it comes to clout on capitol hill. None of the other groups come close. NRA is consistently in the top 4 in lobbying power.

I believe Laperrie needs to be gone. But the NRA is still the best pressure we as gun owners have going for us. It is not perfect but no matter what they do there is always contingent that will say it is not enough, they don't fight at all or they just sell us out. No matter how you choose to look at it. They still give us some kind of seat at the table.

GOA and SAF just don't have the pull. I contribute to both nut they just don't rank.

[RufusXG]

Lobbying is one thing, not the only thing. Alan Gura and SAF have made great strides in legal cases in recent years. Off the top of my head, those have been our big victories recently, as opposed to any great national level legislation.

NRA did everything in their power to keep Heller from being heard by the Supremes, and only joined on when they had no other options.

[Flash]

Lobbying is one thing, not the only thing. Alan Gura and SAF have made great strides in legal cases in recent years. Off the top of my head, those have been our big victories recently, as opposed to any great national level legislation.

NRA did everything in their power to keep Heller from being heard by the Supremes, and only joined on when they had no other options.

Lobbying is what keeps it from ending up in the courtroom in many cases and that's why it's important.

Got a link to that information about the NRA trying to keep Heller from being heard by SCOTUS?

[RufusXG]

I didn't say lobbying isn't important. I'm saying we've made more gains in court lately than in Congress. Are you saying the opposite is true?

I don't have a "link". I was paying attention as it happened. For example, NRA tried to get legislation rammed through Congress to take the power to grant CCWs from DC so the case would become moot. When that failed they had no choice but to join the case or appear to be total hypocrites. Not sure whether they were afraid we would lose the case, or that we would win.

[Flash]

Yeah, I'm pretty much saying the opposite is true.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. An old saying but it's still true. Stopping something before it starts is a whole lot easier than stopping it after it's already happened.

I was paying attention as it happened too but didn't see it the way you did. Individuals interpret things in different ways.

[RufusXG]

Are there two pieces of legislation in that period that have been more important than those two court cases? I can't think of any.

Hate to use Wiki as a source, but here it is:
Non-party involvement
National Rifle Association (NRA)
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[55] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[56] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[57] He also stated that "The N.R.A.'s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[6] Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[6]

Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment – including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case – have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[58]

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[59]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller