The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Al Norris · December 30, 2012, 02:01 PM

In the past (the days of the old Legal & Political forum) many of the "alerts" by Larry Pratt (i.e. the GOA) were alerting folks of what the NRA didn't do in a particular situation, or did do that Larry didn't like and thought was a "sell-out" of our 2A rights.

The message that came across was, "Don't become a member of a "sell-out" organization. Join US, we don't compromise!"

The implications were quite clear.

Dave "TheBluesMan" Miller and I had a serious PM discussion about this and decided that enough was enough. We began closing, and in many cases, deleting threads and posts that served only to bash the NRA.

Over the years, most especially after the Heller decision, Larry's rants remained the same or actually grew more shrill... Up until about early 2010 or so.

For whatever reasons, the GOA became less of an attack vehicle on the NRA, while at the same time, the NRA began using many of the same provocative tactics that Larry Pratt had been using.

The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me, was the NRA's stance of the McDonald case in their Aug. 2010 magazines, wherein Chris Cox (NRA-ILA - NRA's Institute for Legislative Action - more on that in a moment) took full credit for the NRA in the outcome of that case. Hell, it was even hinted that the Heller case could not of had the outcome it did, without the backing of the NRA.

Sorry folks. But the results of those two seminal cases were the work of first the CATO Institute and then the SAF, via that young upstart attorney, Alan Gura.

The fact of the matter is, that the NRA has become every bit as shrill as was the GOA in the past (and to a lesser extent, even now). This was due in whole by one man.

To my mind, based strictly on what has been achieved since the Heller decision, neither the NRA-ILA nor the GOA deserve my support. I reserve that for another organization that is NOT the topic of this discussion.

Notice the distinction I have made above?

I support the NRA. They are the premier organization for the shooting sports, for training new and existing firearms enthusiasts, etc. What the NRA does, and where your membership counts and what it pays for, are things that I wholeheartedly endorse. Every gun-owner should be a member of the NRA. The NRA, as the parent organization, has the political clout (because of that membership), that is greater, by far, than its membership would suggest and greater than any other gun-rights group there is. None of the money you spend on NRA membership goes to support the other organizations under the umbrella of the NRA.

A lot of people complain about the incessant appeals for money that they keep getting in their mail. If you look closely, you will find that most of these money pleas are for donations to the NRA-ILA.

I do not support the NRA-ILA. Chris W. Cox (the deputy director of the ILA and heir apparent after Wayne LaPierre) has taken charge of the litigation goals of the NRA and, in my own opinion, doesn't know what the hell he is doing. As a lobbyist, he is good. Very, very good. As a litigator, quite simply, he sucks. He has no concept of civil rights litigation and what that entails. The attorneys at his disposal are very good litigators, if somewhat inexperienced in civil rights litigation. However, Mr. Cox will not let them do their job. His ego will not allow for anything less than full involvement with the cases (with the exception of some CA cases).

To my mind, this thread is misnamed. It should be about the NRA-ILA vs. the GOA. As that's what the undercurrent of this discussion is really about. IF you keep the discussion about only the NRA vs. the GOA, there is no contest. The NRA wins, hands down. The GOA is not even in the running as a competitor to what the NRA itself does, for the shooting sports.

If you are talking about lobbying, they (the GOA) still don't compare. The GOA's lobbying efforts are minimal and even dismal, at best. You cannot play at politics with a "no compromise" attitude. You simply won't be listened to. That is a political fact of life. If you are discussing litigation, the GOA has done nothing but file a few amicus briefs. They (the GOA) have funded no litigation.

In closing, I must admit to astonishment as to exactly why this thread has gone on for as long as it has, in the General Discussion forum. It is only tangentially related to guns and more related to the 2A as a civil right and the organizations (NRA and GOA) as protectors of those rights.

Moving to L&CR.

December 30, 2012, 02:01 PM	#64
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	In the past (the days of the old Legal & Political forum) many of the "alerts" by Larry Pratt (i.e. the GOA) were alerting folks of what the NRA didn't do in a particular situation, or did do that Larry didn't like and thought was a "sell-out" of our 2A rights. The message that came across was, "Don't become a member of a "sell-out" organization. Join US, we don't compromise!" The implications were quite clear. Dave "TheBluesMan" Miller and I had a serious PM discussion about this and decided that enough was enough. We began closing, and in many cases, deleting threads and posts that served only to bash the NRA. Over the years, most especially after the Heller decision, Larry's rants remained the same or actually grew more shrill... Up until about early 2010 or so. For whatever reasons, the GOA became less of an attack vehicle on the NRA, while at the same time, the NRA began using many of the same provocative tactics that Larry Pratt had been using. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me, was the NRA's stance of the McDonald case in their Aug. 2010 magazines, wherein Chris Cox (NRA-ILA - NRA's Institute for Legislative Action - more on that in a moment) took full credit for the NRA in the outcome of that case. Hell, it was even hinted that the Heller case could not of had the outcome it did, without the backing of the NRA. Sorry folks. But the results of those two seminal cases were the work of first the CATO Institute and then the SAF, via that young upstart attorney, Alan Gura. The fact of the matter is, that the NRA has become every bit as shrill as was the GOA in the past (and to a lesser extent, even now). This was due in whole by one man. To my mind, based strictly on what has been achieved since the Heller decision, neither the NRA-ILA nor the GOA deserve my support. I reserve that for another organization that is NOT the topic of this discussion. Notice the distinction I have made above? I support the NRA. They are the premier organization for the shooting sports, for training new and existing firearms enthusiasts, etc. What the NRA does, and where your membership counts and what it pays for, are things that I wholeheartedly endorse. Every gun-owner should be a member of the NRA. The NRA, as the parent organization, has the political clout (because of that membership), that is greater, by far, than its membership would suggest and greater than any other gun-rights group there is. None of the money you spend on NRA membership goes to support the other organizations under the umbrella of the NRA. A lot of people complain about the incessant appeals for money that they keep getting in their mail. If you look closely, you will find that most of these money pleas are for donations to the NRA-ILA. I do not support the NRA-ILA. Chris W. Cox (the deputy director of the ILA and heir apparent after Wayne LaPierre) has taken charge of the litigation goals of the NRA and, in my own opinion, doesn't know what the hell he is doing. As a lobbyist, he is good. Very, very good. As a litigator, quite simply, he sucks. He has no concept of civil rights litigation and what that entails. The attorneys at his disposal are very good litigators, if somewhat inexperienced in civil rights litigation. However, Mr. Cox will not let them do their job. His ego will not allow for anything less than full involvement with the cases (with the exception of some CA cases). To my mind, this thread is misnamed. It should be about the NRA-ILA vs. the GOA. As that's what the undercurrent of this discussion is really about. IF you keep the discussion about only the NRA vs. the GOA, there is no contest. The NRA wins, hands down. The GOA is not even in the running as a competitor to what the NRA itself does, for the shooting sports. If you are talking about lobbying, they (the GOA) still don't compare. The GOA's lobbying efforts are minimal and even dismal, at best. You cannot play at politics with a "no compromise" attitude. You simply won't be listened to. That is a political fact of life. If you are discussing litigation, the GOA has done nothing but file a few amicus briefs. They (the GOA) have funded no litigation. In closing, I must admit to astonishment as to exactly why this thread has gone on for as long as it has, in the General Discussion forum. It is only tangentially related to guns and more related to the 2A as a civil right and the organizations (NRA and GOA) as protectors of those rights. Moving to L&CR.