View Single Post
Old April 11, 2012, 10:35 AM   #73
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
On the one hand - I want to say that the SAF has done more for me in Illinois than the NRA has, looking at the McDonald case.

Looking at Sheperd v Madigan and Moore v Madigan, while the results were the same in the lower courts, I think the NRA lawyers could have done a better job with Sheperd - especially forgetting to site Woolard as authority.

But on the other hand - the NRA has done a ton of stuff on the legislative front for me in Illinois.

We have an NRA lobbyist who is right there in the halls with the Illinois State representatives and Senators.

My NRA lobbyist posts of a forum to give us the inside info on the legislative process, the back door deals, the political manuvering, the strategy and tactics. It can get very confusing and this NRA guy works tirelessly to break it down for us.

I do think that the NRA should stick to gun issues (I don't think the posted story makes a case that they are branching out).

One of the problems I do have with the NRA though, at least in Illinois, is that new candidates don't get a grade. But in Illinois we have "The Machine", the "Democratic Machine" The power epicenter for the machine is Chicago. Even if there is a pro-gun democrat in Illinois, they are going to have to play by rules, tow the party line and vote anti-gun.

So the NRA's position of only grading politicians based on their voting record or how they answer a question - has not helped in Illinois.

I would think at some point the ISRA & NRA would just start giving these new candidates a failing grade based on their membership in an organization that has proven to be anti-gun.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Page generated in 0.06966 seconds with 7 queries