Quote:
|
I'd submit negotiations / politics-wise it's a better approach to have a more non-compromising group (GOA) calling out NRA and the gun-haters. It makes NRA look more reasonable to many.
|
I'd submit that you may be on to something here, although I don't know how much affect it really has. The GOA is little known outside of us hard core gun guys.
Quote:
|
Based on what success? The only success GOA talks about is when they piggybacked on lawsuits filed and funded by others.
|
Ha! Like claiming that they significantly influenced Heller! The Libertarians over at CATO institute deserve ALL the credit for heavy lifting on that one. All GOA did there was file an Amicus brief. Well, so did dozens of other organizations. Heck the ILEETA (International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association) filed a brief supporting Heller, at the behest and with the support of elected District Attorneys from Orange, San Bernadino, and Fresno Counties in CALIFORNIA (YES! California elected officials supported the Heller case on our side!). So did the Retired Military Officers, several congressmen, Dick Cheney, Congress of Racial Equality (with support from NAACP)... all in favor of Heller and his individual RKBA. Tons of authorities filed an Amicus brief, GOA isn't "special" there. NRA is often vilified over their early hesitation to endorse Heller, but Justice Stevens himself came out and documented the fact that the Heller decision was basically a battle between himself and Justice Scalia lobbying Justice Kennedy (the infamous swing vote). Stevens takes credit for influencing some of the alleged "poison pill" language in Scalia's opinion. So the NRA, at that time, recognized that it would all come down to Kennedy and was being prudent in their approach.
I'm not against GOA, but I'm not a member. My individual analysis is that they do attempt to take more than their share of credit.