"National Association of Gun Rights" - hidden or BS agenda??
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: "National Association of Gun Rights" - hidden or BS agenda??

  1. #1

    "National Association of Gun Rights" - hidden or BS agenda??

    I'm starting to feel like these folks are trying to pull a fast one on me.

    First, they keep railing against HR 822, and I don't understand their rationale in doing so. I've read their reasons, but they simply don't add up. And frankly, I trust the NRA's legal team, who has a LOT MORE experience in this area than NAGR's executive director Dudley Brown likely does.

    Now, I get this email, where they are CLEARLY LYING to me. They are trying to say that they can't exercise their First Amendment rights unless I send them money.

    The Obama Administration's IRS and FEC won't let the National Association for Gun Rights PAC inform non-members of NAGR who they should -- and shouldn’t -- support in the upcoming election.

    As the head of the mailroom here at NAGR, our staff has been staying busy processing thousands of new members coming on board in recent weeks.

    Since you aren't a "legal member" of NAGR, Dudley asked me to encourage you to chip in at least $5 right now to become a "legal member" of NAGR.

    Once you become a "legal member," when the elections start cranking up next year, the NAGR PAC will be able to "legally" tell you which candidates for elected office are "good guys" on guns, and which ones are the gun-grabbers.

    Please click on the picture below and chip in at least $5 so the NAGR PAC can "legally" tell you which candidates are good and which ones are bad.

    -- Ashley
    WTF?? Any organization can express its opinion about candidates, right? Am I missing something here? Can anyone offer some insight?
    S&W M&P 45; Ruger GP100 .357 Magnum; Charter Arms .38 Undercover
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/members/phillip-gain-albums-phil-s-photos-picture3828-reciprocity-map-29jun11.JPG

  2.   
  3. #2
    Is there a certain amount of membership required to become a registered PAC? Maybe that's it.

    There are so many orgs doing the same thing, I wish we could all decide on one and have one overwhelming voice that says, NO to the anti gun folks.

    KK

  4. #3
    Purely a money grab. Every email I get from them...no matter what the subject...ends in SEND MONEY NOW...

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1
    I know what you mean by "money grab". I belong to an organization, a national one, only because my area outdoor gun club requires membership in that organization to have a membership. Financial support from that organization I suppose.

    Anyway, this very large organization has been shown to be a compromising body, likely fighting only enough to ensure the battle continues thus giving those elitist's in this organization continued work. The have done GREAT things and at times can be a saving grace. I can only imagine how that very large organization could stomp gun control IF they wanted to...

    Insofar as the money grab goes, I have YET to recieve less than 9 of 10 mailings begging for money. I know money is the life blood of any organization that wants to survive, so maybe we can all sit back and not worry so much about ALL of the pro-gun, pro-anything groups yanking on our wallets.
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    I have some doubts about the bill as well. Others have put that federal versus state seed of doubt in my mind. But I'd trust the NRA over some yahoos I've never heard of.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Gain View Post
    I'm starting to feel like these folks are trying to pull a fast one on me.

    First, they keep railing against HR 822, and I don't understand their rationale in doing so. I've read their reasons, but they simply don't add up. And frankly, I trust the NRA's legal team, who has a LOT MORE experience in this area than NAGR's executive director Dudley Brown likely does.

    Now, I get this email, where they are CLEARLY LYING to me. They are trying to say that they can't exercise their First Amendment rights unless I send them money.



    WTF?? Any organization can express its opinion about candidates, right? Am I missing something here? Can anyone offer some insight?
    I agree with you 100%. The arguements against do not add up. There is something else going on. It has to do with making a 'fast buck', at your expense. Dont fall for their B#%%*^$*.

  8. Should HR 822 pass it will cause all of you in favor for it to rue the day you supported it. NAGR is SPOT on and more helpful than any NRA-ILA as I have already had personal experience with the NRA-ILA in a so called "gun rights bill" in my state that the NRA fully backed and would have had it passed caused gun owners to lose rights where Dudley and his group shot holes in the NRA backed bill (which never left sub-committee thank GOD).

    Go ahead and believe the NRA if you want to. Go head and think Dudley is just trying to sham you for a quick buck. I know better and have seen evidence of the NAGR's forward thinking to protect gun owner rights as opposed to the fat cat NRA lobbyists.

    Just my opinion

    PS. 1st Amendment rights have NOTHING to do with Dudley's email. You need to do a bit more research.
    I don't necessarily mean everything I say, I just do it to see the [email protected]@K on your face - HueMan 1998

  9. #8
    This is from Gun Owners of America

    Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry

    In Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

    H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is "too pro-gun."

    Separate legislation H.R. 2900--supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)--would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.

    Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry

    Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry--where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff's office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.

    In recent years, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model. Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and Texas passed a "constitutional carry lite" law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

    These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don't like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.

    About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

    Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in "May Issue" States

    H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for Illinois and the state of one's residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

    In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e., California, Maryland, and Massachusetts), it's nearly impossible for residents to get a permit.

    Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state (unless they were among the privileged few to have an in-state permit).

    This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

    On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive "may issue" states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.

    In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts "teeth" into that ruling.

    Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

    H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms "have been shipped in interstate commerce," the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the "commerce" the Founder's envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.

    The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to "regulate virtually anything � [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

    The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the "full faith and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

  10. #9
    $$$$$$$ is all they want.The more, the Marrier

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    Purely a money grab. Every email I get from them...no matter what the subject...ends in SEND MONEY NOW...
    Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast