Activists Boycott Santa Barbara FONRA Over Brown

From Larry Rankin:

This is a letter I sent out and we used while calling many sponsors that donated to the Santa Barbara Friends of NRA last year. We are boycotting the dinner...the NRA needs to understand that when they hurt us, we can hurt them back. I am a life member of the NRA, I fostered and built the foundation for the very first Friends of NRA dinner in Santa Barbara and I realize many will say that the Friends of NRA is different than ILA...they need to understand that the NRA, is the NRA, is the NRA and that they are accountable for their actions, or lack of!

We are requesting that you do not donate or be a sponsor or attend the Friends of the NRA banquet this year. The reason is that the NRA helped get Sheriff Bill Brown elected. They knew that he was anti gun because I personally contacted them well before election day, as did David Codrea, who is a writer for, "The War on Guns." The NRA did not bother to return either one of our calls. We know that the reason is that they deliberately got him elected knowing that he wasn't the most pro- gun candidate.

Many people have called the NRA in Sacramento and Fairfax, VA, from Santa Barbara area about this issue and they have not returned anyone's calls. Sheriff Bill Brown has not renewed the majority of CCW holders in Santa Barbara County since becoming Sheriff. We want to make a statement with the NRA that the Santa Barbara community of gun owners and 2nd Amendment patriots can make a difference, with our votes and our dollars. If people go to the Friends of the NRA dinner, the NRA will feel that they do not have to be accountable.

We have stopped a very high percentage of sponsors and members from going to the NRA dinner by making these calls and letting them know the truth. They will see the lowest count, in Santa Barbara's NRA dinner history. We will give you a count after the dinner June 2nd, 2007.

Update: The dinner took place as scheduled on June 2nd, 2007. They had 90 people that paid to show up at the Friends of NRA fundraiser. Many called in to say they could not come or were no-shows. Seventy (70) people did show and a few came in and purchased tickets at the door. They had around 25 free tickets which they gave out and figured they had a total of around 100. The Elk's Club had a minimum of 125 dinners. They had no real bidding in the auction. Sam Neeley, the auctioneer, made a speech about the sheriff and how many were unhappy with what is was doing (not about the NRA helping cause the problem) and the people should support the NRA and not stay away from these events by boycotting them because it only hurts you. This of course is self-serving for him because he did not make much money on the auction.

The NRA had a check written to them at the end of the event for $2,800. Anyone that knows about fundraisers know that is like breaking even.

It was said that many were really ticked off at me for starting the boycott and because they found out we had called many past patriots of the function. I will say, I am proud of what I did and I understand many of them can not see out of the box. I will stand behind my action with my head up high! I will boycott the event next year if the NRA does not call and do what they should have done many months ago. That will not be, "I am sorry", it will be a lot more involved. Keeping that under hat for how. As of today, June 7, 2007, we have not been contacted by the NRA and we know they are well aware of what they have done to us. They even checked out the posting on "The War on Guns" website.

I want to thank each and every one of you that supported us on this very important issue!

With warmest appreciation,

Larry R. Rankin

Why is NRA Ignoring Santa Barbara Gun Owners?

I've been compiling "testimonials" from Santa Barbara area gun owners concerning their attempts to contact NRA about their A rating and endorsement of anti-gun Sheriff Bill Brown. Note that in some cases, I do not have permission to use full names, but I would be able to produce evidence via emails should I ever be required to do so--plus many of them were copied to NRA reps, and phone records of calls exist.

This will be a long post, but I think you'll get the gist pretty quickly. Also note that I have not edited the original emails for spelling or grammar.

From Larry Rankin:

Just so you know Ed Worley has been contacted about this issue many times, by many people in and out of Santa Barbara. Ed Has not responded to one person! Many have called his office three times. Also your Fairfax office has been contacted by many of the same people, because Ed has not returned there calls. NRA's response...call Ed. I have a Friend who call Ed a least three time and ended up calling Fairfax, he would not take, "call Sacramento", as an answer. After going through four or five people, he found someone that listened and even said they will contact me. He gave them all of my information. I was wise enough not to hold my breath! That was well over three weeks ago.

To be very honest, I do believe the NRA would like this to go a way by not addressing the issue! The only way this will go away at this point...is NOT with just an apology and we will not support Sheriff Bill Brown with an "A" as we did to help him get into office! They were warned by me and by David Codrea about this before he was elected!

Now NRA head quarters needs to call me and I can set up a game plan with them. This needs to be on a conference call, with the group, "Santa Barbara CCW United". Any thing less will not be accessible!

From BL:

R: Ed Worley _ I called and left a message - result: NADA! I called Virginia, was told to call Sacramento, I replied that was useless and the woman in Vir said, "We don't know about that," or words to that effect. What a load of crap.

From Gerhard Paul:

David, i was a paid voting member of the NRA but decided not to renew my membership because of the very same problems we are having now regarding Ed Worley! This is not new from the NRA in regards to giving "A" rating that should be "F".

You can use my name. Gerhard Paul former paid voting member of NRA

From JS:

My confidence in the ability of the NRA to defend the Second Amendment has been sagging for years , while my support of Gun Owners of America has increased . My vote for Sheriff Brown was based strictly upon the NRA recommendation and went against the advice of more informed local citizens!

One can only wonder how the NRA ever came up with its recommendation !! ??

From Jim Berkley:

Larry Rankin forwarded me your request for experiences calling the NRA to report Brown’s “anti” policies.

I was a holder of a CCW permit for 6 years prior to Brown’s election. I received an orange card from the NRA before the election endorsing Brown.

Although nothing changed re my “need” for a permit, Brown did not renew my CCW permit when I came up for renewal in Feb. I met with Brown and he stated allegiance to the NRA and the 2nd amendment, but that he didn’t want people carrying guns. Not sure how you reconcile those two ideas but he didn’t seem to have any trouble with it.

I called the NRA in Fairfax and told them what the situation was. I was told to call the Sacramento office which I did. A receptionist answered the phone and I told her that we had a new Sheriff, Mr Brown, and that he had been endorsed by the NRA and duly elected. The purpose of my call was to notify them that something had gone terribly wrong because he was actively denying existing permit holders and when I got together with him he made it clear that he did not want people carrying guns.

She said that the lobbyist, Ed Worley, would be very interested to hear this and took my number and said he would call back.

Two weeks passed without a return call, so I called the Sacrament office again. I left a message on Worley’s voice mail and also one on Steve Hellsley’s e-mail. Both messages were very nice and basically said you guys need to know what this man is up to so it doesn’t happen again.

It has been over a month since I left those messages.

Hope this helps – feel free to email me or call if you have any questions or need further info.

From RD:

I don’t know why the NRA does not support its members.

They do not return calls and the only people you can find at the NRA is those who will take your money!

From TB:

I wish to add my voice of protest to the NRA's policy of giving high pro-gun ratings to political candidates that have not proved themselves worth of our support.

I can understand how this could happen if a candidate falseifies his response to the NRA questionnaire. But there is no excuse for the NRA's maintaining their support and not informing the voters that the candidate misstated his positions and changing their rating to a a far lower grade.

Sincerely

TB
NRA member

From KD:

David - I recently dissolved my association with both the NRA and FNRA committee. My reason for doing so was the NRA's lack of response to my repeated requests for a return call to discuss Sheriff Brown's position on concealed carry in Santa Barbara County. I can no longer support an organization which, in the light of clear evidence, will not step up and recognize its mistake in endorsing Sheriff Brown. I will neither renew my NRA membership, nor will I assit in FNRA fund raising, until the NRA publicly decries Sheriff Brown's tactics and reassigns an "F" rating, as is
appropriate.

From Steve:

i called worleys office a few minutes ago. the lady i spoke to was very nice, but said she didn't know why he isn't returning calls. she gave me randy kozuch's number. he is director of state and local affairs. worley's boss. the first lady said to go up the chain of command. randy is supposed to call me back.

More from Steve:

I called Ed Worley Tuesday morning. I asked his secretary after stating my business in regards to the above subject, why hasn't or doesn't he return the calls people have asked him for? She said she didn't know why, but I could call HIS boss. Randy Kozuch is the Director of State and Local Affairs, and is a name I had not seen or heard of in my correspondence with Larry . Kozuch's "secretary" said he was out to lunch (approx 1100hrs-I didn't believe her) and would return my call when he came back. I left my number, and have not heard from him.

From PS:

I called the office of the NRA Manager of Governmental Affairs Executive Director Ed Worley 5-15-07 at 9:45 am PST.

I spoke with Intern Dan Reed who is a good 2nd Amendment proponent, and is law student at McGeorge Law School.

I stated that many people whom I know had called his office in the last 2 months and were upset that the NRA had given an A rating to then candidate Bill Brown for Sheriff of Santa Barbara County, CA. He said "This is about Mr. Rankin, right?". I said that many NRA members will not renew, nor will they contribute another penny to the NRA, including life members. I said that everyone whom I know who is informed about the rating, and once Sheriff not renewing Carry Concealed Weapon permits to long time holders, and not providing a questionnaire to then incumbent Sheriff Jim Anderson, is upset and will stay upset about the NRA misleading them. And that those persons will communicate loudly and clearly to all their friends, family and co workers and tell them to re-direct the funds they had given the NRA for years, to GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, JPFO and other actually pro-gun organizations with backbone and accountability.

Dan said that he'd been there 5 months 3 days a week and that all he could do was make notes in the call log and forward the message to Ed Worley. I said that many people of my acquaintance had called Ed already, multiple times, and that NO ONE had been called back by Ed Worley. Dan said that he had the call log, and "only a couple" of people had called, which I know personally to be untrue. The call log may not have been entered to reflect the calls, but people have told me they've called. I told Dan that people had also called Fairfax to complain, and been promised return calls, and again no one had ever been called back, in spite of repeated calls (as many as 4 from the same person within a 2 week period). Dan told me that it concerned him to hear people disgruntled and not supporting the NRA. He said again that all he could do was forward the subject and message of the call to Ed Worley. I told him to leave the NRA and get a position at an organization that had integrity.

Dan said I could also call Fairfax, which I did, immediately. I spoke with a mature sounding woman who didn't provide her name. I relayed the same story and message. She said that candidates must request a questionnaire, and that I should call the lobbyist (Ed Worley) in charge of the my area. I said that I just had, and that Ed Worley hasn't returned any of many calls from many people, and in fact has been completely uncooperative, unresponsive, irresponsible and people feel totally insulted. I then stated that the same people had called her office (the office of Chris Cox) and been promised return calls, and that calls would be made to Larry Rankin, and those people provided his phone number, and called back and been re-promised and again, no calls returned to them or calls to Larry Rankin.
She said that she'd pass on the message to Chris Cox.

From WT:

I had already decided not to donate this year as well as not contribute dues to the Golden Eagles. No one at the NRA acknowledged my letters (to three different officers) that were sent in April.

Too bad the principals stated by the NRA are not followed. For any years they have been at the forefront defending the rights of gun owners, but have apparently become an unwieldy bureaucracy.

It's evident the powers that be are hoping this will go away. Too bad.

It can't--not until the political "experts" come clean with why they misled their members on Brown's stance on their right to keep and bear arms, and come up with some way of ensuring they deserve credibility on future ratings and endorsements.

One thing is for sure--ignoring all these requests is no way to endear grassroots supporters to an organization that purports to represent their interests.

There will be a "Friends of NRA" dinner on June 2. Mr. Rankin is contacting Santa Barbara gun owners to boycott the event and sponsors not to donate to it. It's a shame it's come down to this, but it's also understandable. I'll keep an eye on this and report any developments that merit attention.

One final word: I also tried contacting NRA before my first post on this matter, and got the same runaround and lack of response as the people above. I repeat the offer I made last October:

If anyone authorized to speak for NRA wishes to post a response, I will be happy to post it in its entirety.

UPDATE:

Well, we got somebody's attention (click to enlarge)...



Come on out fellas. Talk to us.

Blend Over

From WarOnGuns Correspondent Henry Bowman:

Just about a year ago, the propeller-heads at NRA Training rolled out a new "Blended Training" doctrine for their handgun course.  Instead of the standard NRA handgun courses they have been offering for decades, this new course would require all prospective students to log in online first, create a training account at the NRA, pay to take a CAI version of the classroom work, and receive a "chit" certificate.  They would then take the chit to a local instructor who would arrange the practical (range) portion of the training.

As is typical of anything done by Fairfax Training guys, this was all imposed top-down with no advance notice before it was carved in stone.  It was not based on any sort of instructors' feedback to the NRA saying "we need this."  It was never passed by instructors for comment before implementation.  It was never passed by instructors for testing before imposition.  The first we heard about it was when the NRA said it was going to happen on a given date, and we could sample the online offering for ourselves for free.

And, of course, the old front-to-back classroom NRA courses and written NRA training materials were now OBSOLETED, and we were forbidden to teach them past that date (as NRA courses, anyway).

The tubez lit up with objections.

NRA was charging $60 for the online portion of the course.  Now, there are a lot of instructors out here in distressed areas holding entire courses for $100-$150, and offering family discounts.  NRA didn't take $60 worth of load off these instructors, so they had just reduced demand for their courses by raising the price.  Plus, it entirely destroyed the efforts of nonprofit orgs holding these courses for FREE for victimized groups.

The initial classroom portion of the course was valuable to teachers to get a sense of the student's overall attitude towards accepting instruction, safety, and the like, before allowing them to handle guns, let along loaded guns.  NRA had just removed that evaluation period and replaced it with a paper certificate.

The change to Blended Training of necessity discontinued the First Steps courses entirely (in which a student learns all the relevant material as it applies to his gun and his gun only, and not every style of pistol and action).  Personally, these were all I ever taught anymore, given that most people just want to qualify for a CCW, the First Steps class can be done in one day, and the full class takes two to five days when done conscientiously.

The new doctrine complicated the student's transition from online to classroom — the student had to make sure that after taking the CAI portion, there would be a classroom near them scheduled to complete the second half of the course.  Conversely, instructors had to ensure they had enough students to run a course without any assurance that an adequate number were going to complete the CAI successfully by any given date.

Finally, senior students were likely to be flummoxed and discouraged by having to do any nontrivial portion of anything online.

Anyway, the Yahoogroup was pretty much flooded with instructors replying they couldn't continue to teach NRA courses within this framework, and that they were putting together their own offerings based on the previous model.  And, unlike the celebrities who threatened to emigrate after losing the election, these instructors carried through.

Last week, we received this communication:

On 12/9/2016 5:40 PM,  xxx [nrainstructors] wrote:

Great News!

My NRA Friends Field Rep told me they were informed by Wayne LaPierre at their annual meeting last week. That the NRA had made a huge mistake in rolling out the Blended Pistol training. And that it was being terminated and the original Instructor lead Basic Pistol course would be reinstated!

We should have an official notification soon.

Bottom line is that the NRA destroyed its own course offerings for the period of a year, and alienated scads of master instructors who may never come back.  

Wonder if anybody gets fired over this… or promoted?

A Blatantly False Swipe?

Here's an exchange you may find interesting. Let's hope it's discussed in detail at the Annual Meeting.

-----Original Message-----
From: len savage
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:00 AM
To: Sanders, Robert E.; Brown, LtC. Robert K.
Cc: Ouimet, Jason
Subject: US v. Olofson

Yesterday the government has redefined what a machine gun is--any firearm that malfunctions and fires more than one round before jamming. [US v. Olofson]

I am awaiting the transcript of the hearing, however:

Judge Clevert [I am told] stated is does not matter what ammunition, or what error rate ATF testing has, or that a malfunction occurred, or even if it required ATF to modify the firearm, just that more than one round be fired per function of the trigger.
Every firearm in possession of your membership is a "machine gun" under this narrow interpretation. This is scientific fact, not my opinion. For example:
*A double barrel shotgun firing both barrels with a single trigger pull.
*A Colt single action loaded with thin primer ammo. [the pierced primer will "fan" the hammer with gas pressure] Look up Georgia machine gun statute, they exempted it by stating a machine gun must fire more than 6 shots per function of the trigger.
*The ATF firearms technology branch can test a rifle 100 different times, if they can manipulate it just once out of 100, your indicted.

The NRA's Jason Ouimet has been aware of this situation at ATF since before the congressional hearings on "the Virginia gun show incident" [I was supposed to testify at the hearings about the ATF testing issues at that time]. Much to my frustration, the hearing I was supposed to testify at was canceled. According to Jason, it was NRA who pulled the plug on me.

Now that the whole of the NRA membership is in jeopardy just by owning a firearm, will Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and the NRA board going to do something about this during this week's convention?

Please pass this on to them:

Words will not be sufficient. If this gets "unplugged", as in the NRA refuses to address this issue, I WILL no choice but to go to the media with documents and emails from NRA that were generated during the last round of hearings. I WILL pull back the rug and show the world where NRA swept this mess under to hide it.

Please forgive my abrupt and obtuse attitude. It is born of frustration, and deaf ears of the NRA leadership. I am there if I can to help the NRA, thus to date the NRA have refused to address this.

My question to NRA leadership:

Is this weekends convention going to be your finest hour, or will this be noted in history as the beginning of the end of the NRA?

Respectfully,

Len Savage
Historic Arms LLC

-----------------------

Original message from "Ouimet, Jason" :

Len,

You sent me an email not long ago titled "olive branch" where you indicated that you wanted to be able to have an open dialogue with me and keep me posted on relevant firearms, issues, cases, etc. and I agreed. However, in this email you took as nasty , blatantly FALSE swipe at me and the NRA, and sent it to other people I don't even know. So from this point forward consider our relationship terminated. Do not call or email me again in the future.

Jason

-----------------------

From: len savage
Sent:Wed 5/14/08 10:18 AM
To: Ouimet, Jason

Jason,

Swipe?

By the way those "Unknown people" are on the NRA legislative action committee. As a Federal liaison you don't know them?

Cut the crap Jason, when is the last time you took my calls or answered a voice mail to call me back?

Len Savage

"Thanks for Your Email to NRA-PVF"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bradey, Jennifer
Date: Nov 6, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: New website submission
To: [edited for privacy-DC]@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Hofnann [sic*],

Thanks for your email to NRA-PVF.

We have been receiving a bit of communication from NRA members after the latest publicity campaign from GOA regarding Ron Paul's NRA-rating. [1] GOA does this to encourage folks to join their organization rather than NRA. Think about it: if they said NRA was doing everything right, they wouldn't have any members. Only in trying to stir up disagreement among our members, do they reap the benefits.

NRA has accordingly graded Congressman Ron Paul a "B". We have NOT endorsed against him - as widely MISreported.[2]

Congressman Paul is a staunch libertarian, and as such, would not vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on countless occasions over the past decade. Although he opposed it on libertarian grounds, he still voted against us on one of our top legislative priorities for over a decade. We cannot make exceptions for the reasons WHY Members of Congress don't vote for a bill because they will all come up with some reason not to be supportive. This bill was critical in protecting our firearms heritage in this country, and NRA very successful shephered its passage through the Congress in 2005.

Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.

Thank you.

___________________________________________
Jennifer Bradey
Manager, Political & Legislative Activities
National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
(800) 392-VOTE / (703) 267-1195

There's only one problem, Ms. Bradey. GOA says it is "unaware of any publicity campaign" on this. If this is true, someone owes someone else a sincere and public apology. I have forwarded the NRA email, including the header information that validates it is "authentic", to GOA.

[1] All I can even guess that Ms. Bradey is referring to is an article by Kevin Smith that appeared on Alex Jones' website where Larry Pratt defends Ron Paul upon learning of the NRA rating. But Pratt does not mention NRA. This is hardly a GOA "campaign," and certainly not one conducted with a hidden motive to skim off NRA members to swell GOA's ranks, as Ms. Bradey accuses.]

[2] Ms. Bradey is correct and the Smith article is in factual error on one point. NRA never "endorsed" Shane Sklar, and WarOnGuns took care to point this out--along with how the Sklar campaign's presentation of their rating blurred the distinction so that it would be likely to infer an endorsement. Besides which, give one candidate an "A" and his opponent a "B" and the average person will understandably assume a preference has been expressed. But technically, she's right.

----------------------------

* "Mr. Hofnann" is Kurt Hofmann. He's the activist who initially wrote to NRA and reported their response on the 1911 Forum, so this story is really his. Kurt is new to blogging, having recently created Armed and Safe, which I am adding to the blogroll as soon as I get done posting this. Go on over and check it out.

Other Key Facts

Comment from "Carlos Perdue" under yesterday's GRE:

Excellent article. Another key fact, Obamacare passed cloture with exactly 60 votes. Only one Democrat would have needed to be flipped and it never would have passed. On Christmas eve day 2009, the day of the cloture vote, the NRA had 10 "A" & "A+" rated Dems, 2 "B" rated (including Harry Reid), and 4 "C" rated. They could've easily flipped one D for the reasons Mr. Codrea points out. But they followed the establishment Republican/NRA tradition and worked with Reid & Obama to "fix" a socialist program, giving "A" & "B" rated Dems in pro-gun states the necessary cover to vote for it. Doesn't take much searching to find articles with statements like this: "U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote the now famous Obamacare gun provision which he inserted into PL 111-148 with the help of NRA President Wayne LaPierre. Why would a Democrat, Senator Reid, do this? When Senator Reid was up for re-election a couple years ago, he (a well known gun advocate) contacted Mr. LaPierre to help him get gun owners to vote for him." The NRA is responsible for the passage of Obamacare. But the NRA can now undo the damage and play the key role in repealing it. For the reasons Mr. Codrea discusses, now that 0-care is increasingly unpopular with the electorate and even anti-gun Democrats like Schumer are showing buyer's remorse, if the NRA does the right thing it could be easier in 2015 to get a 2/3 majority of those voting (e.g. 12 D votes for 66/99), than it would've been to get just one vote to kill it in the first place on Christmas eve day 2009. That's because it may again be the case that all the NRA has to do is flip one vote and the rest will follow, like the cascading fall of the Iron Curtain after Poland legalized Solidarity and it won 99% of the seats up for election, followed by the mass defection of 600 East Germans into Austria at the Pan-European Picnic. Given Zerocare's unpopularity and buyer's regret, it would most assuredly be far easier to get one "A" to flip now than it would've been in 2009, even though there are not as many "A" rated Dems now. But chances are the NRA would get every "A", and some or all "Bs" and "Cs", and indirectly some Ds and Fs, like Schumer. The NRA can be pressured to do the right thing by members, gun rights activists and conservatives calling talk shows, and by quitting NRA and moving to Gun Owners of America. GOA identified Obamacare as gun control and a Trojan Horse confiscation vehicle from day one, still maintains that position, and never fell for the Reid-NRA "fix". Similarly, the NRA is the key to winning the immigration/amnesty issue. The same pressure can be applied to get the NRA to stop indirectly supporting amnesty and excessive immigration. GOA has been alone among national gun rights groups in identifying invasion and amnesty as the great destroyer of gun rights in America, pointing to the tragic immigration-induced loss of California and studies showing that today's immigrants, including Catholics, come from corrupt, anti-freedom, anti-gun cultures and continue to lean heavily Democrat, socialist, and anti-gun after they get here despite craven establishment-Republican his pandering efforts. Others such as Rush Limbaugh observe that "Amnesty is Republican Party Suicide" -- which means it is also permanent gun rights suicide.

Those are important factors to include in the mix.  Compare them to this bit of "apologia":

Looks like the type of "reasoned" sentiment we routinely see from self-styled "pragmatists" arguing limited "political capital," doesn't it?  Thing is, a quick click on the guy's DISQUS profile shows other comments including "Another Teahadist meets her maker" in response to a "gundeath" from someone who actually appeared to be one of his. That marks him as a troll, acting out the demonstrable sadist-psychopath / infiltrator-disruptor role that defines such pathetic moral and intellectual defectives.

Still, the comment is not without value -- just as we see editorials and statements by doctrinaire Democrats advising what Republicans should do on this or that issue -- under the guise of being helpfully observant, of course -- what's really happening is they're hoping idiots will be persuaded to put their (and our) heads in a noose. What's obvious is, "progressives" do not want NRA to become more effective by including issues that impact gun rights in the scoring criteria -- and that ostensible "pro-gun" voices discouraging that by crying "Single issue!" (a demonstrably false excuse) are pulling on the same side of the rope as the gun-grabbers.

They can try, but there's no getting around that key fact.

Holed Up in Fairfax and They Ain't Comin' Out

I said this morning I'd get around to addressing NRA's silence on the Holder nomination, and on Sebastian's defense of it.

He gives a list of pros and cons. I'm not going to address every one, but will comment on what I think are the most important points.

The gist of his first "risk" is that a vengeful Holder will cut off access to the DoJ. If he did, that would certainly be worth raising a ruckus over, but what makes them think this anti-gun zealot who hates NRA and everything they stand for is going to not make things as difficult for them as he legally can as a matter of course?

This reminds me of the NRA representatives' stated position when they arranged for the California DoJ to come tell their members that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms, and that they had to fill out registration cards for their lawfully-owned semi-autos. The NRA rep actually told us how lucky we were to have the DoJ come speak to us, and how they didn't have to--like we were being done a favor--arranged through NRA's vaunted access to the corridors of power--to have the enforcers come and personally dictate to us the terms of our surrender.

His second stated "risk" is that if we lose, we'll be seen as impotent.

That all depends.

A man very close to me told me a good thing that happened to him when he was a teenager at a Depression-era CCC camp was that he got beat up in a fight on the first day.

"Why was that a good thing?" I asked.

"Because it took the guy half-an-hour to do it. Everybody knew they might be able to beat me, but they wouldn't be able to do it without a lot of effort and getting hurt back."

This business of being afraid to engage because you might lose is precisely the excuse given when they tried to derail Heller, a decision they now can't take enough credit for. It is simply unworthy of any who would call themselves our leaders.

Talk about appearing impotent.

The third "risk" he lists, "distracting membership from bigger fights looming on the horizon" is simply not credible. He's not just saying we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, he's saying we can't walk now and chew gum at some undetermined time in the future.

If this is the capacity and commitment of grassroots gun rights activists for multitasking, it's difficult for me to fathom why the "pragmatists" (there, I said it) put so much faith in their way being the strongest and most reliable.

What--if I ask you to write a letter on Holder today, when I come back to you next year and say "Obama's trying to ban assault weapons," you're going to turn around and tell me "Sorry-- I'm burned out on all I did last time"...?

This is our last best hope?

And what if we win and we get someone just as bad? If we win, the new administraiton won't put up someone just as bad, because they'll realize why it was they lost and not want to repeat it. If we win, they'll be so rocked back on their heels, their momentum will have been broken and their confidence challenged.

If we win, they'll know the old lion still has some teeth left.

And if we lose, well, remember the CCC camp.

NRA needs to understand that a growing critical mass gun owners are fed up. They're like the dumb republicans--more worried about what their avowed enemies will say about them than keeping faith with their core constituency. They don't understand that guys like me want a strong and principled NRA--and their hiding when they should be leading disgusts and alienates activists sick of all the compromise. It guarantees they'll be weak with the people who count--gun owners with a fire in their bellies for freedom.

And the opinion that NRA can't afford to lose and have it's reputation tarnished, but other, smaller groups can is insulting. What, like we don't have any credibility and NRA does?

Let me share some NRA credibility. Or better yet, let Mr. Cox:

Your NRA-PVF does not just pick the easy battles. There are groups that endorse only “safe” candidates, but avoid the tough races completely...

And when we walk the halls of Congress to defend our rights, we need to know—and your lawmakers need to know—that you’re standing behind us all the way. United, we—and the Second Amendment—will prevail.

I haven't been this inspired since Mel Gibson yelled "FREE-DO-O-O-MM!!!"

Mr. Cox reveals something else very interesting:

[T]he NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) endorsed 23 candidates for the U.S. Senate, of whom at least 14 were victorious...

OK, guys, we backed you. You're now in, thanks to us.

How about you now give us some return love, and EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU pledge to put a hold on Holder? How about we start with the biggest "risk" NRA backed out of the entire herd, the old bull elephant himself, John "End Private Sales/Free Political Speech" McCain?

How many millions did NRA sink in his campaign, and on promoting other Republicans?

It's simply not credible that an organization that screamed so loudly and relentlessly on Obama being "the most anti-gun president in American history" would remain hidden and mute on the ascendancy of the most anti-gun Attorney General in American history.

The only excuse I can make for them is that they could be quietly working behind the scenes to get a "hold" commitment. That's the only thing I can think of that's acceptable. And since I haven't heard it floated from their apologists, I don't have confidence that's anything more than my desperate wishful thinking.

One last thing and then I've said enough--for now. If I were the Bradys, or some smaller group trying to establish relevance, I'd be looking at this latest schism. How would I exploit it?

The antis are already crowing every chance they get about how NRA is now impotent and ineffectual. It doesn't matter that they're making much of that up, the bottom line is they're doing it, and the media is helping them amplify their voices.

Do our champions at Fairfax really want to be portrayed as not only too insecure to fight, but hiding in their fortress afraid to even speak out?

-------------

NRA may be unwilling to engage on the Holder confirmation. How about you?

The following links are from a four-part (and ongoing) series from Examiner.com explaining why Holder is so bad for gun owners, what reasons a non-gun owner would have to oppose Holder, what citizens can do to oppose his confirmation, and new information regarding his contempt for using the legal system to defend yourself.

This guy will be a disaster for our liberties. Please help me let people know that.


Holder" To-Be" or Not To Be


How to Hold Holder Without "Using Guns"


How You Can Help Hold Holder


Another Reason to Hold Holder

NRA's Montana SNAFU

News Release, Montana Shooting Sports Association

It looks like NRA is sabotaging Montana legislation clarifying "the right to self defense with firearms."

MSSA attributes it to a mid-level staffer thwarting the clear will of NRA management.

Call me cynical, but if NRA doesn't fire the guy, I'd say he's doing exactly what his masters want him to do. I can't help but wonder which legislator(s) they're appeasing?

It's not like we haven't seen a disconnect between what Fairfax says and what it does before.

I'd like to be wrong this time. But the term "SNAFU" speaks volumes.
--------------------

Andy Barniskis passes along this on-topic addendum:

Last year in Pennsylvania, NRA employee John Hohenwarter agreed to not to oppose legislation that was very hostile to gun rights (HB 2403) on condition that it be kept in committee until after the 2004 NRA Convention in Pittsburgh. Perhaps he didn't want betrayed NRA members to make a fuss at the convention. Mr. Hohenwarter and his boss Randy Kozuch did this without consulting any grass roots organizations or NRA legal council [sic] and they never responded to inquiries into the matter. Every major sportsmen's group in Pennsylvania united in the largest coalition in our history to oppose the anti-gun rights legislation that the NRA did not oppose.

We have received recent reports that John Hohenwarter replaced a competent NRA state liaison in New Hampshire and NRA members in New Hampshire are now trying to undo the damage.

Now we see that Montana NRA members have good reason to be angry with Randy Kozuch...

Harry Schneider, PSA Chairman
Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Assn.,
NRA Life Member

NRA's "A-Rated" Citizen Disarmament Enforcer

Per Larry Rankin:

I just sent the short e-mail to the NRA, see below. Hope some of you will also e-mail them. Bill Brown says he wants a new direction...the question is which direction. Bill Brown told me that anyone in the city should not carry and that he has only given one permit to carry. That person was a federal trapper. I told him there were more wild animals in the city that were far more dangerous. The interview with him went down hill after that. Anyone in Santa Barbara County please forward this to someone you know...that believes in the right for a citizen to protect themselves and their family or friends. Thanks in advance,
www.NRAPVF.org lrr

NRA-PVF,

I received your election alert this evening in the mail and see you are endorsing Bill Brown for Sheriff...and you gave him an "A". I called Bill Brown and talked to him for some time a few weeks ago. He does not believe in citizen having the right to carry with a permit/CCW. I have seen in the past too many "A" given out by the NRA that are not deserved! I know hundreds of gun owners and NRA members in the county and I will let them know your outstanding bad judgment. You really need to talk to local people that are involved and that can ask tuff question to the folks running for office or change the questionnaire or have the simple understanding that there are other letters besides "F" and "A".
Regards, Larry R. Rankin
Past S.B.NRA President the grass roots group for two years...many years ago

Bill Brown said to me when I interviewed him on the phone, that he does not believe any citizen living in the city should have the right to carry a gun. He does believe that people out in the rural areas that really need one should have one...if they can REALLY prove to him it is needed. He has only allowed one and that was a federal trapper that could not carry a loaded weapon while traveling in is vehicle.

So he sees owning a gun not as self protection, but for hunting sports. That is the way I see it.

Bill Brown's contact number 805 757 3960

------------------------

I was ready to post this story yesterday, but felt obligated to hold on to it and do my own fact-checking. Not that I don't trust Larry Rankin--I do, completely. I've been corresponding with him for years, and have found him to be a most trustworthy and reliable colleague. But I was also curious as to why NRA would do this.

I left a voice mail on candidate Brown's campaign answering machine, explaining who I was and that I wanted to ask him some questions about his NRA endorsement. At this posting, my call has not been returned.

I called NRA ILA at their "800" number. I explained who I was (also that I'm a Life Member) and that I was calling to speak to the people responsible for giving Mr. Brown an "A rating" and endorsement. The associate gave me the number for California grasssroots. I spoke to the associate there, repeated everything, and he told me all statements to the media needed to go through their office back in Fairfax, and gave me a direct number (I left my number with him anyway, and asked him to pass everything on to NRA state lobbyist Ed Worley, and asked for him to call me back). I called and spoke to a lady at the media office, explained everything a third time, and told her about Mr. Rankin's conversation with Mr. Brown and the fact that he is against private citizens bearing arms. I also told her the results of my scouting around the internet--and finding that Bill Brown supports Jerry Brown for attorney general:

Showing considerable political chops, Brown, a conservative Republican, garnered the endorsement of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly and many key Santa Barbara progressives while managing to convince a majority of California police chiefs to endorse former Democratic governor Jerry Brown --now mayor of Oakland --in his race for Attorney General.

and that Jerry Brown is basing a large part of his campaign on attacking NRA's endorsed candidate, Chuck Poochigian, for his opposition to gun control laws.

She said she'd pass my request on to the people who could answer me, and I let her know I was holding up posting on this, and would be willing to delay it another day if someone would be willing to talk to me. No one returned my call, so here we are.

If anyone authorized to speak for NRA wishes to post a response, I will be happy to post it in its entirety. The same offer goes for the Bill Brown campaign.

In the mean time, we gun owners are presented with yet another example of NRA rating credibility erosion. I won't presume to be able to read the unstated intentions of others, but it's my opinion that silence from ILA-PVF is unacceptable--particularly if they expect us to donate to support their endorsed candidates.

If you agree with me, please pass a link to this post far and wide, and contact NRA yourself to request an explanation.

Larry Rankin just emailed me, and said "I will be surprised if I get a response. If I did or do I had already planned on forwarding it to you."

If so, you'll see it here.

De Facto Carry Ban in Santa Barbara County

By Larry R. Rankin, Santa Barbara, California

Life member NRA, Life member GOA, Life member JPFO, Life member California Rifle and Pistol Association, Life member Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Past President of the Grassroots, NRA members’ council, Chairman of the First Friends of NRA dinner in Santa Barbara, Current Chairman of the California American Pistol and Rifle Association for the County of Santa Barbara.

I am to this day licensed to carry a loaded weapon in all of the states below:

1) Alabama, 2) Alaska, 3) Arizona, 4) Arkansas, 5) Colorado, 6) Delaware, 7) Florida, 8) Georgia, 9) Idaho, 10) Indiana, 11) Kentucky, 12) Louisiana, 13) Michigan, 14) Minnesota, 15) Mississippi, 16) Missouri, 17) Montana, 18) Nevada, 19) New Hampshire, 20) New Mexico, 21) North Carolina, 22) North Dakota, 23) Ohio, 24) Oklahoma, 25) Pennsylvania, 26) South Dakota, 27) Tennessee, 28) Texas, 29) Utah, 30) Vermont, 31) Virginia, 32) Washington and 33) Wyoming

You might not like what Sheriff Bill Brown of Santa Barbara County has to say, but he is honest and direct about it. Which makes you wonder why the NRA gave a “A” rating to a man who makes it clear he's proud that he has given out only three concealed carry permits in his many years of service. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Sheriff Brown claims to be a life member of the NRA. Perhaps it is because Sheriff Brown is bright, well spoken and endowed with a certain measure of conceit that so often seems to be the inevitable attribute of a successful politician. It seems that there is something about a successful politician that the NRA finds hard to resist.

When I met with Sheriff Brown this March the 9th, to appeal my denial of my application of my active gun permit that I have had for over ten years (unsuccessfully) he was diplomatic enough to hear me out. He then very clearly and unambiguously laid out a policy of a de facto concealed carry ban in Santa Barbara County. A policy that does not recognize the right of self defense. A policy based on the model of a sovereign who knows what is best for his subjects, not a public servant elected to protect the rights of the citizens who elected him. A policy reminiscent of King George's government that was rejected by our founding fathers, not the constitutional model of government they bequeathed to us. A policy that supports the continued efforts to redefine the Second Amendment in sporting terms rather than in terms of a right of defense of self and property. And finally, if the NRA lawyers are listening, a policy that violates California law on concealed carry, which at least acknowledges that there might be someone qualified to receive a concealed carry permit other than persons associated with law enforcement. While California was careful enough not to craft an outright de jure ban on concealed carry, Sheriff Brown's policy is a ban as a matter of fact, if not of law.

Twenty years ago I might have understood how Sheriff Brown can state "I am a Life member of the NRA, a hunter, a gun collector and we have enough laws, without creating new ones" and yet prohibit concealed carry. But many years of data are available today from states that have allowed widespread concealed carry. Data that show a reduction of crime. Data that show that concealed carry holders are overwhelmingly safe and law abiding. These are facts especially important to the discharge of his duties as Sheriff. Facts that he should have made an effort to investigate before adopting a concealed carry policy. Facts that any NRA member knows. To continue a policy that he has followed for many years with no consideration of contemporary evidence is to demonstrate an arbitrary and capricious exercise of his power as Sheriff.

If enough sheriffs abuse California's concealed carry law in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the argument can be made that California's concealed carry law violates either the California of Federal constitutions. Is the NRA counting?

There is, additionally, another legal reform that the NRA should champion. One concern Sheriff Brown identified, and I have heard this from other sheriffs, is fear of personal legal liability if someone with a concealed carry permit commits a crime with the permitted weapon. Law enforcement is second only to the teachers' unions in political influence in the California legislature. Would not California law enforcement almost unanimously support the NRA were it to lobby for a law protecting sheriffs and police chiefs from liability for issuing concealed carry permits? Would you issue CCWs if it meant you might lose your job, your house, your kids' college money, and a lifetime of savings? If it meant declaring bankruptcy to avoid having a multi million dollar verdict haunting you for the rest of your life?

Sheriff Brown is no Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death"). But then how many of us are? We have to work with the men and women we have as law enforcement leaders. If the NRA were to lobby for the legal protection California police and sheriffs' needs, perhaps they might not be afraid to take an honest look at success other states have had with concealed carry.

Guest Editorial: NRA Ratings Sham in Georgia

By Matt Knighten

I have sent you emails a couple of times in the past about NRA ratings in Georgia that are similarly confusing as that of Bill Brown's own rating.

Well I don't think I have updated you on the latest ordeal with the NRA and Georgia legislation.

Georgiacarry.org (link already on your website) had been pushing a bill called HB 89 that would allow a person not ineligible for a carry license to be able to carry a firearm anywhere in a car without a license (our thinking being if you left your license elsewhere or left your firearm in the car with a unlicensed family member driving, that it would not be illegal). Our current law makes it illegal unless an unlicensed person puts it in a glovebox, console, or open to view (licensed people can carry anywhere in the car).

HB 89 had already passed the House Committee, Full House and Senate Committee (GCO showed up to and spoke at all public meetings, no other pro-gun showed up for any), all that was waiting was a vote by the Senate which we expected it to pass by a good margin.

The NRA had its own bills (2 identical, one for the house HB 143, the other in the senate SB 43). Basically they both were to prohibit certain employers from prohibiting employees from lawfully carrying and possessing firearms in locked motor vehicles; to provide for immunity for employers who allow employees to possess firearms in locked vehicles on the premises of such employer.

They both were strongly opposed by Georgia Chamber of Commerce and other similar powerful lobby groups (GCO was not opposed or in support of it as our membership had mixed feelings). As the crossover day approached, the NRA pushed hard for passage. It failed. Only our bill HB 89 was passed before crossover day and could continue. So the only way for the NRA to get their bill back in the running was to tack it on to HB 89.

So without asking the author of the bill or GCO (its only defender in the house and senate), the NRA got HB 89 pulled from the calendar and amended it. HB 89 went from near certain passage to near certain failure.

So we started asking Senators to make sure the amendment was not officially added (full vote needed) and leave HB 89 as it originally was.

The NRA got wind of what we were doing and they released a threat (published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution "Political Insider" column) that said if anyone voted against adding the amendment or the bill itself, would be given an F. We contacted NRA's rep and said that they were killing HB 89 with their threats. The threat remained, so support for HB 89 dried up.

It almost came to a vote, then the Virginia Tech shootings happened and so they had an excuse to bury the bill with the amendment and not incur the wrath of the NRA.

So thanks to the NRA help and threats, instead of getting one pro-gun bill passed in Georgia, we get none.

The absurdity is, without the unfortunate deaths at VT giving legislators an excuse, the NRA would probably have given the original author of HB 89 as well as many others a F.

Anyway, just thought you would like to know.

Matt Knighten
Owner GeorgiaPacking.org
Secretary and member of the Board of GeorgiaCarry.org

PS - We have now learned that an 800 lb gorilla is great if it does what you want, however there are times when all it ends up doing is smashing your own hard work to bits.

The Fix is In: Ron Paul Must Go

NRA has given democrat challenger Shane Sklar a higher rating than Rep. Ron Paul in the congressional race for Texas' 14th District.

Why? What are Sklar's convictions on gun rights? From his website:

NRA: "A" RATED
September 29th, 2006
SKLAR IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE IN TX-14 TO RECEIVE THE NRA'S "A" RATING.
PAUL GETS ONLY A "B."

VICTORIA, TX -- The National Rifle Association-Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) announced today that Shane Sklar, Democratic candidate for Congress (TX-14), has received an "A" Rating, while Republican Ron Paul received a "B."

"I am honored to receive this designation," said Sklar. "I grew up hunting with my family and intend to pass down those traditions to my children. As a member of the National Rifle Association, I'm proud that the NRA has recognized that I will stand for our values in Congress."

According to the NRA-PVF, an "A" rating indicates a "solidly pro-gun candidate" who "has expressed strong support for NRA positions on second amendment issues."

"I will not support any new gun laws," said Sklar. "We have more than enough laws on the books to pursue criminals who obtain guns for illegitimate purposes. We should enforce the laws we have."

Incumbent Rep. Ron Paul's "B" rating indicates past votes for restrictive legislation.

Great. His pro-Second Amendment platform is “enforce existing gun laws.” That and he’s a “sportsman.” One endorsed by, from among a laundry list of left-leaning political powerhouses, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO, the National Education Association...

What Sklar is about is revealed in this claim:

Our current congressman’s record is one of rhetoric, not results. Many of his views about government and Texas are dramatically out of the mainstream and fly in the face of what most of us believe.

Translation: Vote for me and I'll bring home the pork.

And here's another translation Sklar probably never intended to have made: He's squeezing that A-rating for all its worth, hoping gun-owning constituents will construe it as an NRA endorsement--but NRA isn't on the above-linked endorsement page, is it? If you look at the PVF Endorsements, you'll see Sklar's name is not highlighted. And if you go to the last page of the brochure, in the bottom of the "What the Ratings Mean" column, you'll find: NAMES IN BOLD ARE CANDIDATES ENDORSED BY THE NRA-PVF.

But Sklar is counting on most gun owners not making that distinction.

So what's going on? After all, Dr. Paul is arguably the best friend Second Amendment supporters have in Congress. Rather than "enforcing existing gun laws," he is one of the exceptional few working to repeal them:

"Ron Paul has introduced bills to wipe out most federal gun-control laws. It is pretty hard to get more pro-gun than Ron Paul," Pratt said, a position Paul made clear in his House statement.

"I rise today as a firm believer in the Second Amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws," Paul told lawmakers. "In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals misguided federal gun-control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban. I believe the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties."

Gun Owners of America has given Dr. Paul an "A+" rating: "A+ Pro-Gun Leader: introduces pro-gun legislation."

So what's the reason NRA considers Shane Sklar a more ratings-worthy candidate than Ron Paul? It's because Paul did not support the bill to exempt gun manufacturers from lawsuits:

As Paul explained in a 2003 speech, he is unambiguously opposed to lawsuits that demand compensation from the firearms industry for the damage caused by gun crimes. But he concluded that federal preemption of such suits cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's limits on congressional power, which leave the writing of tort law to the states.

Paul seems to be the only member of Congress who took this position on the bill, which President Bush signed into law on Wednesday, Oct. 26. In fact, it's so rare for legislators to draw a distinction between their personal policy preferences and their constitutional responsibilities that Paul's stand must seem quaint, if not downright puzzling, to most Americans.

Candidly, I could argue with Rep. Paul on this point, as the lawsuits seem clearly designed to infringe on the Second Amendment. I'd be interested in seeing the point-counterpoint of such a debate, but now is not the time with the election less than a week away.

One thing is certain: Ron Paul has made his stands based on convictions, and a desire to stay true to the intent of the Founders. Paul has worked to roll back oppressive edicts that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. He is clearly the superior gun rights candidate in the Texas 14th District.

Rep. Paul needs our help. His campaign does not have enough money to finish the race. I don't live in his district, but realize the value of having such an ally in Congress, so I've sent in a contribution. I urge you to do the same, and to get the word out to gun owners in his district, particularly NRA members:

Don't be fooled by yet another misleading NRA rating, or by Shane Sklar's empty rhetoric on guns. Vote for Ron Paul.

First Responder

The first response to my NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire has been given by Joel Friedman. It’s posted over at The High Road.

That’s a good start, and I appreciate his not only meeting the challenge, but being the first to do so. As I mentioned in my earlier article, the questionnaire was adapted from one I have sent to politicians in the past, and with very few exceptions, most of them have ignored, evaded or weasel-worded.

If you’re a voting member, you’ll need to decide if his answers match how you would have responded, or if there are any you’d like to have clarified. I encourage you to take him up on his offer to answer more questions. After all, the NRA is the most influential of the "gun groups"--policies they set and endorsements they make end up affecting all of us.

Clarifying questions that immediately come to mind:

* Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?
* Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?
* Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?
* What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?
* If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

You can learn more about Mr. Friedman, including his contact information, at:
http://www.joelforboard.com/.

Addendum since first posted:
From Mr. Friedman's Mission Statement: "I fully support the successful NRA Winning Team philosophy that has been responsible for NRA's unprecedented growth and effectiveness and promises to continue throughout the next century. I look forward to being elected to the NRA Board of Directors and helping NRA leaders, like Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Kayne Robinson, and Sandy Froman, preserve the Second Amendment."

"Esp. the Nigers!"

About a month or so ago, I noticed on my Technorati page that I was getting hits from a blog called "Guns Make Us Free." It was run by a blogger who called himself "NRAFourever," and it didn't take long to realize this was an anti-gun site designed to make gun owners look stupid and racist. So I did what I usually do with hate-filled people trying to call attention to themselves: I ignored it. No way was I going to link to it and give the guy any traffic.

Well now the page is down--not only that, but all record of the blog has been erased from internet archives, Google cache...and it appears this was not the only site run by this individual, and that they have all been taken down.

Why?

Perhaps it's because the racism went over the top, and the purveyor realized it could backfire and hurt him, badly, as well as damage organizations with which he is affiliated. That's my theory, and a YouTube posting that he couldn't delete shows just how bad he got.

At this point, I need to pause and cede something to political correctness--it's a shame that our culture requires it, but a charge of racism (even when fabricated, as in the case of the malignant dwarfs attacking Ron Paul) can damage or even destroy a person's reputation, so perhaps it would help if I presented the "inclusion policy" I drafted for the old GunTruths site:

We support the right of all peaceable people to keep and bear arms. Your age, race, sex, religion, political party, sexual orientation, or national origin are of no concern to us. Anyone who requires you to disarm is not your friend, and not our friend. Only when all peaceable citizens can freely exercise their inalienable right to self defense, and their right to keep and bear arms, will we attain the ultimate safeguard for our mutual protection, as individuals, as members of a community, and as citizens of the Republic. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness extends to all human beings, and all who support the right to keep and bear arms are welcome here, period.

I bring it up because this post is going to contain some highly offensive racist rhetoric. So with that necessary measure in self protection out of the way, let's examine the tactics used by one sick individual before we go about the task of unmasking him.

Desperate to escape, and running from the light like the shamed coward he is, he closed his YouTube account, so his profile has now been deleted. That alone should tell you all you need to know about this wretch. Here's why, in comments I extracted from his posts on this page (bolding added to highlight racial slurs):

Yea, thats rite, but I think you got the stastic rong. I heard Wayyne LaPeare say it was 2 1/2 milloin! THat's a LOT more than you said hear! So I aggree, but lets get our numbers right to show that wer'e smarter than the gun GRABERS LIBS! GO NRA GO! If any of you getto nigers come to steal m y truck, I will PWN you with my rifel!

HA HA LOL LOL YOUR RITE, the libs are STUPIDE! NOT like us, we have smarte names like NRA FOUREVER and WHITECRACKER to show what we think clear and clean! Plus, we barricaede ourself in our house with guns b/c of our fear of the world! Esp. the nigers! Its not b/c were inseckure, its b/c its our RITEs gave by JESIS! Plus we love being intimete with our guns! GO NRA GO!

Not only that, but in DORFAR and in RAWANAD aprocksomately 5.5 MILLION poeple (mostly nigers) were MURDERDE because they had LOST THEIR GUNS (I think the NRA had a chapeter their too for a while). So you should put that i n your statstics next time! The LIB media never did say anything about that! GO NRA GO!

SINK95, your RONG! And probably A LI B too. GUNS have always SHRINKED all dying except for dumb and evil (and nigers). YOU ARE VICTIM OF THE LIB MEIDEA! Get educated--listen to the speaches of Mr. Wayyne LaPErro and Mr. Charelton H., they have all the staticsts and facts you need! JOIN THE PATRIOTICS! NRA ALL THE EWAY!

IF you try, I have up to 50 guns, armed and ready. YOUR the STUPIDE one who thinks that the studeys are rong, 2.5 milion is more than 2555 or whatever you think. I red it on NRA web sight, they are relyable. Stop cusing or Jesis will not love you (in non-homasexeul way). Guns is a tool! Use it for hamer or jug emptyer, or to shoot any minorety crimanal (or Zionest UN member) stealing your parking place. GO NRA GO!

YEA TRainer, were going to INGNORE you! GO NRA GO! Whitecrackerracist is RITE! WHITE POWER is the NRA WAY!

Among other things, he sounds quite illiterate, doesn't he? Actually, we're probably dealing with a highly educated creature, albeit one of questionable stability. And clues to his identity--the ones he's been covering his tracks over--point to a prominent member of an anti-gun group, one with academic credentials who parlays those to get his loopy views posted on "Authorized Journalist" editorial pages.

So who is this creep? That's not my story, so it's not my place to break it here, as other bloggers have done the compilation of evidence, complete with screenshots and emails. I'm not going to steal their thunder, but will link to their posts when they're ready to come forward with them. I've been in correspondence with several colleagues in recent days, and they've amassed some pretty compelling documentation.

Here's what I'm hoping to do with this: attract the attention of some civil rights groups and turn the evidence over to them so they can investigate. The principals involved will be less inclined to stonewall them, and more inclined to clean house and distance themselves from the central villain of this story. I'd also like to see involvement by the establishment media, and perhaps get some "official" reporters looking into this. And I think requesting a board of inquiry from the president of a certain university might also be in order, along with asking a certain alumni association whether this may jeopardize their mission...

Now here's an important caveat: I purposely haven't named names. Even though things appear to point to a certain individual, everyone deserves a presumption of innocence. So if it turns out that someone from the pro-gun camp is setting up circumstantial evidence to smear an ideological opponent, I want to see the perpetrator unmasked as much as anybody.

Two things should be clear to both sides in the gun debate: The racist rhetoric posted above has no place in it, and it is in the interest of both our sides to disassociate ourselves from anyone who would employ such vile tactics. That's why I invite people from "across the aisle" to join me in calling for an independent investigation, free of the "special interests" I admit as my motivation, to confirm the identity of the person behind the racist posts, regardless of whose "side" he is ultimately revealed to be on.

Just Not Getting It

I look at the comments on my latest AmmoLand piece, there, on social media and here, and the vast majority are not addressing its contents, but rather they are just reacting to the headline and going off on a tangent that does nothing to address and advance the ideas being proposed. If that keeps up, it means this infant will die forgotten in its crib without even being considered by people in a position to make things happen. 

That's very discouraging, especially since this is a unique idea that has precedent behind it.

Maybe this guy on Reddit can explain in a way I apparently failed to:

Please read it before dismissing it based on headline but I will attempt to give a short representation:

This is not to stop the lawsuit or defend Wayne. Quite the opposite: it’s to defend the organization from Wayne and the State.

This is a letter from George Douglas, an Alabama attorney and NRA Life Member, about the urgent need for members to file on behalf of themselves and the membership generally.

The gist is that if the leadership is guilty of the charges, the membership cannot trust the leadership or the NYAG to adequately represent the membership and interests of the non-profit. Additional representation of member interests is required to ensure any money misappropriated is returned to the members/organization.

To do this, we need some members and some allied legal representation that can practice in New York to file for intervention in the suit.

There is a good set of points that follow each other but a couple highlights of the line of reasoning are as follows:

“3. That the proper remedy for those wrongs, if they are proven, is not the dissolution of the NRA but recovery of the misspent funds from the individuals for the NRA as an entity, not for the NYAG or the State.

4. That because of the inherent conflicts of interest between the individual defendants and the NRA as an entity, the NRA must have separate counsel who are not chosen by the individual defendants.”

Mr. Douglas has volunteered to help with research but getting some legal assistance licensed to practice in NY is key, along with members willing to help.

Also:

Please read my earlier comment if not the link. This isn’t about stopping the claims, but ensuring member interests are protected while the courts evaluate those claims.

The NRA as an organization should be sever able from WLP and especially so if claims are with merit (which many of us suspect they are to at least some degree). Given that, killing the NRA because of WLP is throwing out the baby with the bath water. We can all agree that a better functioning NRA is better than killing it.

Is anyone willing to help?

UPDATE from attorney George Douglas:

Here's another interesting thought from an email I received earlier this morning. I hadn't gotten this far in analyzing specific items of damage to NRA members resulting from its dissolution, but the email sender pointed out that if that happened, all Life Members would lose the value of the membership they paid for and the tangible and intangible future benefits which would flow from that.

That would also seem to apply to anyone having time remaining on five-year memberships. 

"Ron Paul- Asked and Answered"

Thanks for your email to NRA-PVF.

We have been receiving a bit of communication from NRA members after the latest publicity campaign from GOA regarding Ron Paul's NRA-rating. GOA does this to encourage folks to join their organization rather than NRA. Think about it: if they said NRA was doing everything right, they wouldn't have any members. Only in trying to stir up disagreement among our members, do they reap the benefits.

NRA has accordingly graded Congressman Ron Paul a "B". We have NOT endorsed against him - as widely MISreported.

Congressman Paul is a staunch libertarian, and as such, would not vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act on countless occasions over the past decade. Although he opposed it on libertarian grounds, he still voted against us on one of our top legislative priorities for over a decade. We cannot make exceptions for the reasons WHY Members of Congress don't vote for a bill because they will all come up with some reason not to be supportive. This bill was critical in protecting our firearms heritage in this country, and NRA very successful shephered its passage through the Congress in 2005.

Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.

Thank you.

Uh, yeah, I have a few other questions.

I understand why you gave Ron Paul a "B"--it's your rating system, and if voting for lawsuit protection was a priority, that's your call.

The real question is, why did Shane Sklar get an "A"? Aside from trumpeting his "sporting purposes" affiliation and advocating that we "enforce existing gun laws", his position on specific details has been carefully left obscure. Why should we give Sklar's rating any more credibility than we would give, say, Bill Brown's?

Oh, and one other question--why the slam on GOA, with the accusation that their motive is to compete with NRA for members, rather than having a principled difference of opinion? As the email came from an NRA staffer, I'm assuming that tactic has been authorized by Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Cox?

"Bill Brown-Asked and Answered"

I received the following forwarded email reply by NRA-ILA regarding Bill Brown from a friend in Santa Barbara:

Thank you for your email. Our lobbyist has carefully evaluated Bill Brown's stand on the Second Amendment. In fact Bill Brown has worked with the NRA to defeat anti-gun legislation at the State Capitol. As for his opponent Sheriff Anderson, he never returned the questionnaire that the NRA-PVF sent to him. We assume that is because he is hostile to gun rights.

Well, NRA's lobbyist wouldn't return my call on the matter, nor would their PR department. Incidentally, what do they mean by "Brown...worked with the NRA...at the State Capitol"?

Which bills? What did he actually do?

As for Anderson not returning a questionnaire, the implication is that Brown did.

Did he? Why won't NRA tell us how he responded?

Why won't NRA tell its voting members, who are being asked to support Brown, what his stances are on specific issues, such as concealed carry, the semiauto ban, the .50 ban, and other "anti-gun legislation"?

Why should we believe that Bill Brown's A-rating is a credible assessment of his "stand on the Second Amendment," when NRA is deliberately withholding this information, and refuses to explain Brown's documented position on the bearing of arms:

"With regard to CCWs, I don't believe in a blanket policy, i.e. I feel that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs need to have and should exercise discretion in issuing CCWs. Circumstances vary. What works in a rural setting may not be appropriate in an urbanized area. I would continue my current policy, which is to issue CCWs sparingly if there is a valid reason (such as a credible threat against life, requirement due to profession, or similar circumstance)."

This is what it takes to get an "A", and these people only gave Ron Paul a "B"?

Don't look for these questions to be answered. But do look at that evasion when assessing the credibility of NRA political ratings.

There’s a Reason Why They Call Us “Gun Nuts”

NRA Backs Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill

“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”

“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”

How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?

How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?

The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.

Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”

Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”

Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.

So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?

Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:

“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”

Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:

Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?

Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?

Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?

While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?

What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?

What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.

Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?

Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?

What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?

It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.

How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?

If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.

These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.

So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?